PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT - Gulf of Mexico Fishery ...archive.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/BB 2007... · Web viewSuite 2115 Federal Bldg. 300 S. New Street Dover, Delaware 19904-6726

Tab C, No. 5PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

AMENDMENT 18 TO THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGICS FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN TO REVISE THE SOUTH

ATLANIC MIGRATORY GROUP KING AND SPANISH MACKEREL TACs, AND SPANISH MACKEREL TRIP LIMITS

(Including EA, RIR, IRFA)

JANUARY 2007

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201

North Charleston, South Carolina 29405(843) 571-4366 / FAX (843) 769-4520

Toll Free (866) SAFMC-10email: [email protected]

http://www.safmc.net

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100

Tampa, Florida 33607(813) 384-1630 / FAX (813) 348-1711

email: [email protected]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilSuite 2115 Federal Bldg.

300 S. New StreetDover, Delaware 19904-6726

(302) 674-2331 / FAX (302) 674-5399email: [email protected]

National Marine Fisheries ServiceSoutheast Regional Office

263 13th Avenue SouthSt. Petersburg, Florida 33701

(727) 824-5301 / FAX (727) 824-5308http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov

This is a publication of the South Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award and NA05NMF4410004

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.safmc.net/


Table of Contents

Acronyms/Abbreviations used in this document................................................................iiiExecutive Summary............................................................................................................ivEnvironmental Assessment (EA) Cover Sheet.................................................................viiiFishery Impact Statement / Social Impact Analysis (FIS/SIA)...........................................x

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................11.1 Background..............................................................................................................11.2 History of Management...........................................................................................2

2 PURPOSE AND NEED.....................................................................................................73 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR MACKEREL TACS AND

TRIP LIMITS.....................................................................................................................83.1 Action 1....................................................................................................................93.2 Action 2..................................................................................................................133.3 Action 3..................................................................................................................17

4 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW............................................................................194.1 Introduction............................................................................................................194.2 Problems and Objectives........................................................................................194.3 Methodology and Framework for Analysis...........................................................194.4 Description of Fisheries.........................................................................................194.5 Impacts of Mackerel TACs and Trip Limits..........................................................204.6 Public and Private Costs of Regulations................................................................224.7 Summary of Economic Benefits............................................................................224.8 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action...................................................22

5 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS.....................................................246 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................29

6.1 Physical Environment............................................................................................296.2 Biological Environment.........................................................................................29

6.2.1 Biology and Life History...........................................................................296.2.2 Status of the Stocks....................................................................................30

6.3 Current Management.............................................................................................326.4 Economic Environment.........................................................................................36

6.4.1 Status of the Fishery...................................................................................366.4.1.1 Commercial Fishery.......................................................................366.4.1.2 Recreational Fishery......................................................................426.4.1.3 Permit Ownership..........................................................................49

6.5 Social Environment................................................................................................516.5.1 Measures of Fishing Dependence..............................................................516.5.2 Mackerel Fishing Communities.................................................................52

6.6 Administrative Environment..................................................................................526.6.1 Federal Fishery Management.....................................................................526.6.2 State Fishery Management.........................................................................54

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.....................................................................557.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Biological and Physical Environment.............55

7.1.1 Action 1......................................................................................................557.1.2 Action 2......................................................................................................55

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan i

7.1.3 Action 3......................................................................................................557.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Economic Environment...................................56

7.2.1 Action 1......................................................................................................567.2.2 Action 2......................................................................................................607.2.3 Action 3......................................................................................................63

7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Social Environment.........................................637.3.1 Action 1......................................................................................................637.3.2 Action 2......................................................................................................667.3.3 Action 3......................................................................................................67

7.4 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Administrative Environment...........................687.5 Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................687.6 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................687.7 Unavoidable Adverse Effects................................................................................697.8 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity..................707.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources....................................717.10 Any Other Disclosures...........................................................................................71

8 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT................................................................729 OTHER APPLICABLE LAW........................................................................................77

9.1 Administrative Procedures Act..............................................................................779.2 Coastal Zone Management Act..............................................................................789.3 Data Quality Act....................................................................................................789.4 Endangered Species Act........................................................................................789.5 Executive Orders....................................................................................................809.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act............................................................................819.7 Paperwork Reduction Act......................................................................................829.8 Small Business Act................................................................................................829.9 Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................83

10 LIST OF PREPARERS...................................................................................................8511 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................8612 APPENDICES

Appendix A. Community Dependence on Mackerel Fisheries..................................A-1Appendix B. Public Hearing Minutes from September 2006....................................B-2

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan ii

Acronyms/Abbreviations used in this document

ABC Acceptable Biological CatchAP Advisory PanelB BiomassBMSY Stock biomass capable of producing maximum sustainable yieldCEQ Council on Environmental Qualitycm CentimetersCMP Coastal Migratory PelagicsCZMA Coastal Zone Management ActDSEIS/SEIS Draft/Supplemental Environmental Impact StatementEA Environmental AssessmentEEZ Exclusive Economic Zone (also known as federal waters)EFH Essential Fish HabitatF Rate of instantaneous fishing mortality, a measure of the rate at which fish are

removed from the population by fishing.FL Fork Length FMSY F that can sustain maximum sustainable yieldFMP Fishery Management PlanGMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management CouncilIFQ Individual Fishing QuotaITQ Individual Transferable Quotam MetersMAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilMFMT Maximum Fishing Mortality ThresholdMP Million PoundsMSAP Mackerel Stock Assessment PanelM-SFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management ActMSST Minimum Stock Size ThresholdMSY Maximum Sustainable YieldNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOY Optimum YieldRA Regional Administrator (NMFS Southeast Regional Office) (formerly Regional

DirectorRFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 RIR Regulatory Impact ReviewSAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilSERO Southeast Regional OfficeSFD Sustainable Fisheries DivisionSPR Spawning Potential RatioSSC Scientific and Statistical CommitteeSEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science CenterTAC Total Allowable CatchTL Total Length

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan iii

Executive Summary To prevent overfishing, continue sustainable management of the resource in the Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel, and to extend the current trip limits for Spanish mackerel to track the new fishing year as stated in Amendment 15 (in June 2006), the SAFMC is proposing to make several changes to existing management measures.

The 2004 SEDAR 5 Assessment provided updated MSY, ABC, etc. values for Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel based on counting 100% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. Values were also estimated based on counting 50% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. The new total ABC, estimated based on the top end of the ABC ranges (based on fishing at the OY level) and a 50/50 mixing rate for both Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups, is 16.7 million pounds. If the SAFMC and GMFMC both continue with current TAC levels (10.0 and 10.2 respectively), this could result in overfishing if the fisheries harvested their full shares leading to an overfished stock status for each migratory group. This amendment proposes to reduce the TAC for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel to maintain the stock at a biomass level that will produce OY.

The 2003 Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP) estimated a new ABC range for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The midpoint of the range (6.7 million pounds) is slightly lower than the current TAC (7.04 million pounds). While adherence to the current TAC would not result in overfishing, there would be an increase in the potential for overfishing to occur. This amendment proposes to reduce TAC for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

The fishing season for Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel was changed from April 1 – March 31 to March 1 – end of February in Amendment 15 to prevent the possibility of multiple commercial fishery closures at the same time. (For example, the red porgy fishery is closed January through April, and the gag and black grouper fisheries are closed in March and April.) This amendment extends the commercial Spanish mackerel trip limits currently used under the old fishing year to the new fishing year. This is necessary in order to establish a trip limit for the months of March 1 - November 30 that was previously applied to April 1 - November 30. Other trip limits apply after November 30. Failure to make this change could result in unlimited harvests in March when the season begins.

The purpose of this amendment is to propose management measures for the south Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic fisheries to avoid and reduce the potential for overfishing to occur in the Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel fisheries and to align current trip limits with the new fishing year in the Atlantic Spanish mackerel fishery. The SAFMC initiated this amendment in June 2006 to reduce the TACs for Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel in reaction to new stock information provided through the 2004 SEDAR 5 Assessment (for king mackerel) and the 2003 Report of the MSAP (for Spanish mackerel).

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan iv

Action 1: Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel

Alternative 1: No action. Currently TAC = 10.0 million pounds based on an ABCof 8.9 – 13.3 million pounds

Alternative 2: TAC = 7.1 million pounds which is the best point estimate of theABC range (5.3 – 9.6 million pounds) (Preferred)

Alternative 3: TAC = 5.3 million pounds which is the lowest value within the ABC range (5.3 – 9.6 million pounds)

Alternative 4. TAC = 9.6 million pounds which is the top end of the ABC range(5.3 – 9.6 million pounds)

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 the expected commercial and recreational catches would be below the commercial quota and the recreational allocation. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 4.

If the entire TAC under Alternative 3 were landed, this would result in a revenue loss to commercial fishermen of approximately $637,000 following a closure for commercial fishing instigated by the achievement of the commercial quota. The expected commercial revenue loss is a decrease of about 15% from 2006/07 estimated revenue levels ($4.14 million). The difference between the recreational allocation under Alternative 3 and the estimated recreational landings for 2006/07 is a loss to recreational fishermen of about 446,000 pounds. This indicates a loss in consumer surplus of about $12,625 based on valuations calculated by Haab et al. (2001).

Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a fishery closure could occur. In general, the methodologies used and described in Section 7 of this document, indicate the commercial quota would likely be reached sometime in November or December or before. This would have negative short-term social impacts on king mackerel fishermen, their families, fish supply houses, support industries, and the communities they are located in, through increased financial strain, a decreased ability to retain employees, and a decrease in consumer spending. However, Alternative 3 would have positive social impacts through increases in non-use values of the resource, such as bequest1 and existence values2. The recreational fishery is expected to reach the recreational allocation in September or October.

Regarding biological impacts, the proposed TAC (Alternative 2) would prevent overfishing; Alternative 3 would have a higher probability of preventing overfishing while Alternative 4 would have a lower probability. No action (Alternative 1) would result in overfishing if the full TAC was harvested. There are no expected changes to the physical environment.

Administrative costs under Alternative 3 would likely be slightly higher than under Alternative 1.

1 Value of leaving use and non-use value to offspring.2 Value of knowledge of continued existence.

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan v

Action 2: Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel

Alternative 1: No action. Currently TAC = 7.04 million pounds based on an ABC of 5.7 – 9.0 million pounds

Alternative 2: TAC = 6.7 million pounds which is the best point estimate of the ABC range (5.2 – 8.4 million pounds) (Preferred)

Alternative 3: TAC = 5.2 million pounds which is the lowest value within the ABC range (5.2 – 8.4 million pounds)

Alternative 4: TAC = 8.4 million pounds which is the top end of the ABC range (5.2 – 8.4 million pounds)

Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, expected catches would be below the commercial quotas and the recreational allocations. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1, 2 and 4.

If the entire TAC under Alternative 3 were landed, this would result in a revenue loss of approximately $588,000 dollars for the commercial sector (based on 2005/06 average ex-vessel price), a decrease of about 22% of total ex-vessel revenue from the Spanish mackerel fishery in 2006/07 ($2.7 million). The recreational allocation under Alternative 3 is approximately 560,000 pounds greater than the expected recreational catch in 2006/07.

Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a commercial fishery closure could occur. Based on historical data, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would likely be reached sometime in February or sooner. This would likely result in negative short-term social impacts for Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the Spanish mackerel fishery supports due to increased financial strain, a decrease in the ability of fish houses to retain employees year round, and decreased consumer spending in affected communities. However, non-use values of the resource, such as bequest and existence values, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 adjustment to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perception that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is expected to cause a decrease in non-use values due to the increase in the Alternative 4 TAC compared to the Alternative 1 TAC.

Regarding biological impacts, the proposed TAC (Alternative 2) would prevent overfishing: Alternatives 1 and 4 would have a slightly higher probability of resulting in overfishing. Alternative 3 would provide the highest level of biological protection. There are no expected changes to the physical environment.

Administrative costs under Alternative 3 would likely be slightly higher than under Alternative 1.

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan vi

Action 3: Commercial Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits

Alternative 1: No actionAlternative 2: Change the start date for the 3,500 pound trip limit to March 1 and the end of the fishing year to the end of February (Preferred)

Alternatives 1 and 2 are identical except that Alternative 2 specifies for the 3,500 trip limit to begin in March instead of April. The Council chose Alternative 2 as the preferred. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, after December 1st and until 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken, vessels are able to take an unlimited amount on weekdays and 1,500 pounds on weekend days. More restrictive trip limits apply after 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken until the end of the fishing season. Alternative 2 enables fishermen to fish during a month when there are few other fishing opportunities and at a time of year (Lent) when ex-vessel prices are typically at their highest. This provides increased total landings stability for communities and increased financial stability for fishermen and their families.

Alternative 2 is not expected to affect the biological environment because it will not change the methods or gears used for harvest, only the amount landed per trip during the month of March. Changing the trip limit will not impact stock status. Biological protection is provided through setting the TAC and preventing overages. There are no expected changes to the physical environment.

Administrative impacts under Alternative 2 are expected to be slightly higher than administrative impacts under Alternative 1.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

The potential consequences of each alternative within each action are illustrated in the following table. For a full discussion of the environmental consequences, see Section 7. Plus (+) indicates an overall positive benefit, minus (-) indicates an overall negative impact, and “na” indicates not applicable. If an alternative is not expected to have an impact, this is indicated with a “0”.

Summary of Environmental ConsequencesPreferred Biological Economic Social Administrative

Action 1 Alt 1 na na na na naAlt 2 vs Alt 1 X + 0 -/+ 0Alt 3 vs Alt 1 + -/+ -/+ -Alt 4 vs Alt 1 - +/- +/- 0

Action 2 Alt 1 na na na na naAlt 2 vs Alt 1 X + 0 -/+ 0Alt 3 vs Alt 1 + -/+ -/+ -Alt 4 vs Alt 1 - +/- +/- 0

Action 3 Alt 1 na na na na naAlt 2 vs Alt 1 X 0 + + -

Note: Cells in the economic and social categories sometimes show two symbols. The first symbol indicates potential short-term economic and social impacts to the Nation, fishermen and their families, fish houses, supply industries, and fishing communities. The second symbol after the slash indicates potential long-term economic and social impacts (including non-use values) to the Nation, fishermen and their families, fish houses, supply industries, and fishing communities.

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan vii

Environmental Assessment (EA) Cover Sheet

South Atlantic Fishery Management National Marine Fisheries ServiceCouncil Southeast Regional OfficeOne Southpark Circle, Ste. 306 263 13th Avenue South Charleston, SC 29407-4699 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701843-571-4366 727-824-5305843-769-4520 (FAX) 727-824-5308 (FAX)http://www.safmc.net http://[email protected] Contact person: Steve BranstetterContact person: Kate Quigley

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilSuite 2115 Federal Bldg.300 S. New StreetDover, Delaware 19904-6726302-674-2331302-674-5399 (FAX)http://www.mafmc.org

Name of ActionSouth Atlantic Fishery Management Council Mackerel Actions for the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan

Type of Action(X) Administrative ( ) Legislative(X) Draft ( ) Final

Summary

To prevent overfishing, continue sustainable management of the resource in the Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel, and to extend the current trip limits for Spanish mackerel to track the new fishing year as stated in Amendment 15 (in June 2006), the SAFMC is proposing to:

1) Set the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC at 7.1 million pounds,2) Set the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC at 6.7 million pounds, and3) Change the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits to track the new

fishing year (March 1 – end of February).

The 2004 SEDAR 5 Assessment provided updated MSY, ABC, etc. values for Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel based on counting 100% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. Values were also estimated based on counting 50% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. The new total ABC, estimated based on the top end of the ABC ranges (based on fishing at the OY level) and a 50/50 mixing rate for both Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups, is 16.7 million pounds. If the SAFMC and GMFMC both continue with current TAC levels (10.0 and 10.2 respectively), this could result in overfishing if the fisheries harvested their

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan viii

http://www.mafmc.org/

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/

http://www.safmc.net/

full shares leading to an overfished stock status for each migratory group. This amendment proposes to reduce the TAC for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel to maintain the stock at a biomass level that will produce OY.

The 2003 Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP) estimated a new ABC range for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The midpoint of the range (6.7 million pounds) is slightly lower than the current TAC (7.04 million pounds). While adherence to the current TAC would not result in overfishing, there would be an increase in the potential for overfishing to occur. This amendment proposes to reduce TAC for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

Amendment 15 established a new fishing year for Spanish mackerel from April 1 – March 31 to March 1 – end of February. For Atlantic group Spanish mackerel, the change in the fishing year was made to potentially ameliorate the possibility of closures in the mackerel fisheries during the month of March when fisheries for other species, such as some snapper grouper species, are closed. However, when the new fishing year was established, the trip limits were not adjusted to the new fishing year. This amendment proposes extending the trip limits currently used to track the new fishing year.

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan ix

Fishery Impact Statement / Social Impact Analysis (FIS/SIA)

Regulations impose restrictions on fishery participants, which can result in adverse effects on fishermen and fishing communities. This FIS/SIA evaluates the effects of reducing the commercial Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel Total Allowable Catch (TACs) and changing the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits.

Status quo management of the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel resources would maintain the existing TAC levels at 10 million pounds (MP) and 7.04 MP, respectively. Given new stock assessment data for king and Spanish mackerel, the existing level of harvest could potentially lead to overfishing of the king and Spanish mackerel resources. As a consequence, the status quo alternatives would likely require more restrictive management in the future, resulting in foregone benefits and greater adverse socioeconomic impacts than would likely accrue from management attention at this time. There are four alternatives proposed each for the two actions exploring management measures for the TACs for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel.

Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TACRegarding management measures proposed for the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC, Alternatives 1 (10 MP), 2 (7.1 MP), and 4 (9.6 MP) have expected commercial and recreational catches below the commercial quota and the recreational allocation. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Alternative 2 is expected to increase non-use values slightly and decrease short-term familial, fish house, support industry, and community social impacts slightly. Alternative 4 is expected to have the same impact directions, but to a smaller extent than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 (5.3 MP) could result in a revenue loss to commercial fishermen of approximately $637,000 following a closure for commercial fishing from achievement of the commercial quota. The expected revenue loss is a decrease of about 15% from 2006/07 estimated revenue levels ($4.14 million). The difference between the recreational allocation under Alternative 3 and the estimated recreational landings for 2006/07 is a loss to recreational fishermen of about 446,000 pounds. This indicates a loss in consumer surplus of about $12,625 based on valuations calculated by Haab et al. (2001). In addition, Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a commercial fishery closure could occur, probably sometime in November or December or before. The recreational sector is expected to reach the recreational allocation sometime in September or October.

Social impacts under Alternative 3 are expected to be negative (in the short-term) for king mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses, the supply industries the king mackerel fishery supports, and communities. King mackerel fishermen would experience lower annual revenues from king mackerel landings than under Alternative 1. This would increase financial strain for fishermen and their families and could decrease their fishing operation profit margins. Although this would be an incremental decrease in revenue, it would increase the probability that the fishing operation would go out of business or that some fishing families would need to incur additional debt to keep their businesses operational. Fish houses and supply industries would likely suffer some annual revenue losses that could decrease their profit margins. If an early closure occurs, the ability of fish houses and supply industries to retain

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan x

employees will be decreased. The communities dependent on king mackerel resources would likewise be impacted through decreased consumer spending. In the long-term, economic impacts are expected to be positive. Social impacts are expected to be positive for non-use values. Non-use values of the resource, such as bequest3 and existence values4, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 adjustments to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perception that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is only expected to increase non-use values in a minor way, if at all.

Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TACWith regard to management measures proposed for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC, under Alternatives 1 (7.04 MP), 2 (6.7 MP), and 4 (8.4 MP), expected catches are below the commercial quotas and the recreational allocations. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1, 2, and 4. Alternative 2 is expected to increase non-use values slightly and decrease short-term familial, fish house, support industry, and community social impacts slightly. Alternative 4 is expected to decrease non-use values and increase short-term familial, fish house, support industry, and community social impacts. Under Alternative 3 (5.2 MP), there is an expected revenue loss of approximately $588,000 dollars for the commercial sector (based on 2005/06 average ex-vessel price), a decrease of about 22% of estimated total ex-vessel revenue from the Spanish mackerel fishery in 2006/07 ($2.7 million). The recreational allocation under Alternative 3 is about 560,000 pounds greater than the expected recreational catch in 2006/07. Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a commercial fishery closure could occur. Based on historical data, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would likely be reached sometime in February or sooner. This would likely cause negative social impacts for Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the Spanish mackerel fishery supports. Spanish mackerel fishermen would experience slightly lower annual revenues from Spanish mackerel landings than under Alternative 1. This would increase financial strain for fishermen and their families and could decrease their fishing operation profit margins. Although this would be an incremental decrease in revenue, it would increase the probability that the fishing operation would go out of business or that some fishing families would need to incur additional debt to keep their businesses operational. Fish houses and supply industries would likely suffer some annual revenue losses that decrease their profit margins. If an early closure occurs, the ability of fish houses and supply industries to retain employees will be decreased. The communities dependent on Spanish mackerel resources would likewise be impacted through decreased consumer spending. In the long-term, economic impacts are expected to be positive. Non-use values of the resource, such as bequest and existence values, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 adjustment to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perception that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is expected to cause a decrease in non-use values due to the increase in the Alternative 4 TAC compared to the Alternative 1 TAC.


SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan xi

Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limitsThere are two alternative management measures proposed for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits. The first alternative would maintain the status quo. The second alternative is exactly the same as Alternative 1 except that the 3,500 pound trip limit begins in March instead of April. Alternative 2 enables fishermen to fish during a month when there are few other fishing opportunities and at a time of year when ex-vessel prices are typically at their highest without risking unlimited catches. This provides increased total landings stability for communities and increased financial stability for fishermen and their families that result in an expected positive social impact. However, it should also be noted that any closures that occur would take place earlier in the calendar year than under Alternative 1. According to some sources, the closures would take place at a time of the year when the fish are gathered together in dense groupings and the cast net fishery is more effective. This could result in negative economic impacts for that gear group. The March re-opening would occur at a time when the Spanish mackerel are about to migrate north and tend to spread out (Hartig 2006).

A more detailed analysis of the impacts on fishery participants and their communities is found in Sections 4, 5, and 7 of this document. Appendix A contains background information on fishing communities. Appendix B contains minutes from a September public hearing on these actions when they were proposed as a regulatory amendment.

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan xii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This amendment proposes three changes to the current management of Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel. Two issues address proposed reductions to the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) levels for Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel, which results in reductions in the commercial quotas and recreational allocations. The third issue proposes an extension of current trip limits to track the new fishing year for Spanish mackerel.

The 2004 SEDAR 5 Assessment provided updated MSY, ABC, etc. values for Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel based on counting 100% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. Values were also estimated based on counting 50% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. The new total ABC, estimated based on the top end of the ABC ranges (based on fishing at the OY level) and a 50/50 mixing rate for both Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups, is 16.7 million pounds. If the SAFMC and GMFMC both continue with current TAC levels (10.0 and 10.2 respectively), this could result in overfishing if the fisheries harvested their full shares leading to an overfished stock status for each migratory group. This amendment proposes to reduce the TAC for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel to maintain the stock at a biomass level that will produce OY.

The 2003 Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP) estimated a new ABC range for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The midpoint of the range (6.7 million pounds) is slightly lower than the current TAC (7.04 million pounds). While adherence to the current TAC will not result in overfishing, there will be an increase in the potential for overfishing to occur. This amendment proposes to reduce the TAC for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

Amendment 15 established a new fishing year for Spanish mackerel from April 1 – March 31 to March 1 – end of February. For Atlantic group Spanish mackerel, the change in the fishing year was made to potentially ameliorate the possibility of closures in the mackerel fisheries during the month of March when fisheries for other species, such as some snapper grouper, are closed. However, when the new fishing year was established, the trip limits were not adjusted to the new fishing year. This amendment proposes extending the trip limits currently used to track the new fishing year.

To prevent overfishing, continue sustainable management of the resource in the Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel, and to extend the current trip limits for Spanish mackerel to track the new fishing year as stated in Amendment 15 (in June 2006), the SAFMC is proposing to:

1) Set the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC at 7.1 million pounds,2) Set the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC at 6.7 million pounds,

and3) Change the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits to track the new

fishing year (March 1 – end of February).

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan 1

1.2 History of Management

The Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP, with Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), was approved in 1982 and implemented by regulations effective in February of 1983. Managed species included king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia. The FMP treated king and Spanish mackerel as unit stocks in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The FMP established allocations for the recreational and commercial sectors harvesting these stocks, and the commercial allocations were divided between net and hook-and-line fishermen.

Amendments

Amendment 1, with EIS, implemented in September of 1985, provided a framework procedure for pre-season adjustment of TAC, revised the estimate of king mackerel maximum sustainable yield (MSY) downward, recognized separate Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of king mackerel (Figure 1), and established fishing permits and bag limits for king mackerel. Commercial allocations among gear users, except purse seines that were allowed 6% of the commercial allocation of TAC, were eliminated. The Gulf commercial allocation for king mackerel was divided into Eastern and Western Zones for the purpose of regional allocation, with 69% of the remaining allocation provided to the Eastern Zone and 31% to the Western Zone. Amendment 1 also established minimum size limits for Spanish mackerel at 12 inches fork length (FL) or 14 inches total length (TL) and for cobia at 33 inches FL or 37 inches TL.

Amendment 2, with environmental assessment (EA), implemented in July of 1987, revised Spanish mackerel MSY downward, recognized two migratory groups, established allocations of TAC for the commercial and recreational sectors, and set commercial quotas and bag limits. Charterboat permits were required, and it was clarified that TAC must be set below the upper range of acceptable biological catch (ABC). The use of purse seines on overfished stocks was prohibited and their allocation of TAC was redistributed under the 69%/31% split.

Amendment 3, with EA, was partially approved in August 1989, revised, resubmitted, and approved in April 1990. It prohibited drift gill nets for coastal pelagics and purse seines for the overfished groups of mackerels.

Amendment 4, with EA, implemented in October 1989, reallocated Atlantic group Spanish mackerel equally between recreational and commercial fishermen.

Amendment 5, with EA, implemented in August 1990, made the following changes in the management regime:

Extended the management area for Atlantic groups of mackerels through the MAFMC’s area of jurisdiction;

Revised problems in the fishery and plan objectives; Revised the fishing year for Gulf Spanish mackerel from July-June to April-March; Revised the definition of “overfishing”; Added cobia to the annual stock assessment procedure;


Provided that the SAFMC will be responsible for pre-season adjustments of TACs and bag limits for the Atlantic migratory groups of mackerels while the GMFMC will be responsible for Gulf migratory groups;

Continued to manage the two recognized Gulf migratory groups of king mackerel as one until management measures appropriate to the eastern and western groups can be determined;

Re-defined recreational bag limits as daily limits; Deleted a provision specifying that bag limit catch of mackerel may be sold; Provided guidelines for corporate commercial vessel permits; Specified that Gulf group king mackerel may be taken only by hook-and-line and run-around

gill nets; Imposed a bag and possession limit of two cobia per person per day; Established a minimum size of 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL or 14 inches (35.6 cm) TL for king

mackerel and included a definition of "conflict" to provide guidance to the Secretary.

Amendment 6, with EA, implemented in November of 1992, made the following changes:

Identified additional problems and an objective in the fishery; Provided for rebuilding overfished stocks of mackerels within specific periods; Provided for biennial assessments and adjustments; Provided for more seasonal adjustment actions; Allowed for Gulf king mackerel stock identification and allocation when appropriate; Provided for commercial Atlantic Spanish mackerel possession limits; Changed commercial permit requirements to allow qualification in one of three preceding

years; Discontinued the reversion of the bag limit to zero when the recreational quota is filled; Modified the recreational fishing year to the calendar year; and Changed the minimum size limit for king mackerel to 20 inches FL, and changed all size

limit measures to fork length only.

Amendment 7, with EA, implemented in November 1994, equally divided the Gulf commercial allocation in the Eastern Zone at the Dade-Monroe County line in Florida. The suballocation for the area from Monroe County through Western Florida is equally divided between commercial hook-and-line and net gear users.

Amendment 8, with EA, implemented March 1998, made the following changes to the management regime:

Clarified ambiguity about allowable gear specifications for the Gulf group king mackerel fishery by allowing only hook-and-line and run-around gill nets. However, catch by permitted, multi-species vessels and bycatch allowances for purse seines were maintained;

Established allowable gear in the SAFMC and MAFMC areas as well as providing for the RA to authorize the use of experimental gear;

Established the Councils’ intent to evaluate the impacts of permanent jurisdictional boundaries between the GMFMC and SAFMC and development of separate FMPs for coastal pelagics in these areas;


Established a moratorium on commercial king mackerel permits until no later than October 15, 2000, with a qualification date for initial participation of October 16, 1995;

Increased the income requirement for a king or Spanish mackerel permit to 25% of earned income or $10,000 from commercial sale of catch or charter or head boat fishing in 1 of the 3 previous calendar years, but allowed for a 1-year grace period to qualify under permits that are transferred;

Legalized retention of up to 5 cut-off (damaged) king mackerel on vessels with commercial trip limits;

Set an optimum yield (OY) target at 30% static spawning potential ratio (SPR) for the Gulf and 40% static SPR for the Atlantic;

Provided the SAFMC with authority to set vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, and gear restrictions for Gulf group king mackerel in the North Area of the Eastern Zone (Dade/Monroe to Volusia/Flagler County lines);

Established various data consideration and reporting requirements under the framework procedure;

Modified the seasonal framework adjustment measures and specifications (see Appendix I); Expanded the management area for cobia through the MAFMC’s area of jurisdiction (New

York)

Amendment 9, with EA, implemented in April 2000, made the following changes to the management regime:

Reallocated the percentage of the commercial allocation of TAC for the North Area (Florida east coast) and South/West Area (Florida west coast) of the Eastern Zone to 46.15% North and 53.85% South/West and retained the recreational and commercial allocations of TAC at 68% recreational and 32% commercial;

Subdivided the commercial hook-and-line king mackerel allocation for the Gulf group, Eastern Zone, South/West Area (Florida west coast) by establishing 2 subzones with a dividing line between the 2 subzones at the Collier/Lee County line;

Established regional allocations for the west coast of Florida based on the 2 subzones with 7.5% of the Eastern Zone allocation of TAC being allowed from Subzone 2 and the remaining 92.5% being allocated as follows:

o 50% - Florida east coasto 50% - Florida west coast that is further subdivided:o 50% - Net Fisheryo 50% - Hook-and-Line Fishery

Established a trip limit of 3,000 pounds per vessel per trip for the Western Zone; Established a moratorium on the issuance of commercial king mackerel gill-net

endorsements and allow re-issuance of gill-net endorsements to only those vessels that: (1) had a commercial mackerel permit with a gill-net endorsement on or before the moratorium control date of October 16, 1995 (Amendment 8), and (2) had landings of king mackerel using a gill net in one of the two fishing years 1995-96 or 1996-97 as verified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or trip tickets from the FDEP; allowed transfer of gill-net endorsements to immediate family members (son, daughter, father, mother, or spouse) only; and prohibited the use of gill nets or any other net gear for the harvest of Gulf group king mackerel north of an east/west line at the Collier/Lee County line;


Increased the minimum size limit for Gulf group king mackerel from 20 inches to 24 inches FL; and

Allowed the retention and sale of cut-off (damaged), legal-sized king and Spanish mackerel within established trip limits.

Amendment 10, with Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), approved June 1999, incorporated essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions for the SAFMC.

Amendment 11, with SEIS, partially approved in December 1999, included proposals for mackerel in the SAFMC’s Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Sustainable Fishery Act Definitions and other Provisions in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Region.

Amendment 12, with EA, implemented October 2000, extended the commercial king mackerel permit moratorium from its current expiration date of October 15, 2000, to October 15, 2005, or until replaced with a license limitation, limited access, and/or individual fishing quota or individual transferable quota system, whichever occurs earlier.

Amendment 13, with SEIS, implemented August 19, 2002, established two marine reserves in the EEZ of the Gulf in the vicinity of the Dry Tortugas, Florida known as Tortugas North and Tortugas South in which fishing for coastal migratory pelagic species is prohibited. This action complements previous actions taken under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Amendment 14, with EA, implemented July 29, 2002, established a 3-year moratorium on the issuance of charter vessel and head boat Gulf group king mackerel permits in the Gulf unless replaced by a comprehensive effort limitation system. The control date for eligibility was established as March 29, 2001. The amendment also included other provisions for eligibility, application, appeals, and transferability.

Amendment 15, with EA, implemented August 18, 2004, established an indefinite limited access program for the king mackerel fishery in the exclusive economic zone under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and changed the fishing season to March 1 through February 28/29 for the Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel.

Amendment 16, with EIS, approved on October 16, 2001, established enhanced protections for existing marine reserves in the vicinity of the Dry Tortugas, Florida. These regulations prohibited fishing for any species and anchoring by fishing vessels within the reserves.

Amendment 17, with EIS, established a limited access system for charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) permits for the coastal migratory pelagic fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico and continued to cap participation at current levels. In addition, several minor revisions were made to remove outdated regulatory text and to clarify regulatory text.


Figure 1. Seasonal boundaries and divisions of the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel.


2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this amendment is to propose management measures for the south Atlantic coastal pelagic fisheries to prevent overfishing in the king and Spanish mackerel fisheries and to align current trip limits with the new fishing year in the Spanish mackerel fishery. The SAFMC initiated this amendment in June 2006 to reduce the TACs for the Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel in reaction to new stock information provided through the 2004 SEDAR 5 Assessment (for king mackerel) and the 2003 Report of the MSAP (for Spanish mackerel). A new fishing year for Spanish mackerel was established from April 1 – March 31 to March 1 – end of February in Amendment 15 in order to prevent the possibility of multiple commercial fishery closures at the same time. (For example, the red porgy fishery is closed January through April, and the gag and black grouper fisheries are closed in March and April.) This amendment extends the trip limits currently used under the old fishing year to the new fishing year by extending the trip limit for April 1 – November 30 to March 1- November 30. Other trip limits apply after November 30. Failure to make this change would result in no trip limit for the month of March.

The overall purpose of this amendment is to provide for sustainability and social and economic stability in the mackerel fisheries by reducing the TAC levels, given new stock assessment information, and support the redefinition of the fishing year for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel. Maintaining TACs at a sustainable level helps to maximize the overall benefits to the Nation. Such management helps to maintain healthy populations of Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel. Extending current trip limits for Atlantic Spanish mackerel to track the new fishing year supports redefinition of the fishing year for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel.


3 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR MACKEREL TACs AND TRIP LIMITS

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP define reference points in the form of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum yield (OY), and specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery is overfished and/or undergoing overfishing. Status determination criteria are defined by 50 CFR 600.310 to include a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) and a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT). Together, these four parameters (MSY, OY, MSST, and MFMT) are intended to provide fishery managers with the tools to measure the status and performance of each fishery in the fishery management unit. By evaluating stock biomass (B) and fishing mortality rate (F) in relation to MSY, OY, MSST, and MFMT, fishery managers can determine the status of a fishery at any given time and assess whether management measures are achieving established goals.

For both king and Spanish mackerel, these biological reference points and stock status criteria are represented by proxies of static spawning potential ratios (SPR). MSY represents a yield from a stock size or biomass at equilibrium (BMSY), and is calculated as the yield associated with a fishing mortality rate that would produce a 30 percent SPR (F30%SPR). OY represents a yield associated with F40%SPR. F30%SPR represents a proxy for FMSY or MFMT; F40%SPR represents a proxy for FOY. For Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, according to the SEDAR-5 results (Table 19, page 69), and assuming a 50/50 mixing rate along the Florida east coast, F2002/FMSY was equal to 0.46; none of the 500 bootstrapped estimates exceeded FMSY (MFMT). There was a 3.8 percent chance the stock was overfished (B2002 < MSST); only 19 of the 500 bootstrapped estimates were less than MSST. Under a no mixing assumption B2003/BMSY was estimated to be 1.22; although no similar estimate was developed under the 50/50 mixing scenario, the stock size would be larger. According to the 2003 MSAP Report, for Atlantic Spanish mackerel, F2002/FMSY

was equal to 0.58; there was a 4 percent chance F2002 > FMSY, with only 14 of 500 bootstrapped estimates exceeding FMSY (MFMT). There was less than a 2 percent chance B2002 < MSST; only 8 of the 500 bootstrapped estimates were less than MSST. B2003/BMSY was estimated to be 1.78.

Therefore, to maintain healthy stocks of Atlantic group king and Spanish mackerel, the SAFMC proposes modifications of the TACs for these resources. The intent is to prevent overfishing and continue to manage the fishery resources for the maximum benefit to the Nation. Adjusting the Spanish mackerel trip limit would ensure a stable harvest of the resource consistent with the new fishing year.


3.1 Action 1 - Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel

Table 1 provides current TAC and ABC information along with values from the latest assessment.

Table 1. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for king mackerel and total catch (commercial and recreational) in 100,000 pounds.

Current SEDAR 5 – King Mackerel Assessment (ABC @ F40%SPR) Total Estimated Catches

100% Gulf 50% Gulf* 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06Gulf Migratory Group

10.2 (5.3 - 9.6) 8.3 (6.7 – 10.2) 5.7 (4.4 –

7.1) 7.99 7.95 7.99 7.58

Atlantic Migratory Group

10.0 (8.9 - 13.3) 5.7 (4.3 – 7.4) 7.1 (5.3 –

9.6) 6.01 6.0 7.09 6.45

Notes: 1) Beginning with 2005/06 the fishing year changed to begin March 1.

*Source: SEDAR 5, King Mackerel Assessment, Figure 35, p.95.

Table 2 provides TAC, commercial quota, and recreational allocation information under each alternative for Action 1.

Table 2. TAC, commercial quota, and recreational allocation under each alternative for Action 1.Action 1 – King Mackerel

TAC Commercial Quota Recreational AllocationAlt. 1

(Status Quo) 10,000,000 3,710,000 6,290,000

Alt. 2 (Preferred) 7,100,000 2,634,100 4,465,900

Alt. 3 5,300,000 1,966,300 3,333,700Alt. 4 9,600,000 3,561,600 6,038,400

Table 3 provides information on the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel commercial and recreational quotas and catches over recent years.

Table 3. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel commercial quota and recreational allocations and catches over recent years, 1000s of pounds.

Year Commercial Quota

Commercial Catch

Recreational Allocation

Recreational Catch TAC Total Estimated

Catch2002/03 3,710 1,745 6,290 2,672 10,000 4,4172003/04 3,710 1,730 6,290 4,100 10,000 5,8312004/05 3,710 2,820 6,290 3,287 10,000 6,1072005/06 3,710 2,424 6,290 3,954 10,000 6,3782006/07 3,710 2,324 6,290 3,780 10,000 6,104

Notes: 1) Beginning with 2005/06 the fishing year changed to begin March 1. Previous years began on April 1; 2) 2006/07 commercial catch is estimated from the average 2003/04 through 2005/06 landings.Source: ALS data (August 2006); Southeast Fisheries Science Center (October 2006).

Background for Action 1: The 2004 SEDAR 5 Assessment provided updated MSY, ABC, etc. values for Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel (Table 1) based on counting 100% of fish in the mixing zone


as Gulf king mackerel. Values are also shown in Table 1 based on counting 50% of fish in the mixing zone as Gulf king mackerel. The seasonal boundaries for king mackerel are shown in Figure 1. Based on the top end of the new ABC ranges under a 50/50 mixing rate, the total ABC for both Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups would be 16.7 million pounds. If the SAFMC sets TAC at the best point estimate of 7.1 million pounds, and the GMFMC continues to have a TAC of 10.2 million pounds, the total TAC would be 17.3 million pounds, which would exceed the top end of the total ABC. This would result in overfishing if the full TAC was harvested and could push both migratory groups into an overfished stock status.

Alternative 1. No action. Currently TAC = 10.0 million pounds based on an ABC of 8.9 – 13.3 million pounds.

Alternative 2. Preferred. TAC = 7.1 million pounds which is the best point estimate of the ABC range (5.3 – 9.6 million pounds).

Alternative 3. TAC = 5.3 million pounds which is the lowest value within the ABC range (5.3 – 9.6 million pounds).

Alternative 4. TAC = 9.6 million pounds which is the top end of the ABC range (5.3 – 9.6 million pounds).

Discussion – Action 1 – Economic and Social ImpactsUnder Alternative 1 (status quo), the TAC would remain at 10 million pounds with a commercial quota of 3.71 million pounds and a recreational allocation of 6.29 million pounds (Table 2). The average of total landings over the last three fishing years is about 6.1 million pounds (Table 3). This is slightly lower than 2005/06 landings of 6.4 million pounds. The average of commercial landings over the last three fishing years is 2.3 million pounds, slightly lower than 2005/06 landings. Recreational landings are expected to total 3.78 million pounds in 2006/07 down from 3.95 in 2005/06. Both estimates are below the commercial quota and the recreational allocation. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1.

Over the past several years, the king mackerel fishery has provided a consistent source of income for commercial fishermen and it has maintained a relatively stable regulatory management regime. However, no change in response to the new stock assessment data could result in fishing at an unsustainable level and risk overfishing the resource, which could have negative economic and social impacts in the long-term.

Alternative 1 provides the economic and social basis for comparison to other alternatives. The economic analyses presented below for Alternative 1 and for the other alternatives are summarized from a more thorough discussion of the methods and economic and social impacts of the proposed change to the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC in Section 7 of this document.

Under the preferred Alternative 2, the TAC would be set at 7.1 million pounds (Table 2), 2.9 million pounds less than the current TAC. The commercial quota under Alternative 2 versus


Alternative 1 would decrease by about 1 million pounds (Table 3). The recreational allocation would decrease by about 1.8 million pounds. However, the Alternative 2 TAC is still approximately 0.7 million pounds greater than the 2005/06 landings and about 1 million pounds greater than the expected landings for 2006/07. No change in revenue is expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. Landings in 2005/06 and the estimated landings for 2006/07 both fall below the Alternative 2 commercial quota and recreational allocation by about 310,000 pounds and 686,000 pounds, respectively. While the Alternative 2 commercial quota is above the 2006/07 expected catch, the decrease in the commercial quota may be the source of some anxiety among king mackerel fishermen and their families in that it increases the probability that a closure could occur before the end of the fishing year which could potentially decrease the amount of revenue they might otherwise expect to obtain under Alternative 1 if they harvested the entire commercial quota.

Under Alternative 3, the TAC would be set at 5.3 million pounds (Table 2), approximately half of the TAC under Alternative 1. The commercial quota would be about 1.7 million pounds less than under Alternative 1 and about 0.7 million pounds less than under Alternative 2. The recreational quota would be almost 3 million pounds less than under Alternative 1 and approximately 1.1 million pounds less than under Alternative 2. If the entire TAC under Alternative 3 was landed, this would be about 1.1 million pounds less than 2005/06 landings and 804,000 pounds less than the expected 2006/07 landings (Table 3). This would result in a revenue loss to commercial fishermen of approximately $637,000 following a closure for commercial fishing resulting from achievement of the commercial quota. The difference between the recreational allocation under Alternative 3 and the estimated recreational landings for 2006/07 is a loss to recreational fishermen of about 446,000 pounds, which represents a loss in consumer surplus of about $12,625.

Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a fishery closure could occur. In general, the methodologies used and described in Section 7 of this document, indicate that the commercial quota would likely be reached sometime in November or December or before. In addition, the recreational allocation is expected to be reached in September or October. On the commercial side, this would have negative social impacts on king mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the king mackerel fishery supports since it results in a lower level of annual revenue from king mackerel than the amount which is expected under Alternative 1. This would increase the financial strain fishing families are already experiencing. The increase in financial strain increases the probability of fishing operations going out of business. Fish houses and supply industries would likely suffer some revenue losses as well, which decreases their profit margins and their ability to retain employees. The communities dependent on king mackerel resources would likewise be impacted through decreased consumer spending.

Under Alternative 4, the TAC would be set at 9.6 million pounds with a commercial quota of about 3.6 million pounds and a recreational allocation of about 6 million pounds (Table 2). The TAC is 400,000 pounds less than the Alternative 1 TAC and 2.5 million pounds greater than the preferred Alternative 2 TAC (Table 3). The expected catch for 2006/07 is far below the commercial quota and recreational allocation under Alternative 4 and therefore no revenue losses are expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 (Table 3).


For the general non-fishing public of the U.S., Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 offer long-term benefits related to maintaining long-term sustainability of the mackerel resource in that they maintain catch within the ABCs identified as based on the best available science. These alternatives benefit those in the U.S. who derive satisfaction from knowing the marine environment is managed sustainably and is thriving. Non-use values of the resource, such as bequest5 and existence values6, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 adjustments to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perceptive that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is only expected to increase non-use values in a minor way, if at all.

Discussion – Action 1 - Biological, Physical, and Administrative ImpactsThe proposed TAC (Alternative 2), based on a harvest rate equal to F40%SPR, would maintain a stock biomass that can consistently produce the Optimum Yield. Recent harvest levels for Atlantic group king mackerel have ranged from approximately 4.5 to 6.5 million pounds (Table 3). Thus, if fishing effort remains stable neither the commercial or recreational harvest would be limited by this shift in TAC. The commercial harvest has exceeded the proposed commercial quota under the preferred TAC only once in the last five years, and recreational harvest has not exceeded its allocation. However, the Council is concerned that additional harvest, especially from the commercial sector may occur in the near future.

As of October 2006, there were 557 vessels with active king mackerel permits that also had active snapper-grouper permits (trip limited or unlimited). Many of these vessels are home-ported in either North Carolina (109 vessels) or Florida (403 vessels); both areas have prominent king mackerel fisheries. A number of regulations in the snapper grouper fishery (see Snapper Grouper Amendment 13C) became effective on October 23, 2006. The snowy grouper and golden tilefish fisheries were closed because the quotas were met. These closures and other regulations in Amendment 13C are expected to shift effort into the mackerel fishery. Further, the Council will be considering regulations to halt overfishing of gag grouper at the June 2007 meeting; regulations could become effective by January 2008.

Alternative 3 would have a higher probability of maintaining a stock biomass that can produce OY but would unnecessarily restrict yields associated with OY by 1.8 MP, thus reducing the overall social and economic benefits available to the fishery participants. Alternative 4 would have a low probability of maintaining a stock biomass that could produce OY; harvesting Atlantic group king mackerel at this rate would approach fishing mortality rates associated with MFMT. Based on the recent SEDAR-5 assessment, assuming a 50/50 mixing rate for Gulf and Atlantic groups of king mackerel along the east coast of Florida, yields of Atlantic king mackerel in excess of 9.6 MP would exceed FMSY (MFMT). Therefore, the no action (Alternative 1) and Alternative 4, maintaining a 10 MP TAC and 9.6 MP TAC respectively, would result in overfishing if the full TAC were harvested.



There are no expected changes to the physical environment, as the administrative action to change the TAC would not alter the manner in which the fishery is conducted. King mackerel fishing is conducted by surface trolling, which does not impact the sea floor or other physical aspects of the marine environment.

There would be some administrative impacts from implementing the TAC change. Given recent harvest levels by both the commercial and recreational sector have approached the proposed allocations, there would be increased administrative costs by NMFS to monitor these fisheries more closely and close the fisheries when the commercial quota was met. Closures, which have not happened in recent years, would greatly increase the burden of state and federal law enforcement agencies to monitor and maintain the prohibition of harvest. The administrative impacts under Alternative 3 would be the greatest due to the increased probability of closures. Altnernative 4 would not likely increase administrative impacts, as the fishery has not approached this level of harvest in recent years, unless there is an effort shift into the commercial king mackerel fishery.

3.2 Action 2 - Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel

Table 4 provides current TAC and ABC information along with new values for the latest assessment.

Table 4. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel and estimated total catch (commercial and recreational), 100,000s pounds.

Total Estimated Catches

Current 2003 Report of the MSAP (ABC @ F40%SPR) 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

TAC (ABC Range) 7.04 (5.7 – 9.0) 6.7 (5.2 – 8.4) 5.28 5.82 5.75 5.65MSY 6.4 ( - ) 5.2 (4.4 – 6.4)Notes: 1) Beginning with 2005/06 the fishing year changed to begin March 1.

Table 5 provides TAC, commercial quota, and recreational allocation information under each alternative for Action 2.

Table 5. TAC, commercial quota, and recreational allocation under each alternative for Action 2.

Action 2 – Spanish MackerelTAC Commercial Quota Recreational Allocation

Alt. 1 (Status Quo) 7,040,000 3,872,000 3,168,000

Alt. 2 (Preferred) 6,700,000 3,685,000 3,015,000

Alt. 3 5,200,000 2,860,000 2,340,000Alt. 4 8,400,000 4,620,000 3,780,000

Background for Action 2:


The 2003 Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Board (MSAP) provided revised MSY, ABC, etc. values for the Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel migratory groups. The values from the 2003 MSAP assessment are used for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel (Table 4).

Alternative 1. No action. Currently TAC = 7.04 million pounds based on an ABC of 5.7 – 9.0 million pounds.

Alternative 2. Preferred. TAC = 6.7 million pounds which is the best point estimate of the ABC range (5.2 – 8.4 million pounds).

Alternative 3. TAC = 5.2 million pounds which is the lowest value within the ABC range (5.2 – 8.4 million pounds).

Alternative 4. TAC = 8.4 million pounds which is the top end of the ABC range (5.2 – 8.4 million pounds).

Table 6 provides information on the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel commercial and recreational quotas and catches over recent years.

Table 6. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel commercial quota and recreational allocations and catches over recent years, in 1000s of pounds.

Year Commercial Quota

Commercial Catch


Recreational Catch TAC

Total Estimated

Catch2002/03 3,872 3,207 3,168 2,072 7,040 5,2792003/04 3,872 3,741 3,168 1,994 7,040 5,7352004/05 3,872 3,678 3,168 1,371 7,040 5,0492005/06 3,872 3,579 3,168 1,985 7,040 5,5642006/07 3,872 3,666 3,168 1,783 7,040 5,449


Discussion – Action 2 - Economic and Social ImpactsUnder Alternative 1 (status quo), the TAC would remain at 7.04 million pounds with a commercial quota of 3.9 million pounds and a recreational allocation of 3.2 million pounds (Table 4). An average of commercial landings over the three years 2003/04 – 2005/06 provides a proxy of expected landings for 2006/07. The average is about 5.45 million pounds, a slight decrease from 2005/06 landings of 5.65 million pounds (Table 6). Using the three year average, commercial landings are expected to increase slightly to 3.67 million pounds in 2006/07 and recreational landings are expected to reach 1.8 million pounds. Both estimates are below the commercial quota and the recreational allocation. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1.

Over the past several years, the Spanish mackerel fishery has provided a consistent source of income for commercial fishermen and it has maintained a relatively stable regulatory


management regime. There are no expected changes to the social environment as a direct or indirect effect of Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 provides the economic and social basis for comparison to other alternatives. The economic analyses presented below for Alternative 1 and for the other alternatives are summarized from a more thorough discussion of the methods and economic and social impacts of the proposed change to the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC in Section 7 of this document.

Under the preferred Alternative 2, the TAC would be set at 6.7 million pounds, 0.34 million pounds less than the current TAC (Table 5). The commercial quota under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1 would decrease by about 187,000 pounds. The recreational allocation would decrease by about 153,000 pounds. However, the Alternative 2 TAC is still more than 1 million pounds greater than the 2005/06 landings and the expected total commercial and recreational landings for 2006/07 (Table 6). Under the assumption that the 2005/06 landings or the expected 2006/07 expected landings are a reasonable prediction of future landings, no change in revenue is expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. However, the potential for a closure under Alternative 2 may cause some anxiety for Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families in that it results in lower annual revenues than may otherwise occur under Alternative 1.

Under Alternative 3, the TAC would be set at 5.2 million pounds, about 1.8 million pounds less than the Alternative 1 TAC (Table 5). The commercial quota would be about 1 million pounds less than under Alternative 1 and about 0.8 million pounds less than under Alternative 2. The recreational allocation would be almost 828,000 pounds less than under Alternative 1 and approximately 675,000 pounds less than under Alternative 2. If the entire TAC under Alternative 3 was landed, this would be about 364,000 pounds less than the 2005/06 and 250,000 pounds less than the expected 2006/07 landings (Table 6). The commercial quota under Alternative 3 is 806,000 pounds less than expected commercial landings for 2006/07. This would result in a revenue loss of approximately $588,000 dollars for the commercial sector (based on 2005/06 average ex-vessel price), a decrease of about 22% of estimated total ex-vessel revenue from the Spanish mackerel fishery in 2006/07 ($2.7 million). The recreational allocation under Alternative 3 is 557,000 pounds greater than the expected recreational catch in 2006/07.

Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a fishery closure could occur. The amount specified for the Alternative 3 TAC (5.2 million pounds) was exceeded in eleven years since 1986 (see Table 9). The amount specified for the Alternative 3 commercial quota (2.86 million pounds) was exceeded in all but three years since 1986. The recreational allocation under Alternative 3 (2.34 million pounds) would have been exceeded in two years since 1986. Based on historical data, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would likely be reached sometime in February or sooner. This would likely have negative social impacts for Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the Spanish mackerel fishery supports. Spanish mackerel fishermen would suffer a decrease in annual revenues from Spanish mackerel compared to the situation under Alternative 1, increasing financial strain and the probability of going out of business, and they would be left with few fishing opportunities in the remaining months in the fishing year after the closure. Fish houses


and supply industries would suffer some revenue losses, which would decrease their profit margins, and their ability to retain employees would be decreased due to a decrease in the supply of Spanish mackerel in the months following the closure but before the end of the fishing year. The communities dependent on Spanish mackerel resources would likewise be impacted through decreased consumer spending.

Under Alternative 4, the TAC would be set at 8.4 million pounds with a commercial quota of about 4.62 million pounds and a recreational allocation of about 3.78 million pounds (Table 5). The TAC is 1.36 million pounds more than the Alternative 1 TAC and 1.7 million pounds greater than the preferred Alternative 2 TAC. The expected catch for 2006/07 is far below the commercial quota and recreational allocation under Alternative 4 (Table 6) and therefore no revenue losses are expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4.

For the general non-fishing public of the U.S., Alternatives 2 and 3 offer long-term benefits related to maintaining long-term sustainability of the Spanish mackerel resource in that they specify a decrease in the Alternative 1 TAC. These alternatives benefit those in the U.S. who derive satisfaction from knowing the marine environment is managed sustainably and is thriving. Non-use values of the resource, such as bequest and existence values, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 adjustments to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perceptive that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is expected to cause a decrease in non-use values due to the increase in the Alternative 4 TAC compared to the Alternative 1 TAC.

Discussion – Action 2 - Biological, Physical, and Administrative ImpactsThe proposed TAC (Alternative 2), based on the median value yield associated with F40%SPR would ensure Atlantic Spanish mackerel biomass remains at a level that can produce OY for the fishery. Alternatives 1 and 4, while allowing for larger harvests, would not result in overfishing. The stock biomass is estimated to be 1.78 times the biomass needed to produce MSY. Therefore, for the short-term, high harvest levels could be taken, which would reduce the stock size to the MSY level. However, Alternatives 1 and 4 do not meet the Council’s objective to manage harvest with a TAC that has a median (50 percent) probability of achieving OY. Given the healthy status of the Atlantic Spanish mackerel stock, Alternative 3 would unnecessarily restrict harvest and not allow the fishery to achieve OY.

There are no expected changes to the physical environment as the administrative action to change the TAC would not alter the manner in which the fishery is conducted. King mackerel fishing is conducted by surface trolling, which does not impact the sea floor or other physical aspects of the marine environment.

There would be some administrative impacts from implementing the TAC proposed by Preferred Alternative 2. In combination, the recreational or commercial sector have not landed fish that would meet the proposed TAC, but in recent years the commercial sector has landed fish in quantities nearing the proposed 3.685 MP commercial quota. There would be an increased administrative burden on NMFS to monitor this fishery and adjust trip limits accordingly. The administrative impacts under Alternative 3 would likely have the greatest administrative


impacts due to the increased probability of NMFS having to make adjustments to the trip limits earlier in the fishing year. Alternative 4 would have less administrative burden, as it is likely the trigger for trip limit reductions would not be met.


3.3 Action 3 - Change the Atlantic Migratory Group Spanish mackerel trip limits to track the new fishing year (March 1 – end of February)

Background for Action 3: In Amendment 15, the fishing year was changed from April 1 through March 31 to March 1 through February 28/29 for the Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel. Beginning the fishing year on March 1 ensures the mackerel fisheries in the Atlantic are open during March when several other fisheries are closed. To achieve the objective of making the change in the fishing season, it is necessary to adjust the trip limits to track the new fishing year. The current trip limit allows for 3,500 pounds per vessel per day April 1 – November 30 and allows for other trip limits following November 30, as described below.

Alternative 1. Status Quo (no action) – The possession limits are as follows:1. April 1 – November 30 – 3,500 pounds per vessel per day.2. December 1 until 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken:

Monday – Friday UnlimitedOther days 1,500 pounds(Vessel fishing days begin at 6:00am and extend until 6:00am the following day, and vessels must be unloaded by 6:00pm of that following day.)

3. After 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken 1,500 pounds per vessel per day for all days.

4. When 100% of the adjusted allocation is reached: 500 pounds per vessel per day to the end of the fishing year (March 31). Adjusted allocation compensates for estimated catches of 500 pounds per vessel per day to the end of the season.

Alternative 2. Change the start date for the 3,500 pound trip limit to March 1 and the end of the fishing year to the end of February.

1. March 1 – November 30 – 3,500 pounds per vessel per day.2. December 1 until 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken:

Monday – Friday UnlimitedOther days 1,500 pounds(Vessel fishing days begin at 6:00am and extend until 6:00am the following day, and vessels must be unloaded by 6:00pm of that following day.)

3. After 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken 1,500 pounds per vessel per day for all days.

4. When 100% of the adjusted allocation is reached: 500 pounds per vessel per day to the end of the fishing year (end of February). Adjusted allocation compensates for estimated catches of 500 pounds per vessel per day to the end of the season.

Discussion – Action 3 - Economic and Social ImpactsUnder Alternative 1, regulations regarding trip limits for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel would not change from status quo. As a consequence, the 3,500 pound trip limit for Spanish mackerel would go into effect in April, one month after the start of the new fishing season (March 1 – end of February) and extend through November. Other trip limits apply after


November. This alternative would likely negatively affect Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the Spanish mackerel fishery supports from having no trip limit in March.

Alternative 1 provides the economic and social basis for comparison to other alternatives. The economic analyses presented below for Alternative 1 are summarized from a more thorough discussion of the methods and economic and social impacts of the proposed change to the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits in Section 7 of this document.

Under Alternative 2, the 3,500 pound trip limit would begin in March, the first month of the new fishing year, and extend through November. The same trip limits that occur under Alternative 1 would apply after November. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, after December 1st and until 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken, vessels are able to take an unlimited amount on weekdays and 1,500 pounds on weekend days. More restrictive trip limits apply after 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken.

Alternative 2 enables fishermen to fish under the 3,500-pound trip limit during a month when there are few other fishing opportunities. It also allows Spanish mackerel to be harvested during Lent when ex-vessel prices are typically at their highest point of the year. This provides increased total landings stability for communities and increased financial stability for fishermen and their families. According to some sources, the closures would take place when the fish are gathered together in dense groupings and the cast net fishery is more effective. This would result in negative economic impacts for that gear group. The March re-opening would occur at a time when the Spanish mackerel are about to migrate north and tend to spread out (Hartig 2006).

Discussion – Action 3 – Biological, Physical, and Administrative ImpactsChanging the trip limit will not impact stock status. Biological protection is provided through setting the TAC and preventing overages. There are no expected changes to the physical environment.

There would be some administrative impacts from implementing the change in trip limits.


4.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

4.1 Introduction

Executive Order 12866 requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that are of public interest. The RIR does three things: (1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a regulatory action; (2) it provides a review of the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives which could be used to solve the problem; and (3) it ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost effective way.

The RIR also serves as the basis for determining whether any proposed regulations are a “significant regulatory action” under certain criteria provided in Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and whether the approved regulations will have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities” in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA).

4.2 Problems and Objectives

The purpose and need, issues, problems, and objectives of the proposed amendment are presented in Section 2.0 and are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the purpose of this regulatory amendment is to implement management measures for the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel fisheries in response to new stock assessment data and to prevent overfishing and to support the goal for implementing the new fishing season for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in Amendment 15 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan.

4.3 Methodology and Framework for Analysis

This RIR assesses management measures from the standpoint of determining the resulting changes in costs and benefits to society. To the extent practicable, the net effects should be stated in terms of producer surplus, changes in profits, employment in the direct and support industries, and participation by commercial fishermen. However, much of this information does not exist for the fisheries that the proposed actions in this document refer to. Therefore, for commercial fishing, the impacts of the proposed actions are described in terms of projected changes in landings, estimated annual revenues, and quota-based fishery closure dates. For recreational fishing, the impacts of the proposed actions are described in terms of projected changes in catch.

4.4 Description of Fisheries

The commercial and recreational fisheries for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel are described in Section 6.3 and 6.4 and incorporated herein by reference.


4.5 Impacts of Mackerel TACs and Trip Limits

This proposed regulatory amendment considers four alternatives to set the TAC for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, four alternatives to set the TAC for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel, and two alternatives to set the trip limit for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The impacts associated with the various alternatives for changes to the mackerel Atlantic migratory group TAC are described in Section 7.2 and 7.3 and incorporated herein by reference. However, a summary is provided for each action.

Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC - Summary : Alternative 1 (status quo) describes the current fishery with approximately 660 participants in 2005/06 and gross commercial revenues of about $4.3 million. The 2006/07 fishing year is expected to yield $4.14 million dollars in revenue. Preferred Alternative 2 is not projected to result in revenue losses as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. Commercial landings are expected to be about 310,000 pounds less than the commercial allocation and 686,000 pounds less than the recreational allocation. The commercial quota under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1 would decrease by about 1 million pounds. The recreational allocation would decrease by about 1.8 million pounds. However, the Alternative 2 TAC is still approximately 0.7 million pounds greater than 2005/06 landings and 1 million pounds greater than the expected landings for 2006/07. Alternatives 2-4 would all reduce the current TAC with Alternative 3 having the greatest potential short-term economic impact to the commercial sector ($637,000 or a 15% decrease in revenue from 2005/06 or expected 2006/07 or $964 per vessel) and Alternative 4 having the smallest potential short-term economic impact to the commercial sector compared to the status quo. Under Alternative 3, the recreational fishery would suffer losses of an estimated 446,000 pounds of fish. This indicates a loss in consumer surplus of about $12,625 based on valuations calculated by Haab et al. (2001). In addition, Alternative 3 describes a scenario under which an early commercial closure is likely in November or perhaps sooner. The recreational sector is expected to reach their recreational allocation in September or October. All three alternatives are expected to benefit the commercial and recreational fisheries in the long-run in that they help maintain a sustainable fishery for continued future use. The preferred Alternative 2 is not expected to result in short-term economic losses and is expected to benefit the fishery in the long-run.

In light of the new king mackerel stock assessment data, Alternative 1 would result in overfishing of the king mackerel resource if the entire TAC were harvested. Alternative 2, 3, and 4 avoid overfishing and the long-term economic costs that would result under Alternative 1. The economic benefits associated with avoiding overfishing include a higher probability of preservation of commercial and recreational fishing operations, processing and fish buying operations, and fishing communities in the long-term. Non-use benefits include higher existence, bequest, and non-consumptive values (such as diving).


Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC - Summary: Alternative 1 (status quo) describes the current fishery with approximately 312 active participants7 in 2005/06 and gross commercial revenues of about $2.6 million. Preferred Alternative 2 is not expected to result in a change in revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects. The TAC would be set at 6.7 million pounds, 0.34 million pounds less than the 2005/06 TAC. The commercial quota under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1 would decrease by about 187,000 pounds. The recreational allocation would decrease by about 153,000 pounds. However, the Alternative 2 TAC is still over 1 million pounds greater than the 2005/06 landings and the expected total commercial and recreational landings for 2006/07. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both reduce the current TAC with Alternative 3 having the greatest potential short-term economic impact to the commercial sector with a decrease of 806,000 pounds ($588,000 or 22% decrease in revenue from 2005/06 or about $1,885 per active vessel). Under Alternative 3, the recreational fishery would see an increase of an estimated 560,000 pounds of fish above the estimated catch for 2006/07. Both alternatives are expected to benefit the commercial and recreational fisheries in the long-run in that they help maintain a sustainable fishery for continued future use. Preferred Alternative 2 is not expected to result in short-term economic losses and is expected to benefit the fishery in the long-run. However, an early fishery closure is likely to occur in February or sooner. Alternative 4 increases the TAC from the status quo.

Long-term economic and social benefits include a lower probability of overfishing the resource and a higher probability of sustaining commercial and recreational fishing operations and the communities that depend on them. Theoretically, there are higher long-term profits expected from Alternatives 2 and 3 than Alternatives 1 and 4. Long-term social benefits are expected to result from Alternatives 2 and 3 as well in the form of lower rates of social problems like divorce, alcoholism, drug usage, and domestic abuse as a result of higher long-term profits. Coastal municipal revenues would also maintain higher long-term levels, which support water, electrical, and other infrastructure as well as social services.

Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits - Summary: Alternative 1 maintains the status quo trip limits (starting at 3,500 pounds in April) even though the fishing year has shifted by one month to begin in March instead of April. Preferred Alternative 2 would provide fishing opportunities under the 3,500-pound trip limits when other fisheries are closed. This is expected to increase financial stability and economic profitability for some. According to some sources, the closures would take place when the fish are gathered together in dense groupings and the cast net fishery is more effective. This would result in negative economic impacts for that gear group. The March re-opening would occur at a time when the Spanish mackerel are about to migrate north and tend to spread out (Hartig 2006).

7 The reader should note that 312 is an estimate of the number of active participants (vessels) based on the number of logbooks filled out in 2005. There are vessels that fish for Spanish mackerel in state waters where logbooks and federal permits are not required. Therefore, the actual number of vessels fishing for Spanish mackerel in any given year is not known. However, it can be assumed that 312 vessels is likely an underestimate. Also, the reader should note that the revenue, landings, and other values given are associated with the 312 active participants referred to and do not apply to all vessels fishing for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The 312 participants are thought to be representative of the entire fleet.


4.6 Public and Private Costs of Regulations

The preparation, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of this or any Federal action involves the expenditure of public and private resources which can be expressed as costs associated with the regulations. Costs associated with this regulatory amendment include:

Table 7. Administrative cost information associated with the amendment.Cost Total

Council costs of document preparation, meetings, public hearings, and information dissemination $100,000

NOAA fisheries administrative costs of document preparation, meetings and review $100,000

Annual law enforcement costs unknownTOTAL $200,000

4.7 Summary of Economic Impacts

Action 1. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC.The proposed action is expected to result in a reduction of $0-$637,000 depending on the alternative chosen in gross ex-vessel revenue in the commercial Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery relative to the status quo (based on estimated 2006/07 landings). However, the losses are expected to be offset by the benefits associated with long-term sustainability of the resource.

Action 2. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC.The proposed action is expected to result in a reduction of $0-$588,000 depending on the alternative chosen in gross ex-vessel revenue in the commercial Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery relative to the status quo (based on estimated 2006/07 landings). However, the losses are expected to be offset by the benefits associated with long-term sustainability of the resource.

Action 3. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limit.The proposed action is expected to have positive economic benefits.

4.8 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action

Pursuant to executive Order (E.O.) 12866, a regulation is considered a “significant action” if it: (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy


issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.

The proposed Action 1 is expected to reduce short-term, ex-vessel revenues in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel commercial fishery by $0-$637,000, depending on the alternative chosen. The proposed Action 2 is expected to reduce short-term ex-vessel revenues in the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel commercial fishery by $0-$588,000, depending on the alternative chosen. No revenue losses are expected as a result of Action 3. While some of the alternatives under the proposed actions are expected to reduce short-term revenues for recreational fishermen and the supply industries they support, it is not know by how much. However, these commercial and recreational reductions are expected to be less than the economic harm that would result in the long-run if overfishing were allowed to occur. The proposed actions will not meet the $100 million threshold, nor are there expected to be any significant adverse effects on prices, employment, or competition. Also, these actions are not expected to adversely affect the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities, nor interfere or create inconsistency with any action of another agency, including state fishing agencies. No effects on the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof have been identified. These actions represent normal management options or practices and, therefore, do not raise novel legal or policy issues.

Since the proposed regulatory action will not meet any of the conditions listed above, it is determined that the proposed rule, if implemented, would not constitute a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.


5 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS

Introduction: The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to establish a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to ensure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA does not contain any decision criteria; instead, the purpose of the RFA is to inform the agency, as well as the public, of the expected economic impacts of the alternatives contained in the FMP or amendment (including framework management measures and other regulatory actions) and to ensure that the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected impacts while meeting the goals and objectives of the FMP/amendments and applicable statutes.

With certain exceptions, the RFA requires agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for each proposed rule. The regulatory flexibility analysis is designed to assess the impacts various regulatory alternatives would have on small entities, including small businesses, and to determine ways to minimize those impacts. In addition to analyses conducted for the RIR, the regulatory flexibility analysis provides: (1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; (2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for the proposed rule; (3) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; (4) a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (5) a description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements of the final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements of the report or record; and (6) a description of significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statues and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

Statement of need for, objectives of, and legal basis for the proposed rule: The purpose and need, issues, problems and objectives of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Framework Actions to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan are described in Section 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the objectives of the proposed rule are to prevent overfishing of Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel resources and to support the change in the fishing season implemented through Amendment 15 for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel with extension of current trip limits.

Identification of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule: No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.

Description of the projected reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of the report or records: The proposed rule does not impose any reporting or record keeping requirements.


Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply: Two general classes of small business entities would be directly affected by proposed Action 1 and 2, commercial fishing vessels and for-hire fishing vessels. Action 3 only impacts commercial fishing vessels. The Small Business Administration defines a small entity in the commercial fishing sector as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual gross receipts not in excess of $3.5 million. For a for-hire business, the appropriate revenue benchmark is $6.0 million.

For the portion of the commercial fishing vessels that harvest Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel, an analysis of the gross revenue per vessel was conducted using data from the NMFS Southeast logbook program. These vessels also operate in other federally permitted fisheries, some harvests of which are also reported in the Southeast logbook program.

Although some fleet activity may exist in this fishery, the extent of such has not been determined. Thus, all vessels are assumed to be unique business entities. Given the gross revenue profile captured by the Southeast logbook, it is assumed that it is unlikely the SBA revenue benchmark will be exceeded and it is assumed that all vessels are small entities.

An estimated 1119 commercial vessels, 243 charter vessels, and 5 headboats were permitted to participate in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery in January 20068. Many of these vessels also participate in the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery as well. In addition, many of the commercial vessels also participate as charter or headboats. Because the data on the number of permits does not distinguish between vessels that fish for Atlantic migratory group versus Gulf migratory group, it is necessary to make some assumptions about how many of these permits represent vessels that fish for south Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. Therefore, for the purposes of this document, it was assumed that permits associated with vessels homeported on the east coast of the U.S. and the east coast of Florida all fish for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. It was also assumed that 50% of the permits associated with vessels homeported to the west coast of Florida and non-coastal areas fish for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel.

A total of 661 vessels submitted logbooks with Atlantic migratory group king mackerel landings in 2006. The vessels averaged $4,249 real ex-vessel value for the 2005/06 fishing season. The 50th, 75th, and 99th percentile registered real ex-vessel values of $1,010, $4,311, and $45,254, respectively. The king mackerel fishery in 2005/06 produced about $4.3 million in ex-vessel revenue. For some vessels, annual revenue from Atlantic migratory group king mackerel is a large portion of their total revenue from fishing. During the 2005/06 season, vessels landing Atlantic migratory group king mackerel reported that king mackerel comprised, on average, 38% of their total real ex-vessel value of all species caught in 2005/06. The 50th, 75th, and 99th percentile reported revenue from Atlantic migratory group king mackerel as 27%, 69%, and 100% of their total real ex-vessel revenue during 2005/06, respectively.

8 Ownership of a federal permit does not indicate that the vessel is active in the fishery.


An estimated 956 commercial vessels, 177 charter vessels, and 8 headboats were permitted to participate in the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery in January 20069,10. Many of these vessels also participate in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery as well. In addition, many of the commercial vessels also participate as charter or headboats. As with Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, because the data on the number of permits does not distinguish between vessels that fish for Atlantic migratory group species versus Gulf migratory group species, it is necessary to make some assumptions about how many of these permits represent vessels that fish for south Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. Therefore, for the purposes of this document, it was assumed that permits associated with vessels homeported on the east coast of the U.S. and the east coast of Florida all fish for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. It was also assumed that 50% of the permits associated with vessels homeported to the west coast of Florida and non-coastal areas fish for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

A total of 312 vessels submitted logbooks with Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel landings in 200611. The vessels averaged $3,813 real ex-vessel value for the 2005/06 fishing season. The 50th, 75th, and 99th percentile registered real ex-vessel values of $432, $3,120, and $34,366, respectively. The Spanish mackerel fishery in 2005/06 produced about $2.7 million in ex-vessel revenue. For some vessels, annual revenue from Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel is a large portion of their total revenue from fishing. During the 2005/06 season, vessels landing Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel reported that Spanish mackerel comprised, on average, 24% of their total real ex-vessel value of all species caught in 2005/06. The 50th, 75th, and 99th percentile reported revenue from Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel as 7%, 38%, and 100% of their total real ex-vessel revenue during 2005/06, respectively.

Substantial number of small entities criterion: The proposed actions will apply to all permitted and/or active vessels in the respective fisheries. Since all vessels in these fisheries are assumed to be small entities, the proposed actions are determined to affect a substantial number of small entities.

Significant economic impact criterion: The outcome of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability.

Disproportionality: Do the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage as compared to large entities?

9 The reader should note that there are also vessels that fish for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in state waters where federal permits are not required.10 Ownership of a federal permit does not indicate that the vessel is active in the fishery.11 The reader should note that 312 is an estimate of the number of active participants (vessels) based on the number of logbooks filled out in 2005. There are vessels that fish for Spanish mackerel in state waters where logbooks and federal permits are not required. Therefore, the actual number of vessels fishing for Spanish mackerel in any given year is not known. However, it can be assumed that 312 vessels is likely an underestimate. Also, the reader should note that the revenue, landings, and other values given are associated with the 312 active participants referred to and do not apply to all vessels fishing for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The 312 participants are thought to be representative of the entire fleet.


All vessel operations affected by the proposed regulatory amendment are considered small entities so the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case. However, among the small entities in the commercial harvesting sector, there is some degree of diversity in terms of level of engagement in the king and Spanish mackerel fishery. A description of the heterogeneity in this fishing fleet is contained in Section 6.4.

Profitability: Do the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities?

Information on the profitability of the commercial king and Spanish mackerel fishery and for-hire sector is currently not available. However, total ex-vessel revenues can act as a proxy for profit. One alternative (Alternative 3) under Action 1 and one alternative (Alternative 3) under Action 2 could result in reduced profit levels for a large portion of the vessels participating in the fishery. As discussed in Section 7 of this document, Alternative 3 under Action 1 could result in losses in gross revenue of $637,000 for the commercial sector. It is not possible to predict which vessels or how many vessels would be impacted by Alternative 3 under Action 1 since it is not possible to predict when specific vessels will choose to fish or when the fishery would experience an early closure. However, on average, each vessel could experience a revenue loss of $554-$939 or 15% of the average per vessel ex-revenue received from Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in 2006/07 depending on the number of vessels that might fish in 2006/07. No losses in revenue are expected for the preferred Alternative 2.

As discussed in Section 7 of this document, Alternative 3 under Action 2 could result in losses in gross revenue of $588,000 for the Atlantic Spanish mackerel commercial sector. It is not possible to predict which vessels or how many vessels would be impacted by Alternative 3 under Action 1 since it is not possible to predict when specific vessels will choose to fish or when the fishery would experience an early closure. However, on average, each vessel could experience a revenue loss of $614-$1,885 or 22% of the average per vessel ex-revenue received from Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in 2006/07 depending on the number of vessels that might fish in 2006/07. No losses in revenue are expected for the preferred Alternative 2.

Description of Significant Alternatives: Under Action 1, four alternatives, including the status quo (10.0 MP TAC), were considered. The status quo would eliminate the short-term adverse impacts of some of the other alternatives, but would not address the potential development of overfishing and would not, therefore, achieve the Council’s objectives.

The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) under Action 1 would set the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC at 7.1 MP. This alternative prevents overfishing of the resource and is not expected to result in commercial or recreational economic losses.

Alternative 3 under Action 1 would set the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC at 5.3 MP. This alternative would have a higher probability of preventing overfishing than the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) but is estimated to potentially result in economic losses to the commercial sector of about $637,000. The recreational fishery would experience a loss in consumer surplus amounting to $12,625. In addition, this alternative could result in an early closure of the fishery.


Alternative 4 under Action 1 would set the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel TAC at 9.6 MP. This would have a lower probability of preventing overfishing than the preferred alternative (Alternative 2). Alternative 4 is not expected to result in any economic losses to the commercial or recreational fisheries.

Under Action 2, four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered. The status quo (7.04 MP TAC) would eliminate the short-term adverse impacts of some of the other alternatives, but would have a slightly higher probability of resulting in overfishing than the preferred alternative.

The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) under Action 2 would set the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC at 6.7 MP. This alternative prevents overfishing of the resource and is not expected to result in commercial or recreational economic losses.

Alternative 3 under Action 2 would set the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC at 5.2 MP. This alternative would have a higher probability of preventing overfishing than the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) but is estimated to potentially result in economic losses to the commercial sector of about $588,000. In addition, this alternative could result in an earlier closure of the fishery.

Alternative 4 under Action 2 would set the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel TAC at 8.4 MP. This would have a slightly higher probability of resulting in overfishing than the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 is not expected to result in any economic losses to the commercial or recreational fisheries.

Under Action 3, two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered. The status quo alternative maintains current trip limits, including the 3,500 pound trip limit for April-November, even though the fishing season begins in March (as implemented by Amendment 15).

Alternative 2 extends the 3,500 pound trip limit to March-November so that the fishery will be open and trip limits available during a time of the year when other fisheries are closed. Alternative 2 is expected to have positive economic benefits for the commercial sector in the form of increased financial.


6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Section 1502.15 of the CEQ regulations states “environmental impact statements shall succinctly describe the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration”. A brief description of the affected environment is included herein. The actions reviewed in this amendment are directed toward king and Spanish mackerel and the participants in these fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. A detailed description of the physical, biological/ecological, socioeconomic, and administrative environments related to the mackerel fisheries is provided in the CMP FMP (as amended) and in the Final EIS for the GMFMC’s Generic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment. That information is incorporated here by reference and summarized below along with other information from relevant documents, as cited below.

6.1 Physical Environment

The CMP FMP (with EIS), various amendments, and the GMFMC’s Generic EFH Amendment provide a review of the habitat of king and Spanish mackerel, and they are incorporated here by reference.

6.2 Biological Environment

The CMP FMP (with EIS), various amendments, the GMFMC’s Generic EFH Amendment, and the 2005 ASMFC Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Spanish Mackerel (ASMFC 2005) provide a review of the biology and habitat of king and Spanish mackerel, and they are incorporated here by reference. A summary of the biological environment of Gulf and Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel are provided.

6.2.1 Biology and Life History

King Mackerel - King mackerel is a marine pelagic species that is found throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea and along the western Atlantic from the Gulf of Maine to Brazil and from the shore to 200 meter depths. Adults are known to spawn in areas of low turbidity, with salinity and temperatures of approximately 30 parts per thousand (ppt) and 27C, respectively. There are major spawning areas off Louisiana and Texas in the Gulf (McEachran and Finucane 1979); and off the Carolinas, Cape Canaveral, and Miami in the western Atlantic (Wollam 1970; Schekter 1971; Mayo 1973). Spawning occurs generally from May through October with peak spawning in September (McEachran and Finucane 1979). Eggs and larvae are pelagic over depths of 30 to 180 meters, and larvae may descend to mid-depths during the day. Juveniles are generally found closer to shore at inshore to mid-shelf depths (to < 9 m) and occasionally in estuaries. Adults are migratory, and the CMP FMP recognizes two migratory groups (Gulf and Atlantic) that are shown in Figure 1 herein. Typically, adult king mackerel are found in the southern climates (south Florida and extreme south Texas/Mexico) in the winter and in the northern Gulf in the summer. Food availability and water temperature are likely causes of these migratory patterns. King mackerel mature at approximately age 2 to 3 and have longevities of 24 to 26 years for females and 23 years for males (GMFMC/SAFMC 1985; MSAP 1996; Brooks and Ortiz 2004). King mackerel primarily eat other fish species (herring, sardines, and


menhaden) and to a lesser extent squid at all life stages (larvae to adult). In turn they are eaten primarily by larger pelagic predators, e.g., sharks (GMFMC/SAFMC 1985).

Spanish Mackerel - Spanish mackerel is also a pelagic species, occurring over depths to 75 meters throughout the coastal zones of the western Atlantic from southern New England to the Florida Keys and throughout the Gulf of Mexico (Collette and Russo 1979). Adults usually are found in neritic waters and along coastal areas. They will inhabit estuarine areas, especially the higher salinity areas, during seasonal migrations, but are considered rare and infrequent in many Gulf estuaries. Spawning occurs along the inner continental shelf from April to September (Powell 1975). Eggs and larvae occur most frequently offshore over the inner continental shelf at temperatures between 20C to 32C and salinities between 28 ppt and 37 ppt. They are also most frequently found in water depths from 9 to about 84 meters, but are most common in < 50 meters. Juveniles are most often found in coastal and estuarine habitats and at temperatures >25C and salinities >10 ppt. Although they occur in waters of varying salinity, juveniles appear to prefer marine salinity levels and generally are not considered estuarine dependent. Like king mackerel, adult Spanish mackerel are migratory, generally moving from wintering areas of south Florida and Mexico to more northern latitudes in spring and summer. Spanish mackerel generally mature at age 1 to 2 and have a maximum age of approximately 11 years (Powell 1975). Like Gulf group king mackerel, Spanish mackerel primarily eat other fish species (herring, sardines, and menhaden) and to a lesser extent crustaceans and squid at all life stages (larvae to adult). They are eaten primarily by larger pelagic predators like sharks, tunas, and bottlenose dolphin.

6.2.2 Status of the Stocks

King Mackerel – In 2003, the first SEDAR assessment of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico king mackerel was conducted sing data from 1981-2002. The SEDAR 5 Advisory Report (April 2004) concluded that the Atlantic king mackerel stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2002/2003. Current estimates indicate the fishing mortality rate of Atlantic king mackerel in fishing year 2002/2003 was well below MFMT and spawning biomass was well above MSST at the beginning of fishing year 2003/2004. The Base model resulted in only a 2% probability that B2003 was less than MSST, and there was only a 1% probability that F2002/2003 was greater than MFMT (FMSY). Combined mean landings of king mackerel were 7.37 million pounds between 1981/1982 and 2001/2002, with a range of 5.66 million pounds (1999/2000) to 9.62 million pounds (1985/1986) (Table 8). Estimated Atlantic king mackerel stock size has increased since the mid-1990s but not to the higher levels seen in the early 1980s. Recently, recruitment has been highly variable with a low and highly uncertain value in the most recent data year (2001/2002).

The SAMFC’s stated objective is to select a TAC for Atlantic king mackerel that has a median probability of achieving its management target, Optimum Yield (OY), defined as the yield associated with a fishing mortality rate of F40%SPR. The SEDAR 5 Advisory Report (April 2004) only provided a point estimate of ABC for Atlantic king mackerel and not a range as was done for Gulf king mackerel. The point estimate provided in the Advisory Report was 5.6 million pounds. The Advisory Report did provide information on a range of yields at F40%SPR. The median estimate of yield at F40%SPR is 5.8 million pounds (20th - 80th percentile range =


4.5 – 7.9 million pounds). Catches above 5.8 million pounds would exceed 50% probability of future F> F40%SPR, conditional on projection assumptions. F40%SPR is the SAFMC’s target mortality rate while the actual fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) is F30%SPR (FMSY). [Note: These recommendations are based on assuming 100% of the fish in the mixing zone are Gulf king mackerel. The alternatives included in this framework are based on a 50/50 mixing rate.]

Spanish Mackerel - The Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP 1996) conducted a full stock assessment for Atlantic Group Spanish mackerel in 2003, which included data through the 2001/2002 fishing year; projected landings through 2002/2003 also were included. Estimated fishing mortality for Atlantic Group Spanish mackerel has been below FMSY and FOY since 1995. Estimated stock abundance has increased steadily since 1995 and is now at a high for the analysis period. Stock biomass has increased from about 19 million to 24 million fish. Probabilities that Spanish mackerel is overfished are less than 1% and that overfishing has occurred in the most recent fishing year of the assessment are 3%; therefore the MSAP concluded that Atlantic Group Spanish mackerel were not overfished and overfishing did not occur in 2002/2003. Although all measures of stock status are well within desirable ranges, the median estimate of MSY dropped from 6.4 million pounds in the last full assessment in 1998 to 5.2 million pounds in the 2003 assessment. Much of the decline is believed to be due to the lower estimates of recruitment between the 2003 and the 1998 assessments. The MSAP recommended ABC as the median estimate of catch at F 40% SPR, which is 6.7 million pounds (20th –80th percentile range = 5.2 - 8.4 million pounds).

The Council staff presented the 2003 MSAP stock assessment and a variety of management options to the South Atlantic Council. The Council voted to defer framework action on Spanish mackerel until after the SEDAR stock assessment. Therefore the existing regulation of a TAC of 7.04 million pounds remained in effect for the 2005/2006 and 2006/07 fishing years. The estimate of landings for the 2000/2001 fishing year was 5.08 million pounds, well below the TAC of 7.04 million pounds. If the fishery developed greater capacity and TAC was realized at a level of 7.04 million pounds for several years, fishing mortality rates would increase and eventually may exceed F 30% SPR. Consequently, fishing at this level over time would eventually reduce spawning stock biomass to a level below that which is capable of producing MSY on a continuing basis.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Plan Review Team (PRT) believes harvest reductions are due to management measures in state and federal waters as well as the recreational fishery targeting other species. The low level of harvest in relation to the stock size is encouraging for stock rebuilding, which is reflected in the increase in transitional SPR. Cooperative State/Federal management has achieved a successful stock recovery.

TAC is currently 7.04 million pounds, and based on the most recent assessment, the Stock Assessment Panel recommended an ABC range of 5.2 to 8.4 million pounds, with a median value of 6.7 million pounds. This yield would be in excess of the best point estimate of maximum sustainable yield (5.2 million pounds); however, the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery is not overfishing the available stock, and the stock is not overfished. This is because the current biomass is estimated to be above the biomass at MSY. Therefore, the


difference in the current stock size and the MSY stock size could be harvested, reducing the stock size to the MSY level.

6.3 Current Management Measures

The present management regime for king mackerel recognizes two migratory groups, the Gulf migratory group and the Atlantic migratory group (Figure 1). Allocations were established for recreational and commercial fisheries, and the commercial allocation was divided between net and hook-and-line fishermen. For the purpose of allocating a limited resource among users, the management plan set ratios based on historic, unregulated catches. The Atlantic Migratory Group of king mackerel is allocated with 62.9% to recreational fishermen and 37.1% to commercial fishermen. For Gulf migratory group king mackerel the allocation is 68% recreational and 32% commercial. These groups mix on the east coast of Florida; however the extent of mixing is not well understood. For management and assessment purposes, a boundary between groups was specified as the Volusia-Flagler County border on the Florida east coast in the winter (November 1-March 31) and the Monroe-Collier County border on the Florida southwest coast in the summer (April 1-October 31). In the Atlantic, the fishing year currently begins on March 1 and ends on February 28/29, if the commercial quota has not already been met. For the area in Florida between the Volusia/Flagler and Monroe/Collier county boundaries, king mackerel are considered part of the Atlantic migratory group from April 1 through October 31.

The current TAC for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel is 10.0 million pounds (MP), the commercial quota is 3.71 million pounds (MP), and all fish must be landed with head and fins intact. Authorized commercial gears for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel north of Cape Lookout Light (34 37.3' North Latitude), North Carolina are all gears, except drift gill nets and long gill nets. South of Cape Lookout, authorized gear includes automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, and rod and reel. A minimum size of 4.75-inch stretched mesh is required for run-around gill nets. No more than 400,000 pounds may be harvested by purse seines. Fishermen may possess undersized king mackerel less than or equal to 5% by weight of the king mackerel onboard.

Commercial trip limits are in effect for this fishery. From New York to the Flagler/Volusia county line, from April 1 to March 31, the trip limit is 3,500 pounds. From the Flagler/Volusia county line to the Volusia/Brevard County line from April 1 through October 31, the trip limit is 3,500 pounds. From the Volusia/Brevard to the Miami-Dade/Monroe county line, from April 1 to October 31, the trip limit is 75 fish. In Monroe County through the Florida Keys, the trip limit is 1,250 pounds.

There is a minimum size limit of 24 inches fork length (FL) for both the commercial and recreational harvest of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. The recreational catch is managed by a bag limit of 3-fish per person per day from New York through Georgia, and 2-fish per person per day off the east coast of Florida. These regulations (bag and size limits) are intended to achieve the recreational allocation of 6.29 MP; however there is no “hard quota” whereby the recreational fishery closes. If the allocation is exceeded, the Council will take


action to reduce the bag limit and/or alter the minimum size limit. Federal and state bag limits may not be combined. Charterboat and headboat operators must possess a vessel permit and must comply with bag limits; however, on trips of more than 24 hours, two bag limits may be possessed.

The fishery for Spanish mackerel is governed by a 7.04 MP TAC in the Atlantic. The TAC is divided 55%/45% for the commercial and recreational fisheries. A minimum size limit of 12 inches FL and a bag/possession limit of 15 are imposed for Spanish mackerel. The fishing season extends from March 1 through February 28/29 of each year, unless there is a quota closure for the commercial fishery.

Tables 8 and 9 provide ABC, TAC, commercial quota, recreational allocation, and harvest information for Atlantic groups of king and Spanish mackerel, respectively.


Table 8. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel management regulations and harvest. Pounds are in millions.

FishingYear

ABCRange(M lbs)

TAC(M lbs)

Rec. Allocation

(lbs. / numbers)

Rec. Bag Limit

CommercialQuota

AnnualCom.

HarvestRec.

LevelsTotal

1986/87 6.9 -15.4 9.68 3 3.59 (PS=0.40) 2.837 5.980 8.817

1987/88 6.9 -15.4 9.68 6.09 3 3.59 (PS=0.40) 3.448 3.905 7.353

1988/89 5.5 -10.7 7.00 4.40 2 in FL, 3 GA-NC

2.60 (PS=0.40) 3.091 4.881 7.972

1989/90 6.9 -15.4 9.00 5.66 / 666,000

2 in FL, 3 GA-NC 3.34 2.619 3.400 6.019

1990/91 6.5 -15.7 8.30 5.22 / 601,000

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.08 2.675 3.718 6.393

1991/92 9.6 -15.5 10.50 6.60 / 735,000 5 in FL-NY 3.90 2.515 5.822 8.337

1992/93 8.6 -12.0 10.50 6.60 / 834,000

2 in FL, 5 GA-NY 3.90 2.254 6.251 8.505

1993/94 9.9 -14.6 10.50 6.60 / 854,000

2 in FL, 5 GA-NY 3.90 2.018 4.438 6.456

1994/95 7.6 -10.3 10.00 6.29 / 709,000

2 in FL, 5 GA-NY 3.71 2.182 3.728 5.910

1995/96 7.3 -15.5 7.30 4.60 / 454,000

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 2.70 1.866 4.153 6.019

1996/97 4.1 - 6.8 6.80 4.28 / 438,525

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 2.52 2.703 3.990 6.693

1997/98 4.1 - 6.8 6.80 4.28 / 438,525

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 2.52 2.683 5.158 7.841

1998/99 8.4 - 11.9 8.40 5.28 / 504,780

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.12 2.549 4.268 6.817

1999/00 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 2.236 3.424 5.660

2000/01 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 2.107 5.338 7.445

2001/02 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 2.022 3.240 5.263

2002/03 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 1.745 2.672 4.417

2003/04 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 1.730 4.100 5.831

2004/05 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 2.820 3.287 6.107

2005/06 8.9 - 13.3 10.0 6.29 / 601,338

2 in FL, 3 GA-NY 3.71 2.424 3.954 6.378

Notes: 1) The range has been defined in terms of acceptable risk of achieving the FMP’s fishing mortality rate target; the Panel’s best estimate of ABC has been intermediate to the end-points of this range; 2) Recreational allocation in numbers is the allocation divided by an estimate of annual average weight; 3) Sums within rows may not appear to equal the total value shown due to rounding of numbers before printing; 4) Bag limit not reduced to zero when allocation reached, beginning fishing year 1992; 5) Bag limit reduced from 5 to 3 effective 1/1/96; and 6) Season is April through March for 2001/02 through 2004/05 and March through the end of February for 2005/06.Source: ALS data, August 9, 2006; Data provided by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, October 2006.


Table 9. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel management regulations. Pounds are in millions.

FishingYear

ABCRange(M lbs)

TAC(M lbs)

Rec. Allocation

(lbs. / numbers)

Rec. Bag Limit

CommercialQuota

AnnualCom.

HarvestRec.

LevelsTotal

1987/88 1.7 - 3.1 3.1 0.74 4 in FL, 10 GA-NC 2.36 3.475 1.474 4.949

1988/89 1.3 - 5.5 4.0 0.96 4 in FL, 10 GA-NC 3.04 3.521 2.740 6.261

1989/90 4.1 - 7.4 6.0 2.76 / 1,725,000

4 in FL, 10 GA-NC 3.24 3.941 1.569 5.51

1990/91 4.2 - 6.6 5.0 1.86 / 1,216,000

4 in FL, 10 GA-NC 3.14 3.535 2.075 5.61

1991/92 5.5 - 13.5 7.0 3.50 / 2,778,000

5 in FL, 10 GA-NC 3.50 4.707 2.287 6.994

1992/93 4.9 - 7.9 7.0 3.50 / 2,536,000 10 FL - NY 3.50 3.727 1.995 5.722

1993/94 7.3 - 13.0 9.0 4.50 / 3,214,000 10 FL - NY 4.50 4.811 1.493 6.304

1994/95 4.1 - 9.2 9.2 4.60 / 3,262,000 10 FL - NY 4.60 5.254 1.378 6.632

1995/96 4.9 - 14.7 9.4 4.70 / 3,113,000 10 FL - NY 4.70 1.834 1.089 2.923

1996/97 5.0 - 7.0 7.0 3.50 / 2,713,000 10 FL - NY 3.50 3.098 0.849 3.947

1997/98 5.8 - 9.4 8.0 4.00 / 2,564,000 10 FL - NY 4.00 3.057 1.660 4.717

1998/99 5.4 - 8.2 8.0 4.00 / 2,564,000 10 FL - NY 4.00 3.272 0.817 4.089

1999/00 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 10 FL - NY 3.52 2.370 1.505 3.875

2000/01 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 2,032,000 15 FL - NY 3.87 2.794 2.699 5.493

2001/02 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 2,032,000 15 FL - NY 3.87 3.036 2.008 5.044

2002/03 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 2,032,000 15 FL - NY 3.87 3.207 2.072 5.279

2003/04 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 2,032,000 15 FL - NY 3.87 3.741 1.994 5.735

2004/05 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 2,032,000 15 FL - NY 3.87 3.678 1.371 5.049

2005/06 5.7 - 9.0 7.04 3.17 / 2,032,000 15 FL - NY 3.87 3.579 1.985 5.564

Notes: 1) The range has been defined in terms of acceptable risk of achieving the FMP’s fishing mortality rate target; the Panel’s best estimate of ABC has been intermediate to the end-points of this range; 2) Recreational allocation in numbers is the allocation divided by an estimate of annual average weight (not used prior to fishing year 1989); 3) Sums within rows may not appear to equal the total value shown due to rounding of numbers before printing; 4) Allocations and rec. quota are as revised October 14, 1989; 5) Bag limit not be reduced to zero when allocation reached, beginning fishing year 1992; and 6) Season is April through March for 2001/02 through 2004/05 and March through the end of February for 2005/06.Source: ALS data, August 9, 2006; Data provided by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, October 2006.


6.4 Economic Environment

6.4.1 Status of the Fishery

King and Spanish mackerel remain important recreational and commercial fisheries in South Atlantic waters. For both fisheries, trip limits continue to prevent premature closure of the commercial fishery before the end of the fishing year.

6.4.1.1 Commercial Fishery

Harvest in the Commercial FisheryFor the king mackerel fishery, commercial landings have been below 3 million pounds since 1989/90. Over that period of time, commercial landings peaked during the 2004/05 fishing season at 2.8 million pounds. In 2005/06, landings reached 2.4 million pounds, a decrease from 2004/05 of about 400,000 pounds (Table 8). The king mackerel fishery experiences commercial landings primarily in North Carolina and Florida. Table 10 provides commercial landings by area for 2001/02 to 2005/06.

For the Spanish mackerel fishery, since 1995/96 the commercial landings have been below 4 million pounds. In 2005/06, commercial landings were approximately 3.6 million pounds, a slight decrease from the 3.7 million pounds landed in 2004/05 (Table 9). Prosecuted predominantly in state waters from Virginia to Florida, the majority of the commercial fishery for Spanish mackerel occurs in Florida and North Carolina. Table 11 provides information on Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel commercial landings by major area. Table 10 shows that North Carolina and Florida take the majority of commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. North Carolina landings have varied widely over the past five years with a low of 592,000 taken in 2003/04. Since then, North Carolina landings have surpassed landings in 2001/02. Central and south Florida landings peaked in 2004/05, as did North Carolina’s. However, central and south Florida landings have returned to levels similar to those occurring in 2001/02.

Table 11 shows that landings of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel occur predominately in Florida. Atlantic landings to Florida peaked in 2003/04 and those landings have been maintained. North Carolina landings reached a five year low in 2005/06, almost 200,000 pounds less compared to 2001/02.

Table 10. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel commercial landings by area, thousand of pounds, 2001/02 - 2005/06.

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06NY through

Flagler County 1,008 854 642 1,193 1,157

North Carolina 930 777 592 1,130 1,087Volusia County

through Miami-Dade

County

958 847 1,065 1,593 996

Monroe 56 44 23 34 34


CountyNote: Season is April through March for 2001/02 through 2004/05 and March through the end of February for 2005/06.Note: South Carolina and Georgia were not included in this table due to confidentiality issues.

Table 11. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel commercial landings by area, thousands of pounds, 2001/02 - 2005/06.

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06NY – GA 873 852 589 547 454

North Carolina 653 699 457 456 445Florida east

Coast 2,163 2,355 3,152 3,130 3,125

Note: Season is April through March for 2001/02 through 2004/05 and March through the end of February for 2005/06.Note: South Carolina and Georgia were not included in this table due to confidentiality issues.

Ex-vessel PricesAnnual real ex-vessel prices (2004 dollars) for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel, during the fishing years 1981/82 through 2005/06 are shown in Table 12 and Figure 2 for the Atlantic coastal states (Maine through Florida east coast). In general, prices for both species have increased since 1981/82, by 25% for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel and by about 45% for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. King mackerel prices peaked several times in the 1990s and early 2000s at about $2.03/pound and Spanish mackerel peaked at $0.82 in the late 1990s. In general, prices for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel are somewhat lower that prices received for most of the 1990s and early part of this decade while prices for Spanish mackerel have remained relatively steady over this period of time.

Ex-vessel prices of king mackerel, the U.S. market, and estimated imports of king mackerel and possible substitute species have been described and analyzed using econometric models (Easeley et al. 1993; Vondruska and Antozzi 1999; Vondruska 1999). The model results indicate that demand for king mackerel is relatively price elastic for the U.S. market as a whole. That is, compared with any given percentage change in market supply, the expected percentage change in ex-vessel price is much smaller, holding other factors constant.

The models also indicate statistically significant shifts in ex-vessel prices of king mackerel during the year because of variations in landings. Landings of king mackerel exhibit extreme seasonal variation in some major harvest areas, more so for the Gulf group than the Atlantic group, and this affects the annual average ex-vessel price.

Logbook indicators of commercial fishing activitySince 1998, fishermen have completed and submitted FMP-mandated logbooks for commercial fishing trips for king and Spanish mackerel. The data base management systems for fisherman-supplied logbooks and southeast coastal state-collected commercial landings are administered by the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami. Tables 13 and 14 provide average values for various categories for the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel fisheries over the past five years. The reader should note that while all federally permitted vessels are required to fill out and send in logbooks, there are vessels in state waters that fish for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel that are not required to fill out logbooks.


Table 12. Ex-vessel prices for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel (2004 dollars).

Year Atlantic king mackerel ex-vessel prices Atlantic Spanish mackerel ex-vessel prices1981/82 $1.42 $0.521982/83 $1.51 $0.481983/84 $1.41 $0.421984/85 $1.51 $0.411985/86 $1.66 $0.451986/87 $1.62 $0.501987/88 $1.71 $0.571988/89 $1.66 $0.531989/90 $1.75 $0.531990/91 $1.72 $0.511991/92 $1.76 $0.541992/93 $2.03 $0.571993/94 $1.92 $0.551994/95 $1.91 $0.591995/96 $1.95 $0.781996/97 $1.81 $0.641997/98 $1.76 $0.711998/99 $2.03 $0.691999/00 $1.94 $0.822000/01 $2.04 $0.752001/02 $2.03 $0.752002/03 $1.98 $0.732003/04 $1.64 $0.672004/05 $1.68 $0.772005/06 $1.78 $0.73Note: Season is April through March for 2001/02 through 2004/05 and March through the end of February for 2005/06.

Figure 2. Ex-vessel prices for Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel, 1981-2006.

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

Year

2004

dol

lars

Atlantic king mackerelAtlantic Spanish mackerel


Information from vessels fishing in state waters and not required to fill our logbooks for fishing in these areas, has not been incorporated into the data shown below. Therefore, the number of vessels is likely an underestimate of the number of vessels actually fishing for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. However, the below information is correct for the number of vessels turning in logbooks and these vessels serve as a representation of the entire fleet.

Over the past five years total commercial pounds landed (Table 8), pounds landed per vessel annually, and pounds landed per trip (Table 13) have increased while the number of vessels declined. At the same time, real ex-vessel value remained unchanged due to the decrease in ex-vessel prices from $2.03 in 2001/2002 to $1.78 in 2005/06 (Table 12). Ex-vessel value of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel increased in the percentage of value it contributed to all species caught in the year. The total number of trips and days away from port on fishing trips for king mackerel declined from 2001 to 2005. It appears that while the fleet has decreased in size, those remaining have increased landings but not value due to market changes. Given increasing fuel prices over the past several years, the average vessel likely experienced decreased net income since 2001.

Table 13. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel mean statistics, 2001/02 - 2005/06 (2004 dollars).

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Vessels 750 718 715 695 661

Pounds landed (king mackerel) 2,287 2,043 2,727 3,147 2,571

Pounds landed per trip (king mackerel) 167 163 203 247 232

Real ex-vessel value (king mackerel), 2004 $ $4,288 $3,882 $4,269 $4,982 $4,249

Real ex-vessel value (% all species caught in yr),

2004 $33.2% 31.5% 33.3% 39.3% 37.7%

Real ex-vessel value per trip (king mackerel),

2004 $$313 $311 $317 $391 $384

Real ex-vessel value per trip (% all species), same trips, 2004 $

77% 76% 80% 81% 77%

Trips (king mackerel) 13.7 12.5 13.5 12.7 11.08Crew size per king

mackerel trip 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6

Days away from port (king mackerel) 19.7 17.7 17.5 16.2 15.6

Days away from port (trips all species) 47.7 48.5 47.6 42 39.8

Note: Not all vessels providing logbooks provided data for every category included in the table.Source: NMFS Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook, 2005/06. As of May 26, 2006. ALS data accessed August 9, 2006.

Over the past five years total commercial pounds landed (Table 9), pounds landed per vessel annually, and pounds landed per trip (Table 14) for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel increased while the number of vessels declined. Annual and per trip real ex-vessel value


increased while ex-vessel prices remained at the same level ($0.75) (Table 12). Ex-vessel value of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel increased slightly in the percentage of value it contributed to all species caught in the year. The total number of trips increased slightly and days away from port on fishing trips for Spanish mackerel increased slightly from 2001 to 2005. However, total days away from port fishing for all species declined from 44 to 39 from 2001 to 2005. While the fleet decreased in size, those remaining have increased landings and real ex-vessel value has increased somewhat. Increasing fuel prices over the past several years may have negated any revenue increases.

Table 14. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel mean statistics, 2001/02 - 2005/06 (2004 dollars).

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Vessels 348 371 323 310 312

Pounds landed (Spanish mackerel) 4,608 5,019 5,903 5,300 5,391

Pounds landed per trip (Spanish mackerel) 495 498 592 536 545

Real ex-vessel value (Spanish mackerel),

2004 $ $3,323 $3,521 $3,714 $4,012 $3,813

Real ex-vessel value (% all species caught in

yr), 2004 $22.4% 22.7% 22.6% 22.7% 24%

Real ex-vessel value per trip (Spanish mackerel), 2004 $

$357 $349 $372 $405 $386

Real ex-vessel value per trip (% all species),

same trips, 2004 $65% 64% 71% 72% 71%

Trips (Spanish mackerel) 9.3 10.1 10 9.9 9.9

Crew size per trip 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Days away from port

(mackerel) 9.7 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.2

Days away from port (all species) 44 44 47 39 39

Note: Not all vessels providing logbooks provided data for every category included in the table.Source: NMFS Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook, 2005/06. As of May 26, 2006. ALS data accessed August 9, 2006.

Tables 15 and 16 provide various statistics regarding landings, revenue, vessel specifications, trips, and crew size for the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel fisheries. The 661 vessels that submitted logbooks with Atlantic migratory group king mackerel landings in 2005/06 were, on average, 31 feet in length, had 350 horsepower, spent 15 days away from port each year fishing for king mackerel, and used 1.5 crew members per trip for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. Although this information does not encompass the entire population of vessels fishing for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, this data set can provide some indication of characteristics of the fleet.

A large portion of the vessels fishing for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel obtain a significant portion of total exvessel revenue from the species as a percentage of all species


caught in the year. The data shows that the median vessel obtains 27% of real ex-vessel value from king mackerel as a percentage of all species caught in the year. The 75th – 90th percentile range received about 70% - 100% of real ex-vessel value from king mackerel as a percentage of all species caught in that year. However, for the 75th -90th percentile this amounts to only about $4,300 – $12,400 ex-vessel value. On a per trip basis, the 75th – 90th percentile range makes about $475 - $1000 ex-vessel per trip from landings of king mackerel. This encompasses 100% of ex-vessel value from all species for those trips.

The 312 vessels that submitted logbooks with Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel landings in 2005/06 were, on average, 30 feet in length, had 295 horsepower, spent 10 days away from port each year fishing for Spanish mackerel, and used 1.5 crew members per trip for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

A portion of the vessels fishing for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel obtain a significant portion of total exvessel revenue from the species as a percentage of all species caught in the year. The data shows that while the median vessel obtains only 7% of real ex-vessel value from Spanish mackerel as a percentage of all species caught in the year, the 75th – 90th percentile range receives about 38% - 87% of real ex-vessel value from Spanish mackerel as a

Table 15. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel statistics by vessel, 2005/06 (2004 dollars). The table features data contained in 661 logbooks.

Mean 25th percentile

50th percentile

75th percentile

90th percentile 99th percentile

Length (ft) 31 26 30 35 42 53Horsepower 350 220 300 425 590 900

Depth fished for king mackerel (ft) 94 70 85 100 135 230

Pounds landed (king mackerel) 2571 116 643 2,521 7,136 28,465

Pounds landed per trip (king mackerel) 232 38 110 276 595 1,151

Real ex-vessel value (king mackerel) $4,249 $193 $1,010 $4,311 $12,379 $45,254

Real ex-vessel value (% all species caught in yr) 37.7% 2% 27% 69% 100% 100%

Real ex-vessel value per trip (king mackerel) $384 $67 $194 $474 $993 $2,392

Real ex-vessel value (% of all species caught on

trip)77 66 98 100 100 100


same trips77% 66% 98% 100% 100% 100%

Trips (king mackerel) 11.08 2 6 15 29 58Crew size per king

mackerel trip 1.57 1 1 2 3 4

Days away from port (king mackerel) 15.6 3 8 22 42 90

Days away from port (trips all species) 39.8 9 25 57 97 170

Note: Not all 661 vessels providing logbooks provided data for every category included in the table.


Source: NMFS Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook, 2005/06. As of May 26, 2006. ALS data accessed August 9, 2006.

Table 16. Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel statistics by vessel, 2005/06 (2004 dollars). The table features data contained in 312 logbooks.

Mean 25th percentile

50th percentile

75th percentile

90th percentile

99th

percentileLength (ft) 30 25 28 34 40 51

Horsepower 295 200 250 375 454 840Depth fished for

Spanish mackerel (ft) 42.5 20 30 60 80 150

Pounds landed (Spanish mackerel) 5,391 37 487 4,579 16,836 60,674

Pounds landed per trip (Spanish mackerel) 545 37 259 800 1,488 3,271

Real ex-vessel value (Spanish mackerel) $3,813 $40 $432 $3,120 $12,412 $34,366

Real ex-vessel value (% all species caught in yr) 24% 1% 7% 38% 87% 100%

Real ex-vessel value per trip (Spanish

mackerel)$386 $35 $212 $551 $972 $2,237


same trips71% 38% 95% 100% 100% 100%

Trips (Spanish mackerel) 9.89 2 4 13 25 67

Trips (all species) 36.2 13 27 54 80 120Crew size per trip 1.5 1 1 2 2 3

Days away from port (mackerel) 10.2 2 5 13 25 67

Days away from port (all species) 39.1 13 29 57 87 157

Note: Not all 312 vessels providing logbooks provided data for every category included in the table.Source: NMFS Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook, 2005/06. As of May 26, 2006. ALS data accessed August 9, 2006.

percentage of all species caught in that year. However, for the 75th -90th percentile this amounts to only about $4,300 – $12,400 ex-vessel value. On a per trip basis, the 75th – 90th percentile range makes about $550 - $970 ex-vessel per trip from landings of Spanish mackerel and this encompasses 100% of ex-vessel value from all species for those trips. Clearly, fishermen fishing for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel participate in a portfolio of other fisheries and/or supplement their income by other means (second job).

6.4.1.2 Recreational Fishery

ParticipationTable 17 depicts the number of saltwater anglers in the South Atlantic. This includes participants engaged in all fisheries and those anglers who either fished from private/rental boats, from charter boats or by shore/beach bank mode. Overall, recreational fishing participation increased


by about 450,000 (9%) from 2001 to 2005. Most saltwater anglers fish on the east coast of Florida and North Carolina. In Florida, in recent years, recreational participation hit a five year low in 2004 before rebounding in 2005 to rival participation in 2001. In Georgia, participation has increased in the past three years from a low of about 150,000 in 2002. North Carolina participation has increased to reach a five year high in 2005. South Carolina has experienced the largest percentage increase in participation by doubling since 2002.

Anglers target a variety of species including South Atlantic group king and Spanish mackerel. It is not possible to extract the estimated number of participants who targeted or caught South Atlantic group king and Spanish mackerel from this dataset. A more specific estimate of recreational activity in the king and Spanish mackerel can be obtained from the harvest data reported in the latter part of this section.

Table 17. Participants in recreational fisheries by state, 2001-2005.2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

FL east coast 2,649,299 2,088,671 2,206,209 1,918,226 2,467,522Georgia 212,215 147,901 267,641 275,691 247,297North Carolina 2,006,661 1,765,205 2,102,925 2,055,415 2,261,647

South Carolina 481,426 392,301 571,448 661,772 831,328Total 5,349,601 4,394,078 5,148,223 4,911,104 5,807,794Source: MRFSS, NOAA Fisheries (http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/data.html).

Recreational Fishing EffortShore, Charter, Private/Rental Trips

Table 18 shows the number of recreational fishing trips made from shore, charter vessel and private or rental vessel over the past five years by state. Trips made by headboats are included in the next sub-section. These trips are not species specific since the data set cannot be divided in that manner.

Table 18. Number of trips by state, 2001-2005.2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Florida east coast 12,464,111 10,303,392 11,443,784 10,587,960 11,964,599

Georgia 806,849 619,085 971,208 929,377 859,360North Carolina 6,649,546 5,586,122 6,733,464 7,024,677 6,822,954South Carolina 1,675,601 1,254,295 2,097,813 2,235,629 2,188,359Total 21,596,107 17,762,894 21,246,269 20,777,644 21,835,272Source: MRFSS, NOAA Fisheries (http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/data.html).

The number of fishing trips from shore, charter vessels, and through private or rental trips in the South Atlantic reached a five year high in 2005. Florida experiences the most fishing trips with North Carolina experiencing the second largest amount (about half that of Florida). The number of recreational trips in Florida have declined slightly since 2001. The number of trips in Georgia reached almost 1 million in 2004 before declining slightly in 2005. North Carolina trips reached a five year high in 2004 and ended in 2006 with about the same number of trips that occurred in 2001. South Carolina trips have increased since 2001 by about 30%.


http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/data.html


Headboat TripsTable 19 shows the total number of angler days for the headboat sector in the U.S. South Atlantic. This represents all headboat effort and not only those trips where South Atlantic group king and Spanish mackerel species were caught. These estimates are calculated from a survey where it is not possible to associate catch with a specific angler on the trip. However, it is expected that a significant portion of these trips target mackerel species.

Table 19. Estimated headboat angler days for the U.S. South Atlantic.

Year Florida GeorgiaNorth Carolina

South Carolina Total

2001 138,390 na 31,779 49,263 219,4322002 125,322 na 27,601 42,467 195,3902003 122,313 na 22,998 36,556 181,8672004 149,542 na 27,255 50,461 227,2582005 145,686 na 31,573 34,036 211,295

Source: The Headboat Survey, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Beaufort Lab.

Note: “Na” indicates the data is not available due to confidentiality issues.Note: With regard to data for Florida, only half of the headboat trips taken from the Florida Keys and Tortugas areas were counted in this table in order to give a better approximation of trips taken that might result in harvest of South Atlantic migratory group king or Spanish mackerel.

Table 19 indicates that total headboat angler days have been relatively stable over the past five years. Florida trips have increased slightly since 2001 while North Carolina trips have remained almost exactly the same, although a five year low of 23,000 occurred in 2003. The number of South Carolina angler days has decreased 31% since 2001.

Headboat operators usually offer their passengers options for choosing trip packages of different durations. It appears that the majority of headboat trips are of half a day duration in Florida (78%) and South Carolina (59%). In North Carolina and Georgia the majority of trips are full day trips (Table 20).

Table 20. Average number of headboat trips (1999-2003) by trip length and percent of total trips by trip length.Average Number of trips 1999-2003

Percent of total trips

StateFull day ¾ day ½ day

Full day

¾ day

½ day

NC 561 17 374 56% 2% 38%SC 642 110 1,144 33% 6% 59%GA 152 1 10 93% 6%FLA 1,972 546 9,038 17% 5% 78%Total 1,014 123 2,079 23% 5% 72%

Source: The Headboat Survey, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Beaufort Lab.


Harvest in the Recreational FisheryShore, Charter, Private/RentalKing mackerel harvested by the recreational fishery has fluctuated between almost 2.7 and 6.3 million pounds since 1989/90, peaking in 1992/93 at 6.3 million pounds (Table 8). Table 21 shows harvest of king mackerel by state over the past five years. Florida and North Carolina have the highest harvest levels with Florida harvesting over twice as much as North Carolina in 2005. Florida harvest levels peaked in 2003 at over 4 million pounds before declining to 2.8 million pounds in 2005. Georgia’s recreational harvest of king mackerel fluctuated a great deal over the past five years with a low of 14,370 in 2002 and a high of 156,374 in 2001. North Carolina recreational harvest of king mackerel has varied over the past five years between about 700,000 and 1.8 million pounds. South Carolina recreational harvest of king mackerel peaked in 2004 at about 240,000 before reaching a five year low in 2005 at about 120,000 pounds.

Table 21. Recreational harvest (lbs) of king mackerel by state, 2001-2005.2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Florida east coast 2,443,614 2,843,643 4,262,627 3,323,463 2,829,734

Georgia 156,374 14,370 130,966 26,616 66,028North Carolina 1,862,838 733,973 949,700 1,206,758 1,326,781South Carolina 148,958 132,673 150,792 243,875 120,510Source: MRFSS, NOAA Fisheries (http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/data.html).

The amount of Spanish mackerel harvested by the recreational fishery increased in recent years after reaching a low in 1998/99 (Table 9). Table 22 shows harvest of Spanish mackerel by state over the past five years. Florida and North Carolina recreationally harvest the majority of Spanish mackerel with the Florida harvest at about three times that of North Carolina. Florida harvest peaked in 2002 at about 1.5 million pounds and reached a five year low in 2004 at about 900,000 pounds. Georgia recreational harvest of Spanish mackerel has fluctuated between about 5,000 pounds and 35,000 pounds over the past five years. North Carolina harvest decreased from 2001 and peaked in 2004 before reaching a five year low in 2005. South Carolina harvest has achieved relatively high levels for the state over the past two years.

Table 22. Recreational harvest (lbs) of Spanish mackerel by state, 2001-2005.2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Florida east coast 1,232,506 1,475,232 1,021,204 905,429 1,088,374

Georgia 23,056 4,795 34,855 11,777 15,820North Carolina 499,829 475,742 446,052 565,352 358,338South Carolina 46,945 47,057 29,107 145,784 148,667Source: MRFSS, NOAA Fisheries (http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/data.html).

HeadboatsHarvest by headboats over the past five years is shown in Tables 23 and 24. Harvest for the Florida Keys and Tortugas areas was halved in order to better represent potential harvest of South Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel.

Table 23 shows that total headboat harvest of king mackerel has increased by almost 100,000 pounds since 2001 and more than doubled since 2003 when a five year low occurred. In general,




in all states, king mackerel harvests hit a five year low in 2003 when angler days also hit a five year low.Table 23. Headboat harvest (lbs) of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, 2001-2005.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005North Carolina 4,081 1,672 1,384 8,711 6,376South Carolina 23,970 13,026 7,227 13,528 6,014Georgia na na na na NaFlorida 108,703 91,134 81,498 138,935 215,740Total 136,754 105,831 90,109 161,175 228,129Source: The Headboat Survey, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Beaufort Lab.Note: “Na” indicates the data is not available due to confidentiality issues.Note: With regard to data for Florida, only half of the headboat trips taken from the Florida Keys and Tortugas areas were counted in this table in order to give a better approximation of trips taken that might result in harvest of South Atlantic migratory group king or Spanish mackerel.

Table 24. Headboat harvest (lbs) of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel, 2001-2005.2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

North Carolina 81 8 51 186 65South Carolina 9,007 3,670 1,417 10,897 8,512Georgia na na na na naFlorida 2,120 1,825 1,409 4,703 3,157Total 11,209 5,503 2,877 15,786 11,735Source: The Headboat Survey, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Beaufort Lab.Note: “Na” indicates the data is not available due to confidentiality issues.Note: With regard to data for Florida, only half of the headboat trips taken from the Florida Keys and Tortugas areas were counted in this table in order to give a better approximation of trips taken that might result in harvest of South Atlantic migratory group king or Spanish mackerel.

Total harvest of Spanish mackerel by headboats reached a five year low in 2003 but then recovered to 2001 levels in 2005. Harvest levels varied widely over the past five years for all three states shown (Table 24).

Characteristics of the Charter and Headboat SectorsThere is no specific economic information on the for-hire sector that currently operates in the South Atlantic snapper grouper fishery. The information presented below comes from two sources. Holland et al. (1999) conducted a study of the charterboat sector in 1998 and provided information on charterboats and headboats engaged in all fisheries.

Table 25. Charterboats and headboats operating in the South Atlantic during 1998.

State Number of Headboats

Number of Charter Boats

North Carolina 18 207South Carolina 18 174Georgia 2 56Florida-Atlantic Coast 42 413Florida –Keys 16 230Total 96 1,080

Source: Holland et al. (1999).


Holland et al. (1999) surmised that charterboats in Florida tend to be less specific in terms of species targeting behavior when compared to charterboats in the other South Atlantic states. In their study 47.7% of all captains in Atlantic Florida said they don’t have specific targets but spend their time trolling or bottomfishing for any species. The most popular species for the Florida Atlantic vessels that had specific targets were king mackerel, dolphin, billfish, wahoo, and amberjack.

Economic Value and Economic Impact of the Recreational FisheryThe statistics presented in the preceding section document marine recreational fishing participation, recreational effort, and harvest of South Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel. Participation, effort, and harvest are indicators of the value of saltwater recreational fishing. However, a more specific indicator of value is the satisfaction that anglers experience over and above their costs of fishing. The monetary value of this satisfaction is referred to as compensating variation (same as non-market benefit). The magnitude of this non-market benefit derived from the recreational experience is dependent on several quality determinants which include fish size, catch success rate, the number of fish kept, and aesthetics. These quality variables are important not only in their determination of the value of a recreational fishing trip but also in their influence on total demand for recreational fishing trips. For example, as the population of fish increases it is expected that angler success rate would increase and the marginal value of the fishing trip to the angler would increase, provided all other conditions remain the same.

Recent estimates of the economic value of a day of saltwater recreational fishing are available for the South Atlantic from different sources. These estimates are not specific to king or Spanish mackerel but shed some light on the magnitude of an angler’s willingness to pay for this recreational experience. The mean value of access per marine recreational fishing trip was estimated at $109.31 for the South Atlantic (Haab et al. 2001). Such values can be considered good estimates of the opportunity cost of time for saltwater recreational fishing.

The valuation estimates previously discussed should not be confused with angler expenditures or economic activity generated as a result of these expenditures. Angler expenditures benefit a number of sectors that provide goods and services for saltwater sport fishing. A study conducted by NOAA Fisheries (Gentner et al. 2001) provides estimates of saltwater recreational fishing trip expenditures (Table 26). The average expenditure per trip varies depending on the state, type of trip, duration, travel distance, and other factors. As expected, trip expenditures for non-residents are higher than for in-state residents. Compared to in-state residents, non-residents travel longer distances and incur expenses for food and lodging. Some in-state residents will incur higher trip expenses if they reside far away from the coast. These estimates do not include expenditures on recreational fishing in Monroe County or expenditures made on headboat angler trips.

Financial Operations of the Charter and Headboat Sectors Holland et al. (1999) defined charterboats as boats for-hire carrying 6 or less passengers that charge a fee to rent the entire boat. Data from their study conducted in 1998 indicated that this trip fee reportedly ranged from $292 to $2,000. The actual cost to the passenger depended on


Table 26. Summary of expenditures on saltwater trips estimated from a 1999 MRFSS add-on survey. North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida

Item ResidentNon Resident Resident

Non Resident Resident

Non Resident Resident

Non Resident

Shore mode trip expenses $63.61 $75.53 $54.12 $104.27 $31.78 $115.13 $36.90 $141.30 Private/rental boat trip expenses $71.28 $92.15 $35.91 $67.07 $161.34 $77.51 $66.59 $94.15

Charter mode trip expenses $201.66 $110.71 $139.72 $220.97 $152.45 $155.90 $96.11 $196.16

Charter fee- average-per day $133.76 $70.59 $114.26 $109.97 $73.68 $80.99 $71.37 $100.79

Source: Gentner et al. 2001.

state, trip length, and the variety of services offered by the charter operation. In the South Atlantic, depending on the state, the average fee for a half day trip ranged from $296 to $360, for a full day trip the range was $575 to $710, and for an overnight trip the range in average fee was $1,000 to $2,000. Most (>90%) Florida charter operators offered half day and full day trips and about 15% of the fleet offered overnight trips. In comparison, in the other South Atlantic states about 3% of the total charter trips were overnight trips.

Headboats tend to be larger, diesel powered and generally can carry a maximum of around 60 passengers. The average vessel length of the headboats whose owners responded to the survey was around 62 feet. In Florida, the average headboat fees was $29 for a half day trip and $45 for a full day trip. For North and South Carolina, the average base fee was $34 per person for a half day trip and $61 per person for a full day trip. Most of these headboat trips operated in Federal waters in the South Atlantic (Holland et al. 1999).

The demand for charter and headboat trips will depend on the fee charged and the quality of the fishing experience. As noted previously, variables such as catch success rates, bag (keep) limits, and aesthetics are determinants of the quality of the experience to the angler. Profits within the for-hire sector will depend on trip demand, the fee charged, and cost of the fishing operation. It is expected that the cost of fishing will bear some inverse relationship to the population size of the species as it is expected that costs of searching for fish will decrease as the population size increases.

On the east cost of Florida, the average charter vessel length and horsepower was 39 feet and 617 hp respectively. The average vessel length in North Carolina was comparable to Florida. Also, for the other states it appears that charter vessels tended to be smaller than vessels in Florida and North Carolina. Electronics such as global positioning systems (GPS) and fish finders are common on most charter vessels in the South Atlantic. Capital investment in charter vessels averaged $109,301 in Florida, $79,868 for North Carolina, $38,150 for South Carolina, and $51,554 for Georgia (Holland et al. 1999). Charterboat owners incur expenses for inputs such as


fuel, ice, and tackle in order to offer the services required by their passengers. Most expenses incurred in 1997 by charter vessel owners were on crew wages and salaries and fuel (Holland et al. 1999). The average annual charterboat business expenditures incurred was $68,816 for Florida vessels, $46,888 for North Carolina vessels, $23,235 for South Carolina vessels, and $41,688 for vessels in Georgia in 1997. The average capital investment for headboats in the South Atlantic was around $220,000 in 1997. Total annual business expenditures averaged $135,737 for headboats in Florida and $105,045 for headboats in other states in the South Atlantic.

The 1999 study on the for-hire sector in the Southeastern United States presented two sets of revenue estimates for the charter and headboat sectors in the South Atlantic (Holland et al. 1999). The first set of average gross revenue per vessel estimates were those reported by survey respondents as follows: $51,000 for charterboats on the Atlantic coast of Florida; $60,135 for charterboats in North Carolina; $26,304 for charterboats in South Carolina; $56,551 for charterboats in Georgia; $140,714 for headboats in Florida; and $123,000 for headboats in the other South Atlantic states (Holland et al. 1999). These authors concluded that survey respondents were reluctant to report gross income, and it is possible that these are underestimates of the true income received by these business entities. As a result, a second set of estimates on the for-hire sector was calculated by multiplying the average trip fee by the average number of trips per year for each vessel category. Using this method the average per vessel gross revenue was estimated at $69,268 for charterboats and $299,551 for headboats operating on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Holland et al. 1999). The calculated vessel gross revenue estimate for the charter sector was 22% higher than the reported charter gross revenue per vessel on the east coast of Florida (Holland et al., 1999). The calculated vessel gross revenue figure for the headboat sector was 113% higher than the reported headboat gross revenue per vessel on the east coast of Florida (Holland et al. 1999). The second set of gross revenue estimates were only calculated for vessels in Florida. To obtain revised estimates for average gross vessel income for the other South Atlantic states, the reported per vessel gross income was multiplied by the percent increase calculated for Florida by sector. The revised estimates of average gross revenue per vessel for the other states are as follows: $73,365 ($60,135 x 1.22) for charterboats in North Carolina, $32,091 ($26,304 x 1.22) for charterboats in South Carolina; $68,992 ($56,551 x 1.22) for charterboats in Georgia; and $261,990 ($123,000 x 2.13) for headboats in the other South Atlantic states. It must be noted that the study’s authors were concerned that while the reported gross revenue figures are underestimates of true vessel income, these calculated values could overestimate gross income per vessel from for-hire activity (Holland et al. 1999). Some of these vessels are also used in commercial fishing activities and that income is not reflected in these estimates.

6.4.1.3 Permit Ownership

Amendment 15 established an indefinite limited access program for the king mackerel fishery in the exclusive economic zone under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Permits may be transferred. Tables 27 and 28 provide the number of king mackerel and Spanish mackerel permits by area, respectively. While all vessels with permits for king and Spanish mackerel are included in the table, only a portion of


these fish for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel. For our purposes, it is assumed that vessels located on the east coast of the U.S. and Florida fish for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel. It is assumed that Florida west coast and non-coastal numbers are split evenly between fishing for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel and Gulf migratory king and Spanish mackerel. While these assumptions are rather simplifying and perhaps not entirely realistic, they allow us to discuss the data included in the tables below in an approximate way.

In total, there are about 1,119 commercial vessels, 243 charter vessels, and 5 headboats with federal permits for king mackerel that likely fish for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. The majority of the commercial permits are registered to vessels homeported on the east coast of Florida and Monroe County. While a large portion of the commercial and charter boats with federal king mackerel permits are registered to vessels homeported in Florida, a significant portion (21% and 40%) are homeported in North Carolina. Most of the headboat permits are registered to vessels homeported in Florida.

Table 27. Boats with federal permits for commercial fishing for king mackerel by region, January 2006.Home State or Region Not Specified Commercial Charter Headboat AllNortheast (Maine-Virginia) - 64 4 - 68North Carolina 6 238 98 1 343South Carolina - 38 7 - 45Georgia 1 10 2 - 13Florida east coast 4 433 57 2 496Florida west coast 4 469 126 3 602Florida non-coastal 2 204 23 1 230Alabama - 25 3 - 28Mississippi - 10 - - 10Louisiana - 78 3 - 81Texas 1 25 7 - 33Other states 1 13 1 - 15TOTAL BOATS 19 1,607 331 7 1,964

FLORIDANortheast (Nassau-Flagler) - 26 9 - 35Southeast (Volusia-Dade) 4 407 48 2 461Monroe County 4 242 36 - 282West (Collier-Wakulla) - 112 24 - 136Northwest (Franklin-Escambia) - 115 66 3 184

Non-coastal 2 204 23 1 230TOTAL BOATS 10 1,106 206 6 1,328

In total, there are about 956 (69%) commercial vessels, 177 (70%) charter vessels, and 8 (80%) headboats with federal permits for king mackerel that likely fish for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The majority of the commercial permits are registered to vessels homeported on the east coast of Florida and Monroe County. About 14% of commercial permits and 29% of the charter permits are homeported in North Carolina. Most of the headboat permits are registered to vessels homeported in North Carolina and points north.


Table 28. Boats with federal permits for commercial fishing for Spanish mackerel by region, January 2006.Home State or Region Not Specified Commercial Charter Headboat AllNortheast (Maine-Virginia) 3 84 7 2 96North Carolina 5 135 51 4 195South Carolina - 10 3 - 13Georgia 2 3 1 - 6Florida east coast 7 385 45 1 438Florida west coast 13 475 123 1 612Florida non-coastal 5 203 16 1 225Alabama - 11 - - 11Mississippi - 7 2 - 9Louisiana 1 64 1 - 66Texas - 6 3 1 10Other states 2 8 - - 10TOTAL BOATS 38 1,391 252 10 1,691

FLORIDANortheast (Nassau-Flagler) - 19 5 - 24Southeast (Volusia-Dade) 7 366 40 1 414Monroe County 5 262 42 1 310West (Collier-Wakulla) 8 140 31 - 179Northwest (Franklin-Escambia) - 73 50 - 123

Non-coastal 5 203 16 1 225TOTAL BOATS 25 1,063 184 3 1,275

6.5 Social Environment

Most fishermen who participate in the mackerel fishery also participate in other fisheries. Even if mackerel fishing only accounts for a portion of the income earned by a fisherman, it is an important part and may mean the difference in someone being able to continue to fish, and the necessity to seek other types of employment. If the mackerel fishery were to experience further reductions in the catch, there could be ramifications for fishermen, fish processors, marinas, and other fishing-related businesses that draw part of their income from the mackerel fishery. If there are changes made to the current regulations for the mackerel fishery, it is assumed that the regulations would have the most impact in communities where the most mackerel are landed, the most income from mackerel earned, and the most boats are permitted for mackerel. That is, regulations will likely have the greatest impact on the communities that are most dependent on the mackerel resource. The above mentioned data can act as indicators of mackerel dependence. By comparing all of the data, it is possible to determine which counties/communities may be most impacted by changes in regulations that may affect mackerel-dependent fishermen, fishing-dependent businesses, and communities.

6.5.1 Measures of Fishing Dependence

Jepson et al. (2006) conducted community profiles for the South Atlantic region. These community profiles provide a snapshot of the community and its involvement in fishing using


2001 as a base year. The profiles provide historical background about the community and its involvement in fisheries or fisheries related industries. The profiles provide information on community involvement in commercial and recreational fishing as evidenced through various indicators (federal commercial permits, state commercial licenses, federal charter permits, seafood landings, fish processors and wholesale fish houses, recreational docks/marinas, and recreational fishing tournaments). Demographic information on a community basis is also provided to the extent that the data were gathered in a Federal Census12.

6.5.2 Mackerel Fishing Communities

In general, the community profiles do not provide fishery specific information other than the number of federal and state permits associated with each community. Because not all communities profiled are likely relevant to the actions under consideration in this document, profiles that outline homeports for vessels with at least five federal commercial king mackerel, federal commercial Spanish mackerel, and federal charter/headboat permits for coastal pelagics combined, have been included. The last subsection under each state heading summarizes community engagement in that state based on several indicators that data was gathered for. These community profiles have been included in Appendix A.

6.6 Administrative Environment

6.6.1 Federal Fishery Management

Federal fishery management is conducted under the authority of the M-SFCMA (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), originally enacted in 1976 as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The M-SFCMA claims sovereign rights and exclusive fishery management authority over most fishery resources within the EEZ, an area extending 200 nautical miles from the seaward boundary of each of the coastal states, and authority over U.S. anadromous species and continental shelf resources that occur beyond the EEZ.

Responsibility for federal fishery management decision-making under the CMP FMP is divided between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and jointly, the GMFMC and SAFMC that represent the expertise and interests of constituent states, as well as the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in the Atlantic. The Councils developed the original CMP FMP and are responsible for monitoring and revising it as necessary. The Secretary is responsible for collecting the data and conducting the research specified in the FMP and for promulgating regulations to implement proposed management measures based on amendments submitted by the Councils after ensuring that management measures are consistent with the M-SFCMA, and with other applicable laws summarized in Section 9. In most cases, the Secretary has delegated this authority to NOAA Fisheries.

12 The demographics provided for each community help the reader to understand the level of education obtained by community members, the price of housing, and the types of employment available in the community. If fishing regulations change where people can no longer make a living at fishing, the other opportunities that exist in the community will be based on what jobs are available, level of education required, training, and language skills.


The Councils are responsible for management of CMP fishery resources in federal waters. These waters extend to 200 nautical miles offshore from the 9-mile seaward boundary off the west coast of Florida and Texas, and the 3-mile seaward boundary of the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in the Gulf. Additionally, the SAFMC manages king and Spanish mackerel resources in federal waters off the east coast of Florida, and off the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, as well as Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York with the Mid-Atlantic Council from the three-mile seaward boundary of these areas/states.

The GMFMC consists of 17 voting members: 11 public members appointed by the Secretary; one each from the fishery agencies of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida; and the Regional Administrator for the Southeast Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries.

The SAFMC has 13 voting members: 8 public members appointed by the Secretary; one each from the fishery agencies of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina; and the Regional Administrator for the Southeast Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries.

The Mid-Atlantic Council has 21 voting members: 13 public members appointed by the Secretary; one each from the fishery agencies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina; and the Regional Administrator for the Northeast Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries.

Under the FMP, as amended, the GMFMC and SAFMC can each independently set TAC, commercial quotas, recreational allocation, and other regulations for the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel. All other changes must be approved by each Council.

The public is also involved in the fishery management process through participation on advisory panels and through council meetings that, with few exceptions for discussing personnel matters, are open to the public. The regulatory process is also in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, in the form of “notice and comment” rulemaking, which provides extensive opportunity for public scrutiny and comment, and requires consideration of and response to those comments.

Regulations contained within the CMP FMP as amended are enforced through actions of the NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement, the United States Coast Guard, and the various state authorities. To better coordinate enforcement activities, federal and state enforcement agencies have developed cooperative agreements that together provide a coordinated approach to enforce the M-SFCMA.

6.6.2 State Fishery Management


The purpose of state representation at the council level is to ensure state participation in federal fishery management decision-making and to promote the development of compatible regulations in state and federal waters. When adopting management measures the Councils typically ask state authorities to adopt compatible regulations to ease compliance and to ameliorate the enforcement burden. The Councils have also taken action to be consistent with state regulations.


7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section provides the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives described in Section 3.0 above. The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the biological, socioeconomic, and administrative environments for each management alternative are described below. This section also describes: 1) any unavoidable adverse effects resulting from the proposed action, 2) the relationship between short-term uses of the human environment and long-term productivity, and 3) any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources resulting from implementation of the proposed action.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1508.8) define direct effects as those “which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place”. Indirect effects are defined as those “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable”. Cumulative effects are defined as “impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions”.

7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Biological and Physical Environment

7.1.1 Action 1

The proposed TAC (Alternative 2) for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel would prevent overfishing: Alternative 3 would have a higher probability of preventing overfishing while Alternative 4 would have a lower probability. No action (Alternative 1) would result in overfishing if the full TAC was harvested. There are no expected impacts to the physical environment.

7.1.2 Action 2

The proposed TAC (Alternative 2) for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel would prevent overfishing: Alternatives 1 and 4 would have a slightly higher probability of resulting in overfishing. Alternative 3 would provide the highest level of biological protection. There are no expected impacts to the physical environment.

7.1.3 Action 3

Changing the trip limit will not impact stock status. Biological protection is provided through setting the TAC and preventing overages. There are no expected impacts to the physical environment.


7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Economic Environment

7.2.1 Action 1

Table 29. TAC, commercial quota, and recreational allocations under Action 1 for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel.

Action 1TAC Commercial Quota (37.1%) Recreational Allocation (62.9%)

Alt. 1 (status quo) 10,000,000 3,710,000 6,290,000

Alt. 2 (Preferred) 7,100,000 2,634,100 4,465,900Alt. 3 5,300,000 1,966,300 3,333,700Alt. 4 9,600,000 3,561,600 6,038,400

Alternative 1 (status quo)Under Alternative 1, the TAC would remain at 10 million pounds with a commercial quota of 3.71 million pounds and a recreational allocation of 6.29 million pounds (Table 29). An average of landings over the three years 2003/04 – 2005/06 provides a proxy of expected landings for 2006/07 (Table 30). The average is about 6.1 million pounds, a slight decrease from 2005/06 landings of 6.4 million pounds. Using the three-year average, commercial landings are expected to decrease slightly to 2.3 million pounds in 2006/07 ($4.1 million in gross revenue) from 2.4 million pounds in 2005/06 ($4.3 million in gross revenue) and recreational landings are expected to decrease to 3.78 million pounds from 3.95 million pounds in 2005/06. Both estimates are well below the commercial quota and the recreational allocation. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1. It should be noted that commercial landings exceeded 2.3 million pounds in 9 of 20 years depicted in Table 8 and landings exceeded the commercial quota in 3 of 20 years. Recreational landings exceeded 3.78 MP in 7 of the last 20 years depicted in Table 8 and landings exceeded the recreational allocation in 2 of 20 years.

Alternative 2 ( preferred ) Under the preferred Alternative 2, the TAC would be set at 7.1 million pounds, 2.9 million pounds less than the 2005/06 10 million pound TAC (Table 29). The commercial quota under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1 would decrease by about 1 million pounds from 3.7 million pounds. The recreational allocation would decrease by about 1.8 million pounds from 6.3 million pounds. However, the Alternative 2 TAC is still approximately 0.7 million pounds greater than the 2005/06 landings and about 1 million pounds greater than the expected total commercial and recreational landings for 2006/07 (Table 30). Under the assumption that the 2005/06 landings or the expected 2006/07 expected landings are a reasonable prediction of future landings, no change in revenue is expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. It should be noted that the amount specified as the commercial quota for Alternative 2 (2.6 million pounds) was exceeded in 2004/05 when the commercial fishery caught 2.8 million pounds. However, the estimated commercial and recreational landings for 2006/07 both fall below the Alternative 2 commercial quota and recreational allocation by about 310,000 pounds and 686,000 pounds, respectively.


Alternative 2 would help the fishery avoid overfishing. There are long-term benefits associated with avoiding overfishing. In the long-term, overall revenues are expected to be higher than under Alternative 1 or an overfishing situation. It is expected that commercial and recreational fishing operations would have a higher probability of survival and profitability as would fish houses/buyers, supply industries, and the communities they support.

Table 30. Atlantic migratory group king mackerel commercial quotas, recreational allocations, and catches over recent years, 1000s of pounds.

YearCommercial

Quota (37.1%)

Commercial Catch

Recreational Allocation (62.9%)

Recreational Catch TAC

Total Estimated

Catch2002/03 3,710 1,745 6,940 2,672 10,000 4,4172003/04 3,710 1,730 6,940 4,100 10,000 5,8302004/05 3,710 2,820 6,940 3,287 10,000 6,1072005/06 3,710 2,424 6,940 3,954 10,000 6,378

Expected 2006/07 3,710 2,324 6,940 3,780 10,000 6,104

Notes: 1) Beginning with 2005/06 the fishing year changed to begin March 1. Previous years began on April 1; and 2) 2006/07 commercial catch is estimated from the average 2003/04 through 2005/06 landings. Source: ALS data (August 2006); Southeast Fisheries Science Center (October 2006).

Alternative 3Under Alternative 3, the TAC would be set at 5.3 million pounds, approximately half of the 10.0 million pound TAC under Alternative 1. The commercial quota would be about 1.7 million pounds less than under Alternative 1 (3.7 MP) and about 0.7 million pounds less than under Alternative 2 (2.6 MP). The recreational quota would be almost 3 million pounds less than under Alternative 1 (6.3 MP) and approximately 1.1 million pounds less than under Alternative 2 (4.5 MP, Table 29). If the entire TAC under Alternative 3 was landed, this would be about 1.1 million pounds less than 2005/06 landings and 804,000 pounds less than the expected 2006/07 landings (Table 30). This would result in a revenue loss to commercial fishermen of approximately $637,000 (almost 358,000 pounds or the difference between the commercial quota for Alternative 3 and the estimated commercial landings for 2006/07 multiplied by the 2005/06 average ex-vessel price) following a closure for commercial fishing after achievement of the commercial quota. This is a decrease of about 15% from estimated 2006/07 commercial ex-vessel revenues ($4.14 million). The difference between the recreational allocation under Alternative 3 and the estimated recreational landings for 2006/07 is a loss to recreational fishermen of about 446,000 pounds (Tables 29 and 30). This indicates a loss in consumer surplus of about $12,625 based on valuations calculated by Haab et al. (2001).

Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a commercial and/or recreational fishery closure could occur. The amount specified for the Alternative 3 TAC (5.3 million pounds) was exceeded in all but two years since 1986 (see Table 8). The amount specified for the Alternative 3 commercial quota (1.97 million pounds) was exceeded in all but three years since 1986. The amount specified for the Alternative 3 recreational allocation (3.33 million pounds) was exceeded in all but three years since 1986 (see Table 8).

To help provide some indication of when a closure might occur under Alternative 3, historical monthly commercial landings and recreational harvest every two months are shown below. Table


31 displays the monthly commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. With regard to the commercial fishery, the landings within each month for 2003/04 – 2005/06 were averaged to provide an estimate of expected monthly commercial landings for 2006/07. Cumulative catch is also shown for 2005/06 and the expected landings for 2006/07. Under the assumption that monthly landings in 2005/06 are a reasonably accurate prediction of landings in 2006/07, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would be reached sometime in December. Likewise, under the assumption that the average monthly estimates are an accurate prediction of landings in 2006/07, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would be reached sometime in December. This assumes no changes to trip limits.

Table 31. Monthly commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, April-March for 2001/02 – 2004/05 and March-Feb for 2005/06.

Fishing year April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Total

2001/02 341 298 162 177 177 100 171 173 177 54 62 130 20222002/03 297 237 107 143 119 65 206 226 95 38 31 179 17452003/04 175 378 89 82 309 158 103 275 86 26 4 44 17302004/05 434 562 222 228 307 14 189 348 262 156 12 86 28202005/06 180 472 178 134 208 50 157 417 291 7 6 86 2187

Cumulative 2005/06 180 652 830 964 1172 1222 1379 1796 2087 2094 2100 2186

Expected 2006/07 263 471 163 148 275 74 150 347 213 63 7 72 2245

Cumulative 2006/07 263 734 897 1045 1319 1393 1543 1890 2103 2166 2173 2245

Notes: 1) The fishing season extends from April-March for 2001/02 – 2004/05 and March-Feb for 2005/06 on; 2) Expected 2006/07 is an average of 2003/04 – 2005/06 for each month; and 3) Some numbers in the last column differ from the cumulative numbers due to rounding.Source: ALS data (August 2006).

Table 32 provides the same data as Table 31 but assumes a March 1 – end of February fishing season for all years to give the reader some perspective on what might occur under the new fishing season. Table 31 indicates a December closing based on 2005/06 data and a November closing based on averaging monthly data from 2003/04 – 2005/06. Assuming that March landings would likely be higher than shown in Table 31, an earlier closure than November or December is a possibility under Alternative 3.

Table 31. Monthly commercial catch of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, March-Feb.Fishing

year March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total

2001/02 48 341 298 162 177 177 100 171 173 177 54 62 19402002/03 130 297 237 107 143 119 65 206 226 95 38 31 16962003/04 179 175 378 89 82 309 158 103 275 86 26 4 18652004/05 44 434 562 222 228 307 14 189 348 262 156 12 27782005/06 86 180 472 178 134 208 50 157 417 291 7 6 2187

Cumulative 2005/06 86 266 738 916 1050 1258 1308 1465 1882 2173 2180 2186

Expected 2006/07 103 263 471 163 148 275 74 150 347 213 63 7 2277

Cumulative 2006/07 103 366 837 1000 1148 1423 1497 1647 1994 2207 2270 2277


Notes: 1) For analytical purposes, it is assumed that the March-Feb is in effect from 2001/02 – 2006/07; 2) Expected 2006/07 is an average of 2003/04 – 2005/06 for each month; and 3) Some numbers in the last column differ from the cumulative numbers due to rounding.

Table 32 shows bimonthly recreational harvest of king mackerel since 2000/01 through 2004/05. Estimates are made for 2006/07 harvest based on the average harvest over the three year period 2001/02-2003/04.

Table 32. Recreational harvest of king mackerel, 2000/01 – 2004/05.March/April May/June July/August Sept/Oct Nov/Dec Jan/Feb Total

2000/01 539,746 1,251,293 1,908,646 1,281,126 639,468 199,869 5,820,1482001/02 535,872 1,231,348 945,524 1,234,475 464,697 285,363 4,697,2792002/03 393,135 941,419 777,560 336,495 990,686 633,265 4,072,5602003/04 1,099,227 1,283,060 1,567,030 388,611 522,896 196,516 5,057,3402004/05 376,989 1,302,572 1,844,520 681,382 398,733 166,577 4,770,773

Cumulative 2004/05 376,989 1,679,561 3,524,081 4,205,463 4,604,196 4,770,773 376,989

Expected 2006/07 623,117 1,175,684 1,396,370 468,829 637,438 332,119 623,117

Cumulative 2006/07 623,117 1,798,801 3,195,171 3,664,000 4,301,438 4,633,558 623,117

Source: ALS data (August 2006).

Assuming there are no changes made to the current bag or size limit for king mackerel, the recreational fishery is expected to exceed the recreational allocation in 2007 under Alternative 3. Table 21 shows that the Alternative 3 recreational allocation of 3.33 MP was met in July or August in 2004 and would be expected to be met in September or October 2006 based on data from 2002/03 – 2004/05. If the recreational allocation were reached, this would likely lead to a reduction in the bag limit in the following year.

Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would help prevent overfishing. There are long-term benefits associated with avoiding overfishing under Alternative 3. In the long-term, overall revenues are expected to be higher than under Alternative 1 or an overfishing situation. In the long-term, it is expected that commercial and recreational fishing operations would have a higher probability of survival and profitability as would fish houses/buyers, supply industries, and the communities they support. However, such a low TAC level could result in loss of commercial infrastructure and fishing operations may be forced to go out of business. If this occurred on a large scale, the commercial and recreational fishing industries may not revive for some time.

Alternative 4Under Alternative 4, the TAC would be set at 9.6 million pounds with a commercial quota of about 3.6 million pounds and a recreational allocation of about 6 million pounds. The TAC is 400,000 pounds less than the Alternative 1 (status quo) 10.0 million pound TAC and 2.5 million pounds greater than the preferred Alternative 2 7.1 million pound TAC (Table 29). The expected catch for 2006/07 is far below the commercial quota and recreational allocation under Alternative 4 and therefore no revenue losses are expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4.

7.2.2 Action 2


Table 33. TAC, commercial quotas, and recreational allocations under Action 2 for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

Action 2 – Spanish mackerelTAC Commercial Quota (55%) Recreational Allocation (45%)

Alt. 1 (status quo) 7,040,000 3,872,000 3,168,000Alt. 2 (Preferred) 6,700,000 3,685,000 3,015,000

Alt. 3 5,200,000 2,860,000 2,340,000Alt. 4 8,400,000 4,620,000 3,780,000

Alternative 1 (status quo)Under Alternative 1, the TAC would remain at 7.04 million pounds with a commercial quota of 3.9 million pounds and a recreational allocation of 3.2 million pounds (Table 33). An average of commercial landings over the three years 2003/04 – 2005/06 provides a proxy of expected landings for 2006/07 (Table 34). The average is about 5.45 million pounds, a slight decrease from 2005/06 landings of 5.56 million pounds. Commercial landings in 2005/06 generated an estimated $2.6 million in gross revenues. Using the three year average, commercial landings are expected to increase slightly to 3.7 million pounds ($2.7 million in gross revenue) in 2006/07 and recreational landings are estimated at 1.8 million pounds (see Table 34). Both estimates are below the commercial quota and the recreational allocation. Consequently, revenues are not expected to vary significantly from last year’s revenue as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1. It should be noted that commercial landings exceeded 3.7 million pounds in 7 of 20 years depicted in Table 8 and landings exceeded the commercial quota in 8 years. Recreational landings exceeded 1.78 MP in 9 of the last 20 years depicted in Table 8 and landings exceeded the recreational allocation in 3 of 20 years.

Table 34. Atlantic migratory Spanish mackerel group commercial quotas, recreational allocations, and catches over recent years, in 1000s of pounds.

Year Commercial Quota (55%)

Commercial Catch


(45%)

Recreational Catch TAC Total

Catch

2002/03 3,872 3,207 3,168 2,072 7,040 5,2792003/04 3,872 3,741 3,168 1,994 7,040 5,7352004/05 3,872 3,678 3,168 1,371 7,040 5,0492005/06 3,872 3,579 3,168 1,985 7,040 5,564

Expected 2006/07 3,872 3,666 3,168 1,783 7,040 5,449


Alternative 2 ( preferred ) Under the preferred Alternative 2, the TAC would be set at 6.7 million pounds, 0.34 million pounds less than the 2005/06 7.04 million pound TAC (see Table 33). The commercial quota under Alternative 2 (3.7 MP) versus Alternative 1 (3.9 MP) would decrease by about 187,000 pounds. The Alternative 2 recreational allocation (3 MP) is a decrease of about 153,000 pounds from Alternative 1 (3.2 MP, see Table 33). However, the Alternative 2 TAC is still over 1 million pounds greater than the 2005/06 landings and the expected total commercial and recreational landings for 2006/07 (Tables 33 and 34). Under the assumption that the 2005/06


landings or the expected 2006/07 expected landings are a reasonable prediction of future landings, no change in revenue is expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. It should be noted that the amount specified as the commercial quota for Alternative 2 (3.69 million pounds) was exceeded in 2003/04 when the commercial sector caught a little over 3.74 million pounds. However, landings in 2004/05, 2005/06, and the estimated landings for 2006/07 all fall slightly below that amount at about 3.68, 3.58, and 3.67 million pounds, respectively.

Alternative 3Under Alternative 3, the TAC would be set at 5.2 million pounds, about 1.8 million pounds less than the Alternative 1 7.04 MP TAC. The commercial quota would be about 1 million pounds less than under Alternative 1 (3.9 MP) and about 0.8 million pounds less than under Alternative 2 (3.7 MP). The recreational quota would be almost 828,000 pounds less than under Alternative 1 (3.2 MP) and approximately 675,000 pounds less than under Alternative 2 (3 MP, Table 33). If the entire TAC under Alternative 3 (5.2 MP) was landed, this would be about 364,000 pounds less than the 2005/06 landings and 250,000 pounds less than the expected 2006/07 landings. The commercial quota under Alternative 3 is 806,000 pounds less than expected commercial landings for 2006/07 (Tables 33 and 34). This would result in a revenue loss of approximately $588,000 dollars for the commercial sector (based on 2005/06 average ex-vessel price). This is a 22% decrease from estimated 2006/07 commercial ex-vessel revenues ($2.7 million). The recreational allocation under Alternative 3 is approximately 560,000 pounds greater than the expected recreational catch in 2006/07 (Tables 33 and 34).

Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a commercial fishery closure could occur. The amount specified for the Alternative 3 TAC (5.2 million pounds) was exceeded in eleven years since 1986 (Table 9). The amount specified for the Alternative 3 commercial quota (2.86 million pounds) was exceeded in all but three years since 1986. The recreational allocation under Alternative 3 (2.34 million pounds) would have been exceeded in two years since 1986 (Table 9).

To help provide some indication of when a closure might occur, historical monthly landings are used. Table 35 displays the monthly commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. The landings within each month for 2003/04 – 2005/06 were averaged to provide an estimate of expected monthly commercial landings for 2006/07. Cumulative catch is also shown for 2005/06 and the expected landings for 2006/07. Under the assumption that monthly landings in 2005/06 are a reasonable prediction of landings in 2006/07, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would be reached sometime in February. Likewise, under the assumption that the monthly estimates are an accurate prediction of landings in 2006/07, the Alternative 3 commercial quota would be reached sometime in February as well. This assumes no changes to trip limits.


Table 35. Monthly commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel, April-March for 2001/02 – 2004/05 and March-Feb for 2005/06.

Fishing year April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Total

2001/02 42 108 219 100 153 201 313 271 604 589 223 213 30362002/03 29 76 118 78 192 189 332 347 462 829 371 185 32072003/04 17 103 70 83 144 91 330 577 530 972 646 179 37412004/05 48 84 92 85 54 92 215 486 662 553 810 496 36782005/06 87 37 88 33 108 95 299 327 657 558 796 214 3297

Cumulative 2005/06 87 124 212 245 353 448 747 1074 1731 2289 3085 3299

Expected 2006/07 51 75 83 67 102 93 281 463 616 694 750 296 3571

Cumulative 2006/07 51 126 209 276 378 471 752 1215 1831 2525 3275 3571

Notes: 1) The fishing season extends from April-March for 2001/02 – 2004/05 and March-Feb for 2005/06 on; 2) Expected 2006/07 is an average of 2003/04 – 2005/06 for each month; and 3) Some numbers in the last column differ from the cumulative numbers due to rounding.Source: ALS data (August 2006).

Table 36 provides the same data as Table 35 but assumes a March 1 – end of February fishing season for all years to give the reader some perspective on what might occur under the new fishing season. However, this results in lower landings shown in the table for March than might occur in reality due to the fact that the trip limit regulations would likely allow greater harvests at the beginning of the season than at the end when a greater portion of the TAC would have already been taken. Therefore, March landings in reality would likely be higher than those shown in the table for 2006/07. The table indicates a February closing based on 2005/06 data and a February closing based on averaging monthly data from 2003/04 – 2005/06. Assuming that March landings would likely be higher than shown in Table 36, an earlier closure than February is a possibility under Alternative 3, given the above assumptions.

Table 36. Monthly commercial catch of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel, March-Feb.Fishing

year March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total

2001/02 244 42 108 219 100 153 201 313 271 604 589 223 30672002/03 213 29 76 118 78 192 189 332 347 462 829 371 32352003/04 185 17 103 70 83 144 91 330 577 530 972 646 37482004/05 179 48 84 92 85 54 92 215 486 662 553 810 33602005/06 496 87 37 88 33 108 95 299 327 657 558 796 3579

Cumulative 2005/06 496 583 620 708 741 849 944 1243 1570 2227 2785 3581

Expected 2006/07 287 51 75 83 67 102 93 281 463 616 694 751 3563

Cumulative 2006/07 287 338 413 496 563 665 758 1039 1502 2118 2812 3563

Notes: 1) For analytical purposes, it is assumed that the March-Feb is in effect from 2001/02 – 2006/07; and 2) Expected 2006/07 is an average of 2003/04 – 2005/06 for each month; and 3) Some numbers in the last column differ from the cumulative numbers due to rounding.Source: ALS data (August 2006).


Alternative 4Under Alternative 4, the TAC would be set at 8.4 million pounds with a commercial quota of about 4.62 million pounds and a recreational allocation of 3.78 million pounds. The TAC is 1.36 million pounds more than the Alternative 1 (status quo) 7.04 MP TAC and 1.7 million pounds greater than the preferred Alternative 2 6.7 MP TAC. The expected catch for 2006/07 is far below the commercial quota and recreational allocation under Alternative 4 and therefore no revenue losses are expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4.

7.2.3 Action 3

Alternative 1 (status quo)Under Alternative 1, regulations regarding trip limits for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel would not change from status quo. As a consequence, the 3,500 pound trip limit for Spanish mackerel would go into effect in April, one month after the start of the new fishing season (March 1 – end of February) and extend through November. Other trip limits apply after November.

Alternative 2 ( preferred ) Under Alternative 2, the 3,500 pound trip limit would begin in March, the first month of the new fishing year, and extend through November. The same trip limits that occur under Alternative 1 would apply after November. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, after December 1st and until 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken, vessels are able to take an unlimited amount on weekdays and 1,500 pounds on weekend days. More restrictive trip limits apply after 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken. Positive economic impacts are expected to result from this alternative in the form of increased profits due to an increase in landings in March during a time of the year (around Lent) when ex-vessel prices are at their highest. According to some sources, the closures would take place when the fish are gathered together in dense groupings and the cast net fishery is more effective. This would result in negative economic impacts for that gear group. The March re-opening would occur at a time when the Spanish mackerel are about to migrate north and tend to spread out (Hartig 2006).

7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Social Environment

7.3.1 Action 1

Alternative 1 (status quo)Over the past several years, the king mackerel fishery has provided a consistent source of income for commercial fishermen and it has maintained a relatively stable regulatory management regime (see Table 8). However, no change in response to the new stock assessment data could support fishing at an unsustainable level and risk overfishing the resource, which could have negative economic and social impacts in the long-term.

Alternative 2 ( preferred ) The preferred Alternative 2 requires a change to the current TAC to a significantly lower level than the status quo. While the Alternative 2 commercial quota is above the 2006/07 expected catch, the decrease in the commercial quota may be the source of some anxiety among king


mackerel fishermen and their families in that it increases the probability that a closure could occur before the end of the fishing year which could result in lower annual revenues than those achievable under Alternative 1 and thereby increase financial strain on fishing families and increase the uncertainty associated with planning for their financial future. With regard to the recreational fishery, the recreational allocation is well above estimated recreational catch for 2006/07 and therefore no negative social impacts are expected to the recreational fishery.

Alternative 3Alternative 3 requires a significant change to the current TAC to a lower level than the status quo. The commercial quota under Alternative 3 is 358,000 pounds less than expected commercial landings for 2006/07. This would result in a revenue loss of approximately $637,000 dollars for the commercial sector (based on 2005/06 average ex-vessel price). In addition, early closures would be expected for the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery would exceed their allocation which could lead to a lower bag limit. This would likely result in negative social impacts for commercial and recreational king mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the king mackerel fishery supports. King mackerel fishermen would experience slightly lower annual revenues from king mackerel landings than under Alternative 1. This would increase financial strain for fishermen and their families and could decrease their fishing operation profit margins. Although this would be an incremental decrease in revenue, it would increase the probability that the fishing operation would go out of business or that some fishing families would need to incur additional debt to keep their businesses operational. In addition, financial strain could also contribute to the occurrence of social ills such as divorce, alcoholism, drug usage, domestic abuse, depression, etc.

Fish houses and supply industries would likely suffer some annual revenue losses that could decrease their profit margins. If an early closure occurs, the ability of fish houses and supply industries to retain employees would be decreased. All industry participants would be in a situation where financial planning would become much more difficult due to the uncertainty associated as to when a closure might occur. The communities dependent on king mackerel resources would likewise be impacted through decreased consumer spending.

Alternative 4Alternative 4 specifies only a slight decrease in the TAC amounting to 400,000 pounds compared to the Alternative 1 status quo TAC and therefore no significant social impacts are expected since this is well above recent and projected catch levels.

Non-Use ValueFigure 3 shows how different economic values are categorized. Non-use value refers to the value associated with option, bequest, and existence values. For the general non-fishing public of the U.S., Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 offer long-term non-use value benefits related to maintaining long-term sustainability of the mackerel resource in that they maintain catch within the ABCs identified as based on the best available science. These alternatives benefit those in the U.S. who derive satisfaction from knowing the marine environment is managed sustainably and is thriving (existence value) and benefit those who would like to pass on use of the resource to their descendents (bequest value). Non-use values of the resource, such as bequest and existence values, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4


adjustments to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perceptive that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is only expected to increase non-use values in a minor way, if at all.

Figure 3. Flow chart describing how different economic values of marine resources are typically categorized.

Source: Adapted from Scholtz and Fujita (2001).


Total Economic Value of Marine Resources

Use value Non-Use value

Direct use – outputs and services that can be consumed directly

Examples (consumptive): commercial and recreational fisheries, some diving

Examples (non-consumptive): tourism, recreation, education/research

IndirectUse – functional benefits enjoyed indirectly

Examples: biological support to fisheries and other ecosystems

Option value

– future direct and indirect use

Examples: species, habitats, biodiversity

Quasi-option

– expected new information from avoiding loss of: species, habitats, biodiversity

Bequest Value

– value of leaving use and non-use value to offspring

Examples: species, habitats, coastal way of life

ExistenceValue

– value of knowledge of continued existence

Examples: threatened habitats, endanger-ed species, ocean wilderness

7.3.2 Action 2

Alternative 1 (status quo)Over the past several years, the Spanish mackerel fishery has provided a consistent source of income for commercial fishermen and it has maintained a relatively stable regulatory management regime (see Table 9). There are no expected changes to the social environment as a direct or indirect effect of Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 ( preferred ) The preferred Alternative 2 requires a change to the current TAC to a slightly lower level than the status quo. The Alternative 2 TAC is still approximately 1 million pounds greater than the 2005/06 landings and the expected total commercial and recreational landings for 2006/07. No change in revenue is expected as a result of direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2. However, the Alternative 2 commercial quota was exceeded in 2003/04 when the commercial sector caught a little over 3.74 million pounds. While the Alternative 2 commercial quota is above the 2006/07 expected catch, the decrease in the commercial quota may be the source of some anxiety among Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families in that it increases the probability that a closure could occur before the end of the fishing year which could result in lower annual revenues than those achievable under Alternative 1 and thereby increase financial strain on fishing families and increase the uncertainty associated with financial planning.

Alternative 3Alternative 3 requires a significant change to the current TAC to a level almost 2 million pounds less than the status quo, a decrease greater than 25%. The commercial quota under Alternative 3 is 806,000 pounds less than expected commercial landings for 2006/07. This would result in an ex-vessel revenue loss of approximately $588,000 dollars for the commercial sector (based on 2005/06 average ex-vessel price), a decrease of about 22% of total revenue from the Spanish mackerel fishery in 2005/06 ($2.6 million). Alternative 3 specifies a situation under which a commercial fishery closure could occur. This would likely result in negative social impacts for Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the Spanish mackerel fishery supports. Spanish mackerel fishermen would experience slightly lower annual revenues from Spanish mackerel landings than under Alternative 1. This would increase financial strain for fishermen and their families and could decrease their fishing operation profit margins. Although this would be an incremental decrease in revenue, it would increase the probability that the fishing operation would go out of business or that some fishing families would need to incur additional debt to keep their businesses operational. In addition, financial strain could also contribute to the occurrence of social ills such as divorce, alcoholism, drug usage, domestic abuse, depression, etc.

Fish houses and supply industries would likely suffer some annual revenue losses that could decrease their profit margins. If an early closure occurs, the ability of fish houses and supply industries to retain employees will be decreased. All industry participants would be in a situation where there would be an increase in financial uncertainty. The communities dependent on Spanish mackerel resources would likewise be impacted through decreased consumer spending. In the long-term, fishing communities could suffer from decreased tax revenues which could impact support for municipal infrastructure and social services.


Alternative 4Alternative 4 specifies an increase in the TAC amounting to about 1.3 million pounds compared to the Alternative 1 status quo TAC and therefore commercial fishermen would have higher commercial quotas and recreational fishermen would have a higher recreational allocation than under the status quo.

Non-Use ValueFigure 3 shows how different economic values are categorized. Non-use value refers to the value associated with option, bequest, and existence values. For the general non-fishing public of the U.S., Alternatives 2 and 3 offer long-term benefits related to maintaining long-term sustainability of the Spanish mackerel resource in that they specify a decrease in the Alternative 1 TAC. These alternatives benefit those in the U.S. who derive satisfaction from knowing the marine environment is managed sustainably and is thriving (existence value) and benefit those who would like to pass on use of the resource to their descendents (bequest value). Non-use values of the resource, such as bequest and existence values, are expected to increase with the Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 adjustment to the TAC based on the new stock assessments due to the perceptive that the resource is being conservatively managed. Alternative 3 is expected to provide a greater increase in non-use values than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is expected to cause a decrease in non-use values due to the increase in the Alternative 4 TAC compared to the Alternative 1 TAC.

7.3.3 Action 3

Alternative 1 (status quo)Under Alternative 1, regulations regarding trip limits for Spanish mackerel would not change. As a consequence, the 3,500 pound trip limit for Spanish mackerel would go into effect in April, one month after the start of the new fishing season (March 1 – end of February) and extend through November. Other trip limits apply after November. This alternative would likely have negative social impacts for Spanish mackerel fishermen and their families as well as fish houses and the supply industries the Spanish mackerel fishery supports from potentially excessive harvests in March with no trip limit.

Alternative 2 ( preferred ) Under Alternative 2, the 3,500 pound trip limit will begin on March 1st, one month earlier than under the status quo alternative. This enables fishermen to fish under the 3,500 trip limit during a month when there are few other fishing opportunities. This provides increased total landings stability for communities and increased financial stability for fishermen and their families.

Non-Use ValueBecause there are no changes to the TAC implied by Action 3, there are no expected changes to non-use value.


7.4 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Administrative Environment

Monitoring catch quotas, and enforcing fishery closures when a quota is met, directly burdens the administrative environment. Actions 1 and 2 specify alternative quotas for Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel migratory groups. However, because quota monitoring programs are already in place, these alternatives would present no significant additional administrative burden. However, it should be noted that Alternative 3 for both Actions 1 and 2 would likely be more administratively burdensome than Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 in that there is a higher likelihood that closures will occur under Alternative 3. Additional administrative tasks would likely include document preparation, document review, and information dissemination.

Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 under Action 3 would require an initial minimal increase in administrative burden associated with changing the current regulations (document revision and review and information dissemination).

Under all three actions current administrative burdens include tasks completed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, NOAA Fisheries, NOAA GC, and law enforcement agencies. The Council has conducted document preparation, meetings, a public hearing, and information dissemination. NOAA Fisheries and NOAA GC have been involved in document preparation, meetings, data analysis, and document review. Law enforcement is involved in various aspects of fisheries enforcement.

7.5 Mitigation Measures

Alternative 3 of proposed Actions 1 and 2 could adversely affect immediate, short-term net revenues of commercial and for-hire fishermen in the South Atlantic if commercial closures occurred more often than under Alternative 1. Alternative 3 under Action 1 could also adversely affect short-term consumer surplus of some recreational anglers in the South Atlantic and may result in cancelled trips and reduced expenditures to the fishery and associated industries. However, the long-term biological, economic and social benefits are expected to outweigh the potential short-term losses.

The short-term adverse effects of ending overfishing can be mitigated to some degree by the type of regulations the Council selects to manage reduced catch levels. For example, trip limits can be used to extend the duration of a fishery and reduce the risk of losing a market for the species. However, Alternative 3 is not the Council’s preferred alternative. If Alternative 3 were chosen by the Council, the Council would have the option of changing trip limits and implementing other measures that are believed to best mitigate the unavoidable, short-term, adverse effects of ending overfishing.

7.6 Cumulative Effects


Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 13C to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NOAA Fisheries; regulations become effective October 23, 2006. This amendment would end overfishing of snowy grouper, golden tilefish, vermilion snapper, and black sea bass through new regulations for the commercial and recreational fisheries. Some of these proposed management measures will be phased in over 2-3 years. These regulations are expected to reduce immediate net revenue to the commercial fishery. However, in the long-term biomass levels are expected to increase resulting in increased economic benefits to harvesters (commercial and recreational), non-consumptive users, and society (as existence values increase).

Short-term cumulative losses from implementation of the Amendment 13C harvest restrictions are projected to vary from $0.73 to $1.08 million during the first year and third year of implementation respectively. This represents 12.3% and 18.1% of status quo net dockside revenue respectively. Status quo income represents the total revenue earned from all species from trips where any of the four species being regulated under Amendment 13C are harvested. Of the vessels harvesting the four species, 313 to 324 vessels would be expected to incur immediate, short-term losses from the combined effect of the preferred alternatives.

Several vessels that fish for snapper grouper also participate in the mackerel fishery. Due to the short-term losses expected for the snapper grouper fishery, it is expected that some snapper grouper fishermen will participate more heavily in the mackerel fishery than they otherwise would in other years. As a result, the mackerel fishery commercial quotas may be met earlier in the year than in recent years and this may contribute to an early commercial closure triggered by achievement of the commercial quotas. Under Alternative 3 of Actions 1 and 2, early closures are already anticipated. If Alternative 3 for Action 1 and/or 2 are chosen by the Council, this will contribute to the short-term economic losses expected for fishermen participating in the snapper grouper fishery and the mackerel fisheries.

Alternative 3 under Actions 1 and 2 could contribute to the current decline in the infrastructure for commercial fishing in the South Atlantic. If the commercial fishing infrastructure continues to wane, and the proposed management measures hasten that decline, communities will lose this attraction for their tourist trade, and visitors may have a diminished coastal tourism experience. However, these communities can only be expected to exist and prosper if healthy resources and fisheries also exist. So, preventing overfishing of the mackerel resource, as a component of the marine ecosystem, is essential to the existence and sustenance of these communities.

With regard to the biological benefits expected from a decrease in the TAC, these are outlined above. The biological benefits and long-term economic benefits are expected to outweigh the short-term economic losses.

7.7 Unavoidable Adverse Effects


None of the action alternatives would have unavoidable and immediate adverse effects on fishery participants because they would not immediately result in reduced harvest and revenue. However, Alternative 3 under Actions 1 and 2 could result in an early closure of the commercial Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel fisheries. Any short-term adverse effects that do occur can be mitigated to some degree by the type of regulations the Council selects to manage reduced catch levels. For example, trip limits can be used to extend the duration of a fishery for a longer time period than would occur under a reduced quota and no trip limit restriction, reducing the risk of losing the market for a species due to its unpredictable or inadequate availability. The long-term net effects of preventing overfishing of these the two mackerel species are expected to be positive, because constraining fishing mortality to a sustainable rate will maintain stock biomass at a level that is capable of providing maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield, or the greatest overall benefit to the nation.

7.8 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

Change to TACs in response to new scientific data is an integral part of the overall management strategy to achieve OYs and thus maximize the overall benefits to the Nation of the Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel fisheries. Alternative 1 under Action 1 and Alternatives 1 and 4 under Action 2 offer the greatest short–term economic benefits to harvesters, processors, communities, and consumers. Under the other alternatives identified for Actions 1 and 2 (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 under Action 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3 under Action 2), the short-term uses of these fisheries would be affected by a decrease in the TAC compared to the status quo. No decrease in catch levels are expected for Alternatives 2 and 4 under Action 1 and Alternative 2 under Action 2. A decrease in catch levels is expected for Alternative 3 under Action 1 and for Alternative 3 under Action 2. The decrease in catch levels is expected to impact fishermen and buyer/dealer/processor gross revenues until the fishermen and buyers adjust their operations, if possible, to an equally profitable level. These are expected to be short-term impacts. Regarding long-term impacts, it is possible that some fishing and buying/processing operations will go out of business as a result of the TAC changes being proposed, as well as other factors. It is possible that these operations will not be able to start up again once they cease to operate. This produces long-term impacts to the fishing industry, communities that benefit from their operation, and the consumers of the harvested seafood.

To various degrees, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 under Action 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3 under Action 2 are expected to have long-term productivity benefits resulting from well managed stocks that are not being overfished. The long-term productivity expected under these alternatives would benefit fishermen, buyers/processors, the communities they impact, and consumers in the long-term to a greater degree than the less certain productivity of the resource under status quo TAC levels. Under Alternative 1, it is less certain that the biological resources will be able to sustain a fishing industry. These long-term productivity increases are expected to produce biological, economic, and social benefits that outweigh the short-term gains that would be obtained under Alternative 1. Therefore, while Alternative 1 under Action 1 and


Alternatives 1 and 4 under Action 2 offer the largest short–term economic benefit to harvesters, processors, communities, and consumers, they also offer the smallest long-term economic benefit.

Assigning catch limits for one month earlier in the year (Alternative 2, Action 3) than under status quo (Alternative 1, Action 3) should improve short-term economic and social stability in the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery. Alternative 2 under Action 3 is not expected to alter short- or long-term productivity of the biological resource.

7.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments are defined as commitments, which cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long-term, whereas irretrievable commitments are lost for a period of time. There are no irreversible commitments for this amendment. While some of the alternatives of proposed Actions 1 and 2 could result in irretrievable losses in fishing income, consumer surplus, and angler expenditures, failing to take action could compromise the long-term sustainability of the stocks as well as the fishermen and communities that depend upon them.

7.10 Any Other Disclosures

No additional disclosures are needed or known for the actions proposed in this amendment.


8 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative (NOAA) Order 216-6 (NAO 216-6) (May 20, 1999) contains criteria for determining the significance of the impacts of a proposed action. On July 22, 2005, NOAA published a Policy Directive with guidelines for the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 C.F.R. '1508.27 state that the significance of an action should be analyzed both in terms of “context” and “intensity”. Each criterion listed below is relevant to making a finding of no significant impact and has been considered individually, as well as in combination with the others. The significance of these actions are analyzed based on the NAO 216-6 criteria, the recent Policy Directive from NOAA, and CEQ’s context and intensity criteria. These include:

1) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitat as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in FMPs?

Response: No, the proposed actions are not reasonably expected to cause substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or EFH. The conclusion in the EFH Assessment (Section 9.9) is that these actions will have no additional impact on EFH. These actions will not change the measures put in place under Amendment 10 to reduce impacts on EFH. Specifically, these actions do not allow changes in access to essential fish habitat for coastal migratory pelagic species (sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars, high profile rocky bottom and barrier island ocean-side waters, from the surf to the shelf break zone, but from the Gulf Stream shoreward, including Sargassum, all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular importance to coastal migratory pelagics). In fact, a decrease in fishing may decrease harvester interactions with ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitat.

2) Can the proposed action be expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity and/or ecosystem function within the affected area (e.g., benthic productivity, predator-prey relationships, etc.)?

Response: No, the proposed action is not expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity and/or ecosystem function within the affected area. Section 6.1 references descriptions of the affected area including the benthic habitat and biological parameters of the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel resource. Actions 1 and 2 propose to decrease the TAC below current levels but to maintain current fishing mortality. Action 3 is largely an administrative change and does not propose changes to fishing mortality levels. Therefore, no additional impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem function are expected as a result of these actions.

3) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse impact on public health or safety?

Response: No, the proposed action is not reasonably expected to have a substantial adverse impact on public safety or health. The actions proposed to reduce the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel TACs are expected to decrease landings and may result in early


closure. These are not expected to adversely impact public health or safety. The third action extends catch limits to the first month of the new season and this is also not expected to adversely impact public health or safety.

4) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect endangered or threatened species, their critical habitat, marine mammals, or other non-target species?

Response: No, the proposed actions are not expected to adversely affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of these species. Section 9.4 describes potential interactions between endangered species and fishermen that harvest coastal pelagics. Section 9.9 discusses essential fish habitat for coastal migratory pelagics and Section 9.6 discusses potential marine mammal interactions. In general, the actions proposed to decrease the TACs for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel can potentially decrease harvest interactions with endangered or threatened species, their critical habitat, marine mammals, or other non-target species. The action proposed to extend Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits is not expected to adversely affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of these species.

5) Are significant social or economic impacts interrelated with natural or physical environmental effects?

Response: No, these actions do not propose any significant social or economic impacts interrelated with natural or physical environmental effects. A discussion of the impacts of the proposed actions are presented in Section 7.0 of this document. The proposed actions improve stability and sustainability of the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel fisheries through decreases in the TAC and extension of trip limits with no change in the TAC. These actions do not have significant social or economic impacts interrelated with natural or physical environmental effects.

6) Are the effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be highly controversial?

Response: No, the effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The proposed actions will decrease the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel TACs and extend the trip limits for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery, which will have positive impacts on the long-term sustainability and stability of the two fisheries. Sections 7.2 and 7.3 assess the economic and social impacts of the proposed actions and Section 7.6 describes the potential cumulative effects of the actions on the human environment. Overall, the proposed actions are expected to have a positive impact on long-term economic and social sustainability, and thus, be beneficial for the human environment and are not likely to be highly controversial.

7) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in substantial impacts to unique areas, such as historic or cultural resources, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, essential fish habitat, or ecologically critical areas?


Response: No, the proposed actions are not reasonably expected to result in substantial impacts to unique areas, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, essential fish habitat, or ecologically critical areas. Section 9.9 discusses potential impacts to essential fish habitat and there are no substantial impacts expected as a result of the proposed actions. Unique areas, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas are not located within the affected area; therefore, there are no impacts on these components of the environment from the proposed action.

8) Are the effects on the human environment likely to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks?

Response: No, the effects on the human environment are not likely to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. These actions propose a decrease in the TACs and an extension of trip limits with no change in the TAC. These actions are proposed to avoid overfishing, maintain a precautionary management approach, and increase landings stability. While there is no way to accurately predict the changes fishermen and those affected by the proposed actions will react to the TAC reductions, the effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, nor do they involve unique or unknown risks. The effects and risks are reasonably well understood. The expected impacts on the human environment are outlined in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 as well as Section 7.6 (Cumulative Effects).

9) Is the proposed action related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant impacts?

Response: No, the proposed actions are not related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Section 7.6 describes the cumulative effects expected on the human environment as a result of the proposed actions. Some of the proposed actions do result in cumulative impacts, but none of the expected impacts resulting from the preferred alternatives indicate a significant adverse impact. The Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel fisheries have been impacted by past and present actions and are likely to continue to be impacted by actions in the future. However, the actions proposed are expected to avoid overfishing, increase long-term sustainability, and improve economic stability.

10) Is the proposed action likely to adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources?

Response: No, the proposed actions do not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or are expected to cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources because they are not located in the affected area.


11) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in the introduction or spread of a nonindigenous species?

Response: No, the proposed actions are not reasonably expected to result in the introduction or spread of a nonindigenous species. The proposed actions are not expected to introduce or spread any nonindigenous species more than fishing under current regulations would.

12) Is the proposed action likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration?

Response: No, the proposed actions are not likely to establish a precedent for future action with significant effects, and it does not represent a decision in principle about future consideration. The proposed actions set TACs and trip limits for future years. However, the availability of new stock assessment information could be used to propose new actions to change the TACs and changing biological and economic understanding of the fishery could prompt the Council to alter trip limits. Therefore, the proposed actions are not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration.

13) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment?

Response: No, the proposed actions are not reasonably expected to threaten a violation of Federal, State, local law, or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. While the actions do propose reductions in the TACs for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel, no decreases in revenues are expected as a direct or indirect result of these actions.

14) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on the target species or non-target species?

Response:No, the proposed actions are not reasonably expected to result in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on the target species or non-target species. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions have been discussed in Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.6. In general, these actions will prevent overfishing, maintain sustainable management approaches, and increase economic stability, which will have long-term positive impacts on target and non-target species.


FONSI DETERMINATION:In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis contained in the supporting Environmental Assessment prepared for Amendment 18 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP, it is hereby determined that Amendment 18 will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment as described above and in the Environmental Assessment. In addition, all beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach the conclusion of no significant impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this action is not necessary.

____________________________________ _________________Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA Date


9 OTHER APPLICABLE LAW

The MSFCMA (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) provides the authority for U.S. fishery management. However, fishery management decision-making is also affected by a number of other federal statutes designed to protect the biological and human components of U.S. fisheries, as well as the ecosystems within which those fisheries are conducted. This environmental assessment is an integrated document that combines analyses necessary for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review.

NEPA requires all federal actions such as the formulation of fishery management plans to be evaluated for potential environmental and human environment impacts, and for these impacts to be assessed and reported to the public. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate a range of alternatives. For this amendment, the Council conducted an Environmental Assessment, which is a concise statement that determines whether the proposed amendment will have a significant impact on the environment.

The RFA requires federal agencies to assess the impacts of regulatory actions implemented through notice and comment rulemaking procedures on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental entities, with the goal of minimizing adverse impacts of burdensome regulations and record-keeping requirements on those entities. These analyses, which describe the type and number of small businesses affected, are provided in Section 5 and will be published in the Federal Register in full or in summary for public comment and submitted to the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

To comply with E.O. 12866, NMFS prepares a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all fishery regulatory actions that either implement a new fishery management plan or significantly amend an existing plan. RIRs provide a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits to society associated with proposed regulatory actions, the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals, and the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problems. These analyses can be found in Section 4 of this amendment.

Other major laws affecting federal fishery management decision-making are summarized below.

9.1 Administrative Procedures Act

All federal rulemaking is governed under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II), which establishes a “notice and comment” procedure to enable public participation in the rulemaking process. Under the APA, NMFS is required to publish notification of proposed rules in the Federal Register and to solicit, consider, and respond to public comment on those rules before they are finalized. The APA also establishes a 30-day wait period from the time a final rule is published until it takes effect.


9.2 Coastal Zone Management Act

Section 307(c)(1) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, requires that federal activities that affect any land or water use or natural resource of a state’s coastal zone be conducted in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved state coastal management programs. The requirements for such a consistency determination are set forth in NOAA regulations at 15 C.F.R. part 930, subpart C. NMFS has determined that this action is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management programs of the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina to the maximum extent practicable. This determination will be submitted to the responsible state agencies by NMFS under Section 307 of the CZMA during the public hearing stage.

9.3 Data Quality Act

The Data Quality Act (DQA) (Public Law 106-443) effective October 1, 2002, requires the government to set standards for the quality of scientific information and statistics used and disseminated by federal agencies. Specifically, the Act directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies.” Such guidelines have been issued, directing all federal agencies to create and disseminate agency-specific standards to: (1) ensure information quality and develop a pre-dissemination review process; (2) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information; and (3) report periodically to OMB on the number and nature of complaints received.

9.4 Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.) requires that federal agencies use their authorities to conserve endangered and threatened species. The ESA requires NMFS, when proposing a fishery action that “may affect” critical habitat or endangered or threatened species, to consult with the appropriate administrative agency (itself for most marine species, the USFWS for all remaining species) to determine the potential impacts of the proposed action. Consultations are concluded informally when proposed actions “may affect but are not likely to adversely affect” endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat. Formal consultations, including a biological opinion, are required when proposed actions may affect and are “likely to adversely affect” endangered or threatened species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the consulting agency is required to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives.

An informal section 7 consultation was conducted on the original Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (CMPR) FMP (February, 1983). NOAA Fisheries concluded that the management measures proposed in the CMPR FMP were not likely to adversely affect any listed species under the ESA. The consultation, however, did not analyze the effects of the fishery itself.

The effects of the coastal pelagics fishery on endangered and threatened species were first considered in an April 28, 1989 biological opinion, which analyzed the effects of all commercial


fishing activities in the Southeast Region as part of a formal Section 7 consultation on NOAA Fisheries’ Marine Mammal Authorization Program. The biological opinion concluded that commercial fishing activities in the southeastern United States were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species. The incidental take of ten Kemp’s ridley, green, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles; 100 loggerhead sea turtles; or 100 shortnose sturgeon was allotted to each fishery identified in the Incidental Take Statement (ITS). Pelagic hook-and-line and gill-net fisheries were two of the fisheries identified. The amount of incidental take was later amended by a July 5, 1989, opinion, which reduced the amount of take to only ten documented Kemp’s ridley, green, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles; 100 loggerhead sea turtles; or 100 shortnose sturgeon for all commercial fishing activities conducted in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fisheries combined.

On November 6, 1991, a formal Section 7 consultation on Amendment 6 to the FMP was initiated. The resulting August 19, 1992, opinion on the effects of commercial fishing activities under the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources FMP and Amendment 6 found that the regulatory actions were not likely to adversely affect listed species. Additionally, fishing activities conducted under the authority of the FMP may affect, but were not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of listed sea turtles. An incidental take allowance, with associated reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations were issued. Incidental take levels for listed species for all fisheries in the United States established in the July 5, 1989 biological opinion were retained. Nevertheless, consultation was to be reinitiated if the total documented incidental take of Kemp’s ridley, green, hawksbill or leatherback turtles meets or exceeds five, or twenty-five loggerhead turtles, for the combined gill-net and hook-and-line fisheries for coastal migratory pelagics. The reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impacts on listed species by hook-and-line and gill-net fisheries for pelagics included:

1. A regional observer program will be implemented to document incidental injury and mortality of listed species. With the exception of off bottom trawls, hook-and-line, and trap fisheries, all southeast U.S. fisheries need additional investigation. This program should emphasize monitoring of gill-net and longline fisheries where the least amount of information is available and the potential for adverse impacts to sea turtles appears the greatest.

2. Regulations should be promulgated to reduce/eliminate mortalities in any fisheries where the take of endangered and threatened species exceeds levels specified in the Incidental Take Statement (ITS).

3. All incidents of take of endangered or threatened species will be reported to NMFS within 10 days of the take. The report shall include a description of the animal’s condition at the time of release.

4. Any sea turtle incidentally taken must be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water as provided in 50 CFR Part 227.72(e) (1) (I).


Subsequent consultations conducted on amendments to the CMPR FMP and emergency actions have been informal, finding that the regulatory changes resulting from those actions would not alter the findings under the biological opinion on Amendment 6 to the FMP.

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of consultation is required if: (1.) the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded, (2.) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, (3.) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4.) a new species is listed, the identified activity is subsequently modified, or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this activity.

NOAA Fisheries has no data indicating the take specified in the August 20, 1992, incidental take statement has been exceeded. However, over the twelve years that have elapsed since then, new information regarding the status of listed species and the effect actions have on them has become available. Additionally, the fishery for coastal pelagic resources may affect a new species listed as endangered, the smalltooth sawfish. Critical habitat for the northern right whale was also designated after the 1992 consultation (58 FR 28793, June 3, 1994). Based on this information, NOAA Fisheries believes reinitiation of formal consultation is warranted. SERO’s SFD will request SERO’s PRD conduct a Section 7 consultation under Section 7 of the ESA on the impacts of the actions in Amendment 15. A biological opinion will be developed for Amendment 15 and will include previous actions under the CMP FMP that have occurred subsequent to the last biological opinion.

9.5 Executive Orders

9.5.1 E.O. 12630: Takings

The Executive Order on Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights that became effective March 18, 1988, requires that each federal agency prepare a Takings Implication Assessment for any of its administrative, regulatory, and legislative policies and actions that affect, or may affect, the use of any real or personal property. Clearance of a regulatory action must include a takings statement and, if appropriate, a Takings Implication Assessment. There are no takings implications from the proposed action. This measure is categorically excluded per Attorney General guidelines.

9.5.2 E.O. 13089: Coral Reef Protection

The Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection requires federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems to identify those actions; utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems; and, to the extent permitted by law, ensure that actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out do not degrade the condition of that ecosystem. There are no implications to coral reefs by the action proposed.


9.5.3 E.O. 13132: Federalism

The Executive Order on Federalism requires agencies in formulating and implementing policies, to be guided by the fundamental Federalism principles. The Order serves to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the states. No Federalism issues have been identified relative to the proposed action. Therefore, consultation with state officials under this Executive Order is not necessary.

9.5.4 E.O. 13158: Marine Protected Areas

This Executive Order requires federal agencies to consider whether their proposed action(s) will affect any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural or cultural resource within the protected area. This action would have no impacts to marine protected areas.

9.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act

The MMPA established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and on the importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. Under the MMPA, the Secretary (authority delegated to NMFS) is responsible for the conservation and management of cetaceans and pinnipeds (other than walruses). The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs.

Part of the responsibility NMFS has under the MMPA involves monitoring populations of marine mammals to make sure they stay at optimum levels. If a population falls below its optimum level, it is designated as “depleted,” and a conservation plan is developed to guide research and management actions to restore the population to healthy levels.

In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA, to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. This amendment required the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, development and implementation of take-reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions with commercial fisheries, and studies of pinniped-fishery interactions.

Under Section 118 of the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries must publish, at least annually, a List ofFisheries (LOF) that places all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories: (1) Frequent (Category I), (2) occasional (Category II), or (3) remote (Category III) based on the level of incidental, serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs in each fishery. The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. The Southeast Atlantic gill-net fishery (i.e., the Florida East Coast king and Spanish mackerel gill-net fishery and the Southeast U.S. Atlantic


coastal shad gillnet fishery) and the Gulf of Mexico gill-net fishery (i.e., the Gulf of Mexico king and Spanish mackerel gill-net fishery, the Gulf of Mexico inshore gill-net fishery, and the Gulf of Mexico coastal gill-net fishery) are both listed as a Category II fisheries (69 FR 48407). No changes in these fishery’s classifications were proposed in the 2004 proposed LOF (69 FR 71, April 13, 2004).

The Southeast Atlantic gill-net fishery is regulated in part under the Atlantic Large Whale TakeReduction Plan (ALWTRP), which was finalized in 1999. The ALWTRP was developed to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality of right, humpback, and fin whales from incidental interactions with commercial fisheries. The ALWTRP was modified in 2002 to prohibit straight sets of gill nets at night in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area [from 32°00’N (near Savannah, Georgia) south to 27°51’N (near Sebastian Inlet, Florida) from the shore eastward to 80°00’W] from November 15 through March 31 (67 FR 184, September 23, 2002). The Team was recently reconvened and is currently considering further measures to reduce the interaction of large whales with gill nets.

A Bottlenose Take Reduction Team was convened in November 2001 to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality of bottlenose dolphins from incidental interactions with commercial fisheries. The team agreed upon consensus recommendations on May 7, 2002, with addendum’s in April 2003. A draft plan and proposed rule are being prepared, which may include some measures affecting CMP gill-net fisheries in the future (i.e., gear marking).

9.7 Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) regulates the collection of public information by federal agencies to ensure that the public is not overburdened with information requests, that the federal government’s information collection procedures are efficient, and that federal agencies adhere to appropriate rules governing the confidentiality of such information. The PRA requires NMFS to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget before requesting most types of fishery information from the public.

Permit application processes are not being changed by this amendment, and no new reporting requirements or burdens are being proposed. Therefore, NMFS does not need to submit an additional request for information collection to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

9.8 Small Business Act

The Small Business Act of 1953, as amended, Section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a) and (d); Public Laws 95-507 and 99-661, Section 1207; and Public Laws 100-656 and 101-37 are administered by the Small Business Administration. Because most businesses associated with fishing are considered small businesses, NMFS must make an assessment of how those regulations will affect small businesses. Implications to small businesses are discussed in Section 6, herein.


9.9 Essential Fish Habitat

The amended M-SFCMA included new EFH requirements, and as such, each existing, and any new, FMP must describe and identify EFH for the fishery, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on that EFH caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of that EFH. In 1999, a coalition of several environmental groups brought suit challenging the agency’s approval of the EFH FMP amendments prepared by the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, New England, North Pacific, and Pacific Fishery Management Councils (American Oceans Campaign et al. v. Daley et al., Civil Action No. 99-982(GK)(D.D.C. September 14, 2000). The court found that the agency’s decisions on the EFH amendments were in accordance with the M-SFCMA, but held that the EAs on the amendments were in violation of the NEPA and ordered NOAA Fisheries to complete new, more thorough NEPA analyses for each EFH amendment in question.

Consequently, NOAA Fisheries entered into a Joint Stipulation with the plaintiff environmental organizations that called for each affected Council to complete EISs rather than EAs for the action of minimizing adverse effects of fishing to the extent practicable on EFH. See AOC v. Evans/Daley et al., Civil No. 99-982 (GK)(D.D.C. December 5, 2001). However, because the court did not limit its criticism of the EAs to only efforts to minimize adverse fishing effects on EFH, it was decided that the scope of these EISs should address all required EFH components as described in Section 303 (a)(7) of the M-SFCMA. The SAFMC’s EFH amendment was not challenged.

To address these requirements the GMFMC has, under separate action, drafted an EIS to analyze within each fishery a range of potential alternatives to: (1) describe and identify EFH for the fishery; (2) identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such EFH; and (3) identify measures to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on such EFH.

Essential fish habitat for coastal migratory pelagic species includes sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars, high profile rocky bottom and barrier island ocean-side waters, from the surf to the shelf break zone, but from the Gulf Stream shoreward, including Sargassum. In addition, all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular importance to coastal migratory pelagics (for example, in North Carolina this would include all Primary Nursery Areas and all Secondary Nursery Areas). In addition, the Gulf Stream is an essential fish habitat because it provides a mechanism to disperse coastal migratory pelagic larvae. For king and Spanish mackerel and cobia, essential fish habitat occurs in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Bights.

Areas which meet the criteria for Essential Fish Habitat – Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPCs) include sandy shoals of Capes Lookout, Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras from shore to the ends of the respective shoals, but shoreward of the Gulf stream; The Point, The Ten-Fathom Ledge, and Big Rock (North Carolina); The Charleston Bump and Hurl Rocks (South Carolina); The Point off Jupiter Inlet (Florida); Phragmatopoma (worm reefs) reefs off the central east coast of Florida; nearshore hard bottom south of Cape Canaveral; The Hump off Islamorada, Florida; The Marathon Hump off Marathon, Florida; The “Wall” off of the Florida Keys; Pelagic Sargassum; and Atlantic coast estuaries with high numbers of Spanish mackerel


and cobia based on abundance data from the ELMR Program. Estuaries meeting this criteria for Spanish mackerel include Bogue Sound and New River, North Carolina; Bogue Sound, North Carolina (Adults May-September salinity >30 ppt); and New River, North Carolina (Adults May-October salinity >30 ppt). For cobia they include Broad River, South Carolina and Broad River, South Carolina (Adults & juveniles May-July salinity >25ppt).

The proposed actions reduce the Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel TACs and extend current Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limits to March, the first month in the new fishing year. The decrease in catches expected as a result of Actions 1 and 2 could slightly decrease interactions with EFH and HAPC while the trip limit changes (Action 3) would not impact the TAC and have no additional impact on EFH or HAPC. Therefore, there are no expectations of adverse effects to EFH in this amendment.


10 LIST OF PREPARERS

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries ServiceKate Quigley – Fishery Economist John Vondruska – Fishery EconomistGregg Waugh – Deputy Executive Director Stephen Branstetter – Fishery Biologist


11 REFERENCES

Collette, B. B. and J. L. Russo. 1979 An introduction to the Spanish mackerels, genus Scomberomorus. In Nakamura and Bullis (eds.), Proceedings: Colloquium on the Spanish and king mackerel resources of the Gulf og Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 4. p. 3-16.

Easley, J. E., C. Adams, W. N. Thurman, and J. Kincaid. 1993. The derived demand for commercially harvested Gulf and South Atlantic king mackerel: partial and general equilibrium. A project report to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. March 29, 1993. 42 pp. and appendices.

Gentner, B., M. Price, and S. Steinback. 2001. Marine Angler Expenditures in the Southeast Region, 1999. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-48.

Haab, T. C., J. C. Whitehead, and T. McConnell. 2001. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-466.

Hartig, Ben. September 2006. Personal communication.

Holland, S. M., A. J. Fedler, and J. W. Milon. 1999. The Operation and Economics of the Charter and Headboat Fleets of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Coasts. University of Florida Office of research, Technology, and Graduate Education. Report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Grant Number NA77FF0553.

Jepson, Michael, Kathi Kitner, Ana Pitchon, Wendy Wicke Perry, and Brent Stoffle. 2006. Potential Fishing Communities in the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida: An effort in baseline profiling and mapping. South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

MSAP. 1996.

MSAP. 2003. 2003 Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel. Prepared by the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel at the Panel Meeting Held May 19-21, 2003.

Mayo, D. A. 1973. Rearing, growth, and development of the eggs and larvae of seven scombrid fishes from the Straits of Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 138 pp.

McEachran, J. D. and J. H. Finucane. 1979. (Abstract). Distribution, seasonality, and abundance of larval king and Spanish mackerels in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In Nakamura and Bullis (eds.), Proceedings: Colloquium on the Spanish and king mackerel resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 4. p. 3-16.


Powell, D. 1975. Age, growth, reproduction in Florida stocks of Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculates. Florida Marine Research Publication No. 5. 21 pp.

ASMFC, 2005. 2005 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Spanish Mackerel. Prepared by the Spanish Mackerel Plan Review Team. Approved November 1, 2005.

Schekter, R. C. 1971. Food habits of some larval and juvenile fishes from the Florida current near Miami, Florida. MS Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables. 85 pp.

Scholtz, Astrid and Rodney Fujita. 2001. Supplementary Report: Social and Economic implications of a Channel Island Marine Reserve Network. Environmental Defense. Oakland, CA.

SEDAR 5. 2004. Complete Stock Assessment Report of SEDAR 2005 – Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico King Mackerel. SEDAR 5 Assessment Reports 1-5.

Vondruska, J. 1999. An analysis of the demand for king mackerel. NMFS, Fisheries Economics Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive, North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432, SERO-ECON-99-08. April 13, 1999.

Vondruska, J. and W. O. Antozzi. 1999. U.S. markets and trade in king mackerel and other large mackerel. NMFS, Fisheries Economics Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive, North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432, SERO-ECON-99-08. April 13, 1999.

Wollam, M.B. 1970. Description and distribution of larvae and early juveniles of king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), and Spanish mackerel, S. maculatus (Mitchill); (Pisces:Scombridae); in the Western North Atlantic.Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Lab. Tech. Serv. 61. 35 pp.


12 APPENDICES

Appendix A. Community Dependence on Mackerel Fisheries

Jepson, et al (2006) conducted community profiles for the South Atlantic region. These community profiles provide a snapshot of the community and its involvement in fishing using 2001 as a base year. The profiles provide historical background about the community and its involvement in fisheries or fisheries related industries. The profiles provide information on community involvement in commercial and recreational fishing as evidenced through various indicators (federal commercial permits, state commercial licenses, federal charter permits, seafood landings, fish processors and wholesale fish houses recreational docks/marinas and recreational fishing tournaments). Demographic information on a community basis is also provided to the extent that the data was gathered in a Federal Census.

In general, the profiles do not provide fishery specific information other than the number of federal and state permits associated with each community where the federal and state permits are categorized by type. Because not all communities profiled are likely relevant to the actions under consideration in this document, the community profiles that discuss communities that are homeports for vessels with at least five federal commercial king mackerel, federal commercial Spanish mackerel, and federal charter/headboat permit for coastal pelagics combined have been included in this section. The last subsection under each state heading summarizes community engagement in that state based on several indicators that data was gathered for.

North CarolinaSince 1998, North Carolina has had a high of 535 vessels with federal permits, now down to 439 in 2001 (Table 2.1). Most vessels with federal permits had either king or Spanish mackerel with snapper grouper class 1 permits being the next most common.

Table 2.1 Number of Federal Permit by Type for North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 535 513 477 439Commercial King Mackerel 428 362 356 336Commercial Spanish Mackerel 376 256 211 216Commercial Spiny Lobster 21 23 17 13Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 155 148 141 129Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 89 94 98 95Snapper Grouper Class 1 153 191 155 164Snapper Grouper Class 2 28 33 27 26Swordfish 1 19 17 20Shark 0 39 24 43Rock Shrimp 46 39 35 37

Community Profiles – Southport, NCSouthport is a quaint fishing community located at the mouth of the Cape Fear River, originally incorporated in 1792; this community caters to both tourists and locals. The downtown marina has restaurants, gift shops and several inns. There are at least three marinas in the area, with several seafood restaurants nearby. There is a dredging company and a nearby boat yard and a

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan A-1

welding company that provide marine repairs. The North Carolina State Ports Authority has a small boat harbor located here and the NC Maritime Museum has a branch in Southport.

There are several recreational fishing tournaments held in Southport including the US Open King Mackerel Fishing Tournament held in October which attracts more than 500 boats annually. Other tournaments include the Lady Anglers King Mackerel Tournament in August and the Wildlife Bait and Tackle Flounder Tournament held in September.

Southport has some seafood employment with most in seafood processing and fish and seafoods as shown in Table 2.2.4.3. There are over 200 state permits with the majority being commercial vessel registrations and the next being standard commercial fishing licenses at 76. There were 14 dealer permits listed also.

Southport has seen a decrease in its population since 1980 from 2835 to 2386 in 2000. Approximately 70 percent of the housing was owner occupied in 1990 and 2000 and a large majority of the population has remained stable, living in the same home as five years before for both censuses. The percentage of people in the work force has increased while the percentage of unemployed has dropped according to Table 2.2.3.4. The majority of the population is White (76%) with 22% Black and less than 2% Latino. The poverty rate in 2000 was 12.5 percent which is up from 10 percent in 1980. There has been a decline in both the Agriculture, Fishing and Mining industry category and the Farm, Fish, and Forestry occupation category since 1990 (Table 2.2.3.8 and 2.2.3.9).

PopulationTable 2.2.3.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Southport, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 2835 2359 2386Persons Age 0-5 . 125 89 156Persons Age 6-15 . 133 113 277Persons Age 16-17 . 514 297 46Persons Age 18-24 . 96 67 107Persons Age 25-34 . 216 162 212Persons Age 35-44 . 385 298 309Persons Age 45-54 . 343 322 375Persons Age 55-64 . 302 236 325Persons Age 65+ . 304 279 579

Housing TenureTable 2.2.3.2. Housing Tenure for Southport, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000

29.9 31.8Percent Owner Occupied 1990 2000

70.1 68.2


Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.2.3.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Southport, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

238 182Same House 1990 2000

1388 1331

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.2.3.4 Employment and Unemployment for Southport, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 48.7 56.3Percent unemployed 8.9 5

RaceTable 2.2.3.5. Race for Southport, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 785 622 512Latino Black Persons . 19 0 0Latino Persons . 51 8 34White Persons . 2044 1737 1777Latino White Persons . 32 8 24

EducationTable 2.2.3.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Southport, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 275 192 7325+ w/ 9-11 years education . 365 220 19525+ w/ HS diploma . 534 476 40725+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 363 331 48925+ w/ College Degree . 301 340 622Drop outs . 7 0 14

Income and PovertyTable 2.2.3.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Southport, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $16282 $28062 $33714Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 283 281 298


Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 44 108 75Households with Public Assistance . 138 90 36

IndustryTable 2.2.3.8. Employment by Industry for Southport, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 0 16 5Construction . 89 4 97Business Services . 37 31 75Communication/Utilities . 137 126 64Manufacturing . 67 54 49Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 0 36 80Services . 49 65 429Wholesale/Retail Trade . 196 307 159Transportation . 186 157 37

OccupationTable 2.2.3.9. Employment by Occupation for Southport, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 64 128 -Clerical . 1680 120 -Craft . 170 47 -Exec/Managerial . 100 104 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 0 22 2Household Services . 21 9 -Laborer/Handler . 54 39 -Operative/Transport . 27 35 -Service, except Household . 174 144 -Technical . 38 54 -

Table 2.2.4.3. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Southport/Bald Head Island, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)

Category NAIC Code Number EmployedFishing 114100 0Seafood Canning 311711 0Seafood Processing 311712 16Boat Building 336612 0Fish and Seafoods 422460 12Fish and Seafood Markets 445220 4Marinas 713930 12Total Fishing Employment 44

Table 2.2.4.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Southport, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)


Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 103Dealer License 14Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 12Standard Commercial Fishing License 76Shellfish License 7Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 1Total 213

Community Profiles – Carolina Beach, NC

Carolina Beach is situated along what is referred to as the Crystal Coast and has a storied history from Colonial times to the Civil War. Close to Wrightsville Beach, this community is not nearly as crowded or developed, but is still a major tourist destination that relies heavily on the charter boat industry. The municipal marina is where the charter and head boats are docked. Three head boats and three party/cruise boats and approximately 22 charters utilize the municipal marina. There are several bait & tackle shops nearby and there remains one commercial fish house in the community; out of at least five in the past. Five commercial vessels dock at the municipal marina. There are about eight seafood restaurants in the community and most of the hotels are independently owned rather than national chains. The area hosts three fishing tournaments each year: the Atlantic Anglers’ Spring Classic Surf Fishing Tournament in May, the East Coast Got-Em-On-Live-Bait Classic King Mackerel Tournament by the in July, and the Carolina Beach Surf Fishing Tournament in October. The community also hosts an annual Fall Seafood, Blues and Jazz festival.13

Carolina Beach’s population has grown steadily since 1980 to over 4700 people in 2000. Housing tenure has grown in the area of owner occupied since 1990 and more people seem to be living in the same house as they did five years ago. The number of persons in the labor force has not changed much while unemployment has dropped from 1990 to 2000 (Table 2.3.2.4). Racial percentages for the population have remained relatively stable with a predominantly White population according to Table 2.3.2.5.

Carolina Beach has over twenty vessels with federal permits and by far the majority of those vessels hold charter permits for both snapper grouper and coastal pelagics (Table 2.3.3.1). Most of the employment for the zip code area is in fish and seafood (Table 2.3.3.2) while the majority of the 184 state permits are for commercial fishing vessels at 84 (Table 2.3.3.3). There are another 57 standard commercial fishing licenses and 22 shellfish licenses in Carolina Beach.

13 (www.carolinabeach.org/pages/welcome.html).


http://www.carolinabeach.org/pages/welcome.html

PopulationTable 2.3.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 1992 3631 4729Persons Age 0-5 . 102 231 210Persons Age 6-15 . 268 381 402Persons Age 16-17 . 77 51 66Persons Age 18-24 . 230 357 317Persons Age 25-34 . 314 593 660Persons Age 35-44 . 225 646 778Persons Age 45-54 . 254 504 943Persons Age 55-64 . 216 404 771Persons Age 65+ . 292 464 582

Housing TenureTable 2.3.2.2. Housing Tenure for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


49.6 67.7

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.3.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

874 593Same House 1990 2000

1115 2164

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.3.2.4. Employment and Unemployment for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 65.8 68.0Percent unemployed 8.2 3.1

RaceTable 2.3.2.5. Race for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 11 31 56Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 26 16 36


White Persons . 1969 3574 4536Latino White Persons . 24 16 21

EducationTable 2.3.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 183 104 3825+ w/ 9-11 years education . 299 355 35525+ w/ HS diploma . 445 782 117525+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 258 693 100025+ w/ College Degree . 116 492 1157Drop outs . 30 31 9

Income and PovertyTable 2.3.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $14147 $28055 $37662Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 202 520 439Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 26 33 0Households with Public Assistance . 51 61 36

IndustryTable 2.3.2.8. Employment by Industry for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 17 80 19Construction . 80 202 419Business Services . 38 103 219Communication/Utilities . 36 51 61Manufacturing . 120 174 138Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 44 92 126Services . 41 156 1127Wholesale/Retail Trade . 167 575 483Transportation . 227 462 78


OccupationTable 2.3.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Carolina Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 111 191 -Clerical . 1180 199 -Craft . 162 265 -Exec/Managerial . 81 245 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 29 92 9Household Services . 0 0 -Laborer/Handler . 32 81 -Operative/Transport . 55 46 -Service, except Household . 142 253 -Technical . 13 93 -

Carolina Beach Fishing DemographicsTable 2.3.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Carolina Beach, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 23 25 23 26Commercial King Mackerel 19 20 21 23Commercial Spanish Mackerel 13 9 9 9Commercial Spiny Lobster 3 2 1 1Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 16 18 17 21Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 14 18 17 19Snapper Grouper Class 1 7 9 9 9Snapper Grouper Class 2 1 2 2 2Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 1 0 0 0Federal Dealers 0 0 3 2

Table 2.3.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Carolina Beach, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.3.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Carolina Beach, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)


Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 84Dealer License 13Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 1Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 6Standard Commercial Fishing License 57Shellfish License 22Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 1Total 184

Community Profiles – Wilmington, NCWilmington was previously known as New Liverpool, New Town and Newton, and founded by a group of Englishmen, many of whom were maritime businessmen. Located on the Cape Fear River, the town became an important port, but growth was originally slow following the Revolutionary War because of a lack of decent roads and the long distance of the port from the mouth of the river. However, in the mid-1800s, the port began to develop into a center for exports with rice, peanuts, flax, cotton, and naval stores being shipped all over the world. With the advent of the Civil War the export trade in Wilmington halted, but the town gained prominence however as “the lifeline of the Confederacy,” involving itself in the blockade running/profiteering business. After the war, cotton exports were still an important commodity shipped from the port, but World War II brought a shift in the economy with more of an emphasis upon ship building. Today, Wilmington continues to be an important port with the State’s Port Authority located there. 14

The total number of persons living in Wilmington has grown steadily since the 1970s according to Table 2.4.2.1. Housing tenure has not changed much with an almost even split between owner and renter occupied housing. Residence has changed to some degree with more people living in a different house outside the county, so the new migration from outside the county and state must be taking place. The percentage of people in the labor force has not changed much but unemployment has risen since 1990 from 3.8 to 8.6 in the year 2000. The population is still predominantly white, yet there is a substantial Black population that has historically been there. The poverty rate has dropped since 1970 when it was 25.2, but still remains at 18.8 percent for the year 2000 (Table 2.4.2.7). As with most communities there has been a substantial drop in the number of those persons employed in the agriculture, fishing and mining category of industry as well as the category of farm, fish and forestry under occupation for Wilmington (Tables 2.4.2.8 and 2.4.2.9).

Wilmington has had between 30 to 40 vessels with federal permits since 1998 and most of those have had permits to fish coastal pelagics and snapper grouper (Table 2.4.3.1). There is considerable employment in the realm of fish and seafood and seafood markets, but the majority

14 http://www.nhcgov.com/LIB/history/lhwilmhist.asp


http://www.nhcgov.com/LIB/history/lhwilmhist.asp

is in marinas and some also in boat building as reported in Table 2.4.3.2. There were over 1000 state permits issued for Wilmington with the majority of those issued for commercial vessels. There were almost 300 standard commercial fishing licenses and 152 shellfish licenses sold for Wilmington residents. Over 50 dealer licenses were issued as were 6 recreational fishing tournaments to sell licenses (Table 2.4.3.3).

PopulationTable 2.4.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Wilmington, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 46169 44000 55530 75542Persons Age 0-5 3858 2805 4157 4838Persons Age 6-15 8874 6453 6530 7491Persons Age 16-17 1904 1411 1453 1394Persons Age 18-24 5496 6816 8393 12985Persons Age 25-34 5203 6856 9064 38669Persons Age 35-44 4568 3865 7364 75048Persons Age 45-54 5679 3966 4901 8952Persons Age 55-64 5120 4996 4856 6546Persons Age 65+ 4681 6237 8812 11704

Housing TenureTable 2.4.2.2. Housing Tenure for Wilmington, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


47.1 48.6

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.4.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Wilmington, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

13901 3785Same House 1990 2000

23715 26649

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.4.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Wilmington, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 61.9 63.7Percent unemployed 3.8 8.6


RaceTable 2.4.2.5.. Race for Wilmington, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 15823 17357 18785 19342Latino Black Persons 58 208 48 145Latino Persons 115 385 393 1991White Persons 30165 26425 36130 52227Latino White Persons 57 168 234 831

EducationTable 2.4.2.6.. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Wilmington, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 7870 5795 3421 205325+ w/ 9-11 years education 5786 5303 6010 588025+ w/ HS diploma 6544 6864 9402 1130325+ w/ 13-15 years. education 2655 3763 6625 1067025+ w/ College Degree 2396 4195 7258 18570Drop outs 1121 472 347 358

Income and PovertyTable 2.4.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Wilmington, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $7151 $15057 $26529 $31099Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 11643 10393 11780 14196Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 1574 1584 1439 0Households with Public Assistance 957 2166 2466 201

IndustryTable 2.4.2.8. Employment by Industry for Wilmington, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 202 185 275 99Construction 1234 1091 1935 88Business Services 492 556 1177 11Communication/Utilities 554 596 651 3193Manufacturing 4753 3458 3722 2839Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 1849 1676 1506 847


Services 710 777 1252 5209Wholesale/Retail Trade 5093 3377 9061 1410Transportation 3663 3953 7009 1079

OccupationTable 2.4.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Wilmington, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 1136 1949 3774 -Clerical 2609 23170 3294 -Craft 2681 1894 2794 -Exec/Managerial 1729 1613 2618 -Farm/Fish/Forest 60 213 262 79Household Services 855 385 303 -Laborer/Handler 1065 937 1032 -Operative/Transport 2753 1803 1868 -Service, except Household 2924 3484 4700 -Technical 248 420 835 -

Table 2.4.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Wilmington, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 37 40 36 31Commercial King Mackerel 34 33 29 28Commercial Spanish Mackerel 29 22 11 10Commercial Spiny Lobster 2 2 1 2Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 4 5 6 2Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 4 4 5 2Snapper Grouper Class 1 17 21 16 16Snapper Grouper Class 2 3 4 4 2Swordfish 0 1 1 1Shark 0 2 1 2Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 1 0 2 2

Table 2.4.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Wilmington, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)



Table 2.4.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Wilmington, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 515Dealer License 53Flounder License 1Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 44Standard Commercial Fishing License 298Shellfish License 152Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 6Total 1069

Community Profiles – Wrightsville, NCThe town of Wrightsville Beach occupies one of the barrier islands along North Carolina’s southeastern coast. Today, the island is 1,000 to 5,000 feet in width and stretches almost four miles from Masonboro Inlet on the south to Mason Inlet on the north. Originally the island was called New Hanover Banks, a sandy barrier island cut by the shallow Moor’s Inlet. The northern part of the island was called Shell Island. Development of the island was slow due to the distance and lack of transportation other than boats. The island was once owned by the State of North Carolina until it was transferred into private hands in three separate grants between 1791 and 1881. One of the families who owned land was the Wright family, for which the island is named. For a century following, there were no residents on the island. However, hunters and fishermen were drawn to the area for the Spanish Mackerel and Blue Fish. Sailing also became popular around the area and frequent races led to the establishment of the Carolina Yacht Club in 1853. Members of the Carolina Yacht Club erected a clubhouse, which was the first structure built on what would be called Wrightsville Beach. The Club is recognized as the third oldest yacht club in the United States.

A turnpike was completed in 1887, which connected Wilmington to Wrightsville Sound, and increased development and growth on the island. Also the Wilmington Seacoast Railroad Company extended its track from Wilmington to the island. More yacht clubs were established, along with beach cottages, hotels and local stores, leading the area to become a popular summer vacation spot. On March 6, 1889, the town of Wrightsville Beach was incorporated. A public pavilion was created in 1905 on the end of the rail line. This pavilion included a bowling alley, shooting gallery, movie theatre and snack bar. In 1935, a large two-lane bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway to Harbor Island, then over Bank’s Channel to Wrightsville Beach. A population of about 110 year-round residents in 1930 grew to about 1500 in 1945. 15

There has been a slight decline in the total population for Wrightsville Beach since 1980. Housing tenure has remained approximately the same with a slight increase in the number of

15 www.wbmuseum.com/wb_history_m.html


http://www.wbmuseum.com/wb_history_m.html

owner occupied housing. There seems to be increased stability residence with more people living in the same house in 2000 than there were in 1990 in terms of percentage. The percentage of individuals in the labor force has remained about the same with a slight decrease and unemployment is relatively unchanged at 2.0 percent since 1990. The majority of the population remains White with slight increases in the number of Latinos and Blacks. Average wage or salary saw a significant increase from 1980 to 1990 but a much smaller increase in 2000. The poverty rate has remained around 9.0 percent throughout the last three decades.

There has been a steady decrease in the number of vessels with federal permits from Wrightsville Beach with only 14 in 2001 and most of those permits have been for coastal pelagics (Table 2.5.3.1). There are 5 federal dealers in the community and most of the fishing related employment has been in the marina sector according to Table 2.5.3.2. There were 12 commercial vessels registered with the state and two dealers (Table 2.5.3.3).

PopulationTable 2.5.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 2884 2797 2719Persons Age 0-5 . 64 75 84Persons Age 6-15 . 170 165 121Persons Age 16-17 . 56 37 34Persons Age 18-24 . 630 465 421Persons Age 25-34 . 625 650 595Persons Age 35-44 . 405 456 314Persons Age 45-54 . 321 349 474Persons Age 55-64 . 307 241 258Persons Age 65+ . 291 359 418

Housing TenureTable 2.5.2.2. Housing Tenure for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


52.1 55.2

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.5.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

692 392Same House 1990 2000

998 1176


Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.5.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 71.9 65.6Percent unemployed 2.9 2.0

RaceTable 2.5.2.5. Race for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 9 7Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 0 9 17White Persons . 2853 2788 2532Latino White Persons . 0 9 12

EducationTable 2.5.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 95 23 1525+ w/ 9-11 years education . 126 68 1025+ w/ HS diploma . 399 327 27725+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 553 462 37825+ w/ College Degree . 776 1001 1379Drop outs . 0 0 0

Income and PovertyTable 2.5.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $22649 $54474 $55903Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 275 276 255Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 0 0 9Households with Public Assistance . 22 18 14

IndustryTable 2.5.2.8. Employment by Industry for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 17 29 0Construction . 55 171 151Business Services . 39 54 202Communication/Utilities . 98 92 59Manufacturing . 184 197 65Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 81 79 174Services . 123 119 640Wholesale/Retail Trade . 242 558 347Transportation . 570 540 31

OccupationTable 2.5.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 301 404 -Clerical . 1890 177 -Craft . 139 89 -Exec/Managerial . 293 351 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 16 0 0Household Services . 5 0 -Laborer/Handler . 17 54 -Operative/Transport . 29 42 -Service, except Household . 305 191 -Technical . 60 80 -

Table 2.5.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 31 25 22 14Commercial King Mackerel 29 19 19 14Commercial Spanish Mackerel 24 13 13 5Commercial Spiny Lobster 2 1 1 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 5 4 5 3Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 3 2 2 2Snapper Grouper Class 1 8 8 7 7Snapper Grouper Class 2 2 2 1 0Swordfish 0 1 0 0Shark 0 2 1 0Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 2 2 5 5

Table 2.5.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)

Category NAIC Code Number EmployedFishing 114100 0Seafood Canning 311711 0Seafood Processing 311712 0Boat Building 336612 0Fish and Seafoods 422460 4Fish and Seafood Markets 445220 8


Marinas 713930 32Total Fishing Employment 44

Table 2.5.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 12Dealer License 2Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 2Standard Commercial Fishing License 10Shellfish License 0Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 0Total 26

Community Profiles – Surf City/Topsail, NC and Hampstead, NCSurf City is located in Pender County and had at one time as many as seven long fishing piers. But, like Atlantic Beach and other places, hurricanes reduced that number to two. Fishing is still important but does not contribute as much to the economy as it once used to according to several key informants. There are still a few trawlers that dock here, but they are very small, inlet only trawlers. Most fishermen do not live on the island or in town, but live more inland in places like Hampstead and Holly Ridge. Several respondents commented that it is too expensive for anyone but “northerners” and tourists to live around the beach. Another factor that makes it hard to fish this area is because they are in the middle of the island, and it takes a long time to get out to the sound. It is 13 miles to the inlet from the inter-coastal waterway that they are on.

There is only one fish market in the town today. According to one informant around 1940 to 1960 this place was a “fisherman’s paradise” and there was so much business that the one fish house was open 24 hours a day. With the influx of outsiders, property values have increased making it difficult for fishermen to survive in this area. There are few commercial fishermen and few vessels in the area today that call this community home. Where it once was a commercial fishing village, it has now become more of a tourist/recreational community according to some.16

Hampstead is changing from a small fishing village into one of the fastest growing areas in North Carolina. Fishing is still a major piece of the area’s identity. There are two wholesale-only fresh fish dealers in the town. One donates approximately 5,000 pounds of fish to the yearly seafood festival which is held in October. The annual Spot Festival celebrates fishing and the fish for which it is named.17.

16 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 2002.17 www.beachonline.com/topsail.hampstead.html


http://www.beachonline.com/topsail.hampstead.html

Of the three communities listed, Topsail Beach is the only recognized Census Designated Place and therefore is the only one with census demographics reported. The population has seen a steady increase but remains relatively small with only 404 in the 2000 census. Housing tenure has remained relatively the same with three quarters of the housing owner occupied (Table 2.6.2.2). Residence has changed little with slightly more people living in the same house as they did five years ago. The percentage of people in the labor force has also remained the same, as has the unemployment rate, which is very low at 0.5 percent (Table 2.6.2.4). The population is almost entirely White with a few Latinos appearing in the 2000 census as shown in Table 2.6.3.5.

While Topsail Beach shows few federal or state permits (Tables 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.6), Hampstead does have more permits listed. Most federal permits that list Hampstead as homeport are either for coastal pelagics or snapper grouper (Table 2.6.3.1). The majority of fishing related employment listed for Hampstead is in fish and seafood while both Topsail and Hampstead each show relatively little employment in fishing (Tables 2.6.3.2 and 2.6.3.4). Hampstead does have over 400 state permits issued with 212 being for commercial vessels and another 112 being standard commercial fishing licenses. There were 74 shellfish licenses issued and 23 dealers in the area (Table 2.6.3.5).

PopulationTable 2.6.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 270 362 404Persons Age 0-5 . 11 4 4Persons Age 6-15 . 27 23 11Persons Age 16-17 . 5 7 11Persons Age 18-24 . 15 21 18Persons Age 25-34 . 30 35 57Persons Age 35-44 . 32 58 26Persons Age 45-54 . 25 75 69Persons Age 55-64 . 76 56 97Persons Age 65+ . 49 83 111

Housing TenureTable 2.6.2.2. Housing Tenure for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


74.0 74.4

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.6.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

33 15


Same House 1990 2000150 208

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.6.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 56.8 53.7Percent unemployed 0.0 0.5

RaceTable 2.6.2.5. Race for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 1 0Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 0 0 2White Persons . 268 358 467Latino White Persons . 0 0 1

EducationTable 2.6.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 10 1 225+ w/ 9-11 years education . 30 30 3425+ w/ HS diploma . 78 46 5925+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 42 85 10325+ w/ College Degree . 52 123 162Drop outs . 0 4 0

Income and PovertyTable 2.6.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $12739 $39762 $55750Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 40 17 27Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 5 0 0Households with Public Assistance . 2 0 6


IndustryTable 2.6.2.8. Employment by Industry for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 0 10 0Construction . 23 14 30Business Services . 0 0 22Communication/Utilities . 0 0 9Manufacturing . 0 9 18Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 0 7 19Services . 6 29 50Wholesale/Retail Trade . 16 41 48Transportation . 39 76 8

OccupationTable 2.6.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Topsail Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 15 65 -Clerical . 100 23 -Craft . 17 4 -Exec/Managerial . 27 40 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 0 6 0Household Services . 0 0 -Laborer/Handler . 7 0 -Operative/Transport . 0 0 -Service, except Household . 25 19 -Technical . 0 2 -

Fishing demographicsTable 2.6.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Hampstead, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 13 15 15 11Commercial King Mackerel 12 12 12 9Commercial Spanish Mackerel 9 6 4 2Commercial Spiny Lobster 0 0 2 1Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 1 0 0 1Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 1 0 0 1Snapper Grouper Class 1 10 12 14 10Snapper Grouper Class 2 0 0 0 0Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 1 1 1 1Federal Dealers 1


Table 2.6.3.2 Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Hampstead, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.6.3.3. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Topsail Beach, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 1 2 2 2Commercial King Mackerel 1 2 2 2Commercial Spanish Mackerel 1 0 0 0Commercial Spiny Lobster 0 0 0 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 0 1 1 1Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 0 0 1 1Snapper Grouper Class 1 1 1 1 1Snapper Grouper Class 2 0 0 0 0Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 0 0 0 0

Table 2.6.3.4. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Topsail Beach, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.6.3.5. Number of State Permit by Type for Hampstead, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 212Dealer License 23Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0


Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 15Standard Commercial Fishing License 112Shellfish License 74Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 0Total 436

Table 2.6.3.6. Number of State Permit by Type for Topsail Beach, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 6Dealer License 3Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 1Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 1Standard Commercial Fishing License 4Shellfish License 0Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 1Total 15

Community Profiles – Sneads Ferry, NCThe white rubber boots worn by commercial fishermen in this community and many other parts of North Carolina are commonly referred to as “Snead’s Ferry Sneakers.” With such an icon named after the community it suggests the importance of commercial fishing to the area.

Snead’s Ferry is a small town with very little of the large-scale development that is evident elsewhere on the North Carolina coast. However, there are apparently more retirees moving here from places like Atlantic Beach because it is more affordable according to some individuals. Many houses in the community have fishing vessels docked in front of the house or on the lawn. Snead’s Ferry’s location is an advantage for fishermen, because the channel leads directly to the sound without having to travel through many creeks; this offers larger boats more accessibility. One respondent commented that at least half of the people in the community have something to do with the fishing industry. Others living in Surf City supposed that Snead’s Ferry is now made up of at least 20% of residents who are either servicemen or who work on the base. Some of these individuals also shrimp at night or on the weekends. This is a source of resentment, because these people are no longer full time fishermen, and have more disposable income with which to purchase better equipment or simply have better standards of living. The community celebrates the Shrimp Festival each second weekend in August.18

One fish house owner who has been working in Snead’s Ferry for 12 years has 15 boats that sell to him and dock at his place of business, These fishermen do everything, including net fishing, crabbing, clamming, and shrimping. He commented that he doesn’t see much of a future in fishing because younger people are not getting involved. This same individual commented that a lot of new people are moving in from other places and he considers it only a matter of years

18 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 2002


before his place sells. The fish house next door is for sale and he is just waiting for the right price, and he will sell, too. Most of the captains and crew live within two miles of his fish house and there does not seem to be a problem finding crew; primarily because they have worked in the industry for so long and most have been with the same captains for quite some time. He also commented that most of the fishermen in town are shrimpers and net fishermen who go out daily which allows them to be home at night and have a more stable life. 19

Snead’s Ferry had 25 vessels with federal permits in 2001 and most vessels held snapper grouper class 1 and coastal pelagic permits (Table 2.7.3.1). There were over 340 state commercial fishing vessel registrations for Snead’s Ferry and among those there were 228 standard commercial fishing license. The community also had 2 recreational sell licenses (Table 2.7.3.3). According to Table 2.7.3.2 there was some seafood employment in other areas with 16 persons employed in fish and seafood and 2 in marinas.

PopulationTable 2.7.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . . 2042 2152Persons Age 0-5 . . 179 153Persons Age 6-15 . . 276 242Persons Age 16-17 . . 27 56Persons Age 18-24 . . 229 120Persons Age 25-34 . . 330 383Persons Age 35-44 . . 252 334Persons Age 45-54 . . 241 287Persons Age 55-64 . . 283 268Persons Age 65+ . . 225 309

Housing TenureTable 2.7.2.2. Housing Tenure for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


69.7 71.2

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.7.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

467 203Same House 1990 2000

1035 1199

19 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 2002.


Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.7.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 59.3 59.0Percent unemployed 7.8 2.2

RaceTable 2.7.2.5. Race for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . . 182 113Latino Black Persons . . 0 2Latino Persons . . 10 38White Persons . . 1840 2029Latino White Persons . . 10 16

EducationTable 2.7.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . . 177 10125+ w/ 9-11 years education . . 221 17625+ w/ HS diploma . . 576 65425+ w/ 13-15 years. education . . 239 36725+ w/ College Degree . . 80 267Drop outs . . 23 16

Income and PovertyTable 2.7.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . . $21901 $34509Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . . 427 290Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . . 56 12Households with Public Assistance . . 43 30

IndustryTable 2.7.2.8. Employment by Industry for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . . 121 77Construction . . 47 120Business Services . . 73 34Communication/Utilities . . 0 21Manufacturing . . 16 66Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . . 10 63Services . . 49 309Wholesale/Retail Trade . . 243 135Transportation . . 187 64

OccupationTable 2.7.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . . 73 -Clerical . . 58 -Craft . . 77 -Exec/Managerial . . 88 -Farm/Fish/Forest . . 132 83Household Services . . 0 -Laborer/Handler . . 31 -Operative/Transport . . 6 -Service, except Household . . 145 -Technical . . 21 -


Fishing DemographicsTable 2.7.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 2.7.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.7.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Sneads Ferry, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 347Dealer License 18Flounder License 3Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 28Standard Commercial Fishing License 228Shellfish License 169Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 2Total 794


Community Profiles – Swansboro, NCSwansboro is supposedly the second oldest town in North Carolina. Settlement of the surrounding lands by English colonists probably was influenced by its proximity to Bogue Inlet and the White Oak River. Shipbuilding and the export of naval stores were the mainstays of the local economy. The town was a major port in the late eighteenth century, and relied mainly on ship building. The end of the Civil War brought a close to that prosperity and fishing became important socially and economically.20

The community has a small historic section that has been well preserved with many old buildings still intact and restored, now used mostly for tourist shops. There are two fish houses with some small trawlers docked nearby. There are at least five seafood restaurants and two seafood markets. Though Swansboro has all the trappings of a fishing community, according to some, it is more a tourist community now. According to one fisherman, from Swansboro, the community was much more of a fishing town around ten years ago when there was close to double the fleet. Shrimping has experienced a recent downturn because imports with lower prices have affected the market. Because of the costs involved, local shrimp are more expensive and they are not as big, therefore more and more people are buying imports according to one individual. There are two main docks in the community, one has three trawlers and the other has two. Almost all captains and crew live in town, although crew may come from other places, fishing has always been a family business in Swansboro. There are a few charter businesses in town with one in particular that has a seafood market, a head boat and one charter. 21

Most of the ten federally permitted vessels in Swansboro have coastal pelagic permits and snapper grouper class 1, with about half of those vessels also holding charter permits for those species (Table 2.8.3.1). Much of the employment according to census zip code data is in marinas with a few employed in fish and seafood (Table 2.8.3.2). There were over 170 state-permitted vessels with 96 standard commercial licenses and over 100 shellfish licenses according to Table 2.8.3.3, and 2 recreational tournament sell licenses.

PopulationTable 2.8.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Swansboro, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 976 1165 1433Persons Age 0-5 . 30 101 96Persons Age 6-15 . 141 131 204Persons Age 16-17 . 32 22 40Persons Age 18-24 . 88 152 116Persons Age 25-34 . 96 204 152Persons Age 35-44 . 120 139 238Persons Age 45-54 . 156 114 210Persons Age 55-64 . 147 114 166Persons Age 65+ . 150 188 211

20 www.crystalcoast.com/swansboro21 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 2002


http://www.crystalcoast.com/swansboro

Housing TenureTable 2.8.2.2. Housing Tenure for Swansboro, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


56.3 76.5

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.8.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Swansboro, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

124 148Same House 1990 2000

484 637

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.8.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Swansboro, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 59.5 65.2Percent unemployed 4.9 2.8

RaceTable 2.8.2.5. Race for Swansboro, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 24 66Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 4 14 40White Persons . 972 1115 1274Latino White Persons . 4 8 12

EducationTable 2.8.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Swansboro, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 106 67 2525+ w/ 9-11 years education . 131 80 7225+ w/ HS diploma . 251 269 28925+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 109 157 26725+ w/ College Degree . 72 138 324Drop outs . 4 0 0


Income and PovertyTable 2.8.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Swansboro, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $17162 $25410 $37740Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 86 172 171Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 30 30 16Households with Public Assistance . 28 34 11

IndustryTable 2.8.2.8. Employment by Industry for Swansboro, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 5 8 5Construction . 31 36 74Business Services . 10 11 28Communication/Utilities . 8 6 23Manufacturing . 30 34 17Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 8 23 31Services . 13 18 266Wholesale/Retail Trade . 45 166 141Transportation . 86 135 26

OccupationTable 2.8.2.9.. Employment by Occupation for Swansboro, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 42 86 -Clerical . 540 60 -Craft . 84 48 -Exec/Managerial . 39 43 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 4 8 5Household Services . 2 0 -Laborer/Handler . 8 7 -Operative/Transport . 22 15 -Service, except Household . 58 54 -Technical . 11 22 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.8.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Swansboro, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 14 12 9 10Commercial King Mackerel 12 7 7 10


Commercial Spanish Mackerel 10 5 4 6Commercial Spiny Lobster 4 1 0 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 5 4 3 5Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 5 4 5 7Snapper Grouper Class 1 4 5 4 7Snapper Grouper Class 2 1 1 0 1Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 1 1 1 0

Table 2.8.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Swansboro, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.8.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Swansboro, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 171Dealer License 15Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 0Standard Commercial Fishing License 92Shellfish License 106Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 2Total 393

Community Profiles – Atlantic Beach, NCAtlantic Beach has been a popular resort town since the 1870s. The first bathing pavilion was built on Bogue Banks in 1887. Other resorts and tourism related development occurred over the next century and the area remains today a popular vacation destination.22 Today there is a boardwalk with rides, a video arcade, shops, restaurants, etc., along the waterfront. The beach is the primary attraction and there is a defined seasonal tourism during the summer months. There is a small marina in the community, with charter boats, but there is no commercial fishing out of Atlantic Beach. There are about 12-14 charter boats total, according to one respondent. Some

22 www.atlanticbeach-nc.com/history_part-1.html


http://www.atlanticbeach-nc.com/history_part-1.html

boats that advertise as being from Atlantic Beach actually dock in Morehead. The charter business is also very seasonal, and there seems to be plenty of competition. During the off season, charter fishermen take on other jobs, like carpentry or anything they can find.23

The number of federally permitted vessels in Atlantic Beach has decreased over the years to where today there are only 11. Most of those have coastal pelagic, snapper grouper class 1 and charter permits for both coastal pelagic and snapper grouper (Table 2.9.3.1). There are, however, over 50 state commercially registered vessels and 47 standard commercial fishing licenses (Table 2.9.3.3).

Salter Path/Indian Beach area is south of Atlantic Beach and may have more fishing related businesses than Atlantic Beach. There are five or more seafood restaurants and several fish houses that sell retail and wholesale seafood. The community has many hotels and also a miniature golf course. A small area along the creek is where most of the fish houses and restaurants are located. One individual commented that most people make their living from seafood here, yet most fishermen have other jobs and their wives work because it is difficult to make a living solely from the fishing industry year round. Another commented that Salter Path used to be a fishing community with shrimp boats, net fishing, clam and scallop, but there is no offshore fishing from the area. Overall, this area has become more dependent upon tourism and the associated service economy.24

Salter Path has 73 state registered commercial vessels and 54 standard commercial licenses issued for the year 2002. There were also 9 dealer licenses for the community (Table 2.9.3.4).

PopulationTable 2.9.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 930 1938 1811Persons Age 0-5 . 26 84 51Persons Age 6-15 . 75 139 89Persons Age 16-17 . 34 59 27Persons Age 18-24 . 204 157 125Persons Age 25-34 . 196 363 222Persons Age 35-44 . 142 316 251Persons Age 45-54 . 100 316 389Persons Age 55-64 . 108 261 323Persons Age 65+ . 45 243 334

Housing TenureTable 2.9.2.2. Housing Tenure for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Rent 1990 2000

38.6 35.4

23 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 200224 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 2002


Percent Own 1990 200061.4 66.6

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.9.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

378 163Same House 1990 2000

718 908

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.9.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 69.3 63.3Percent unemployed 3.0 5.4

RaceTable 2.9.2.5. Race for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 10 20 11Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 19 14 12White Persons . 902 1882 1735Latino White Persons . 19 12 11

EducationTable 2.9.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 45 45 4025+ w/ 9-11 years education . 89 179 10925+ w/ HS diploma . 209 398 35425+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 121 412 42825+ w/ College Degree . 127 362 585Drop outs . 5 7 3

Income and PovertyTable 2.9.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $15156 $30093 $38313Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 81 195 131Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 3 17 5Households with Public Assistance . 15 23 6

IndustryTable 2.9.2.8. Employment by Industry for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 12 31 7Construction . 26 117 135Business Services . 7 26 54Communication/Utilities . 10 27 30Manufacturing . 39 82 21Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 22 41 104Services . 49 110 303Wholesale/Retail Trade . 74 288 222Transportation . 148 307 31

OccupationTable 2.9.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 67 256 -Clerical . 710 124 -Craft . 53 126 -Exec/Managerial . 109 164 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 11 28 5Household Services . 0 3 -Laborer/Handler . 10 35 -Operative/Transport . 7 22 -Service, except Household . 47 139 -Technical . 4 34 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.9.3.1 Number of Federal Permit by Type for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 17 17 15 11Commercial King Mackerel 14 11 9 7Commercial Spanish Mackerel 10 4 5 7Commercial Spiny Lobster 1 2 2 1Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 8 6 6 3Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 9 6 5 4Snapper Grouper Class 1 7 8 5 5


Snapper Grouper Class 2 3 3 3 1Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 0 0 0 0

Table 2.9.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.9.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Atlantic Beach, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 56Dealer License 10Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 5Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 5Standard Commercial Fishing License 42Shellfish License 6Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 2Total 126

Table 2.9.3.4. Number of State Permit by Type for Salter Path, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 73Dealer License 9Flounder License 1Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 4Standard Commercial Fishing License 54Shellfish License 17Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 0


Total 158

Community Profiles – Morehead City, NCMorehead City was founded in the 1840s and soon had a railroad line that connected its deep-water harbor with inland markets. Following several severe hurricanes during the 1880s and 1890s, fishermen who had lived on Shackleford Banks moved their houses by boat onto the mainland in the areas between 10th and 15th Streets. They called this area the Promise Land and it became the nucleus of the fishing industry that continues to be an important part of the economy of Morehead City. In recent years, a large charter-fishing fleet has developed, and Morehead City has become widely known as a center for sport and tournament fishing, drawing fishermen from all over the eastern United States. It is the location of one of the major, annual international Blue Marlin tournaments, as well as other fishing tournaments.25

Today Morehead City has a community college, several strip malls and commercial enterprises. There is a coastal theme to many of the businesses and art galleries, with a focus on tourism. The waterfront is small but crowded with several tourist attractions and numerous charter boats. According to one captain of a charter boat, the best fishing area on the NC coast is 50-100 miles offshore of here. The Big Rock Marlin tournament held the second week in June is the biggest paying tournament on the East Coast. The tournament brings approximately 200 boats to the area. With an estimated four people per boat plus families, the tournament generates considerable economic benefit to the community. Many of the local charter boats are chartered for this tournament, which has an entry fee of $12,000 per person. There are also several small tournaments held in the community during the mackerel and marlin season. While there are no local fishing clubs, the Raleigh Sport Fishing Alliance is a regional fishing club with many of its members fishing out of Morehead City. One charter crew member said that he commercial fished for 21 years, but tired of weather problems and the “feast or famine” economy of commercial fishing. He said he had seen some commercial fishermen go out by themselves in any kind of weather because they couldn’t find crew members, just to survive. He also mentioned that there are good crew around that migrate up and down the coast according to work. 26

There were 22 federally permitted vessels homeported in Morehead City, most of them with coastal pelagic and snapper grouper class 1 permits (Table 2.10.3.1). About half held charter permits for both species groups. There are about 100 people employed in fishing related business according to census business figures in Table 2.10.3.2. About half of those are in marinas and 36 are employed in fish and seafood business. Over 200 state commercial vessel licenses were issued for Morehead City and 150 standard commercial fishing permits. There were 53 shellfish licenses and 14 dealer licenses issued by the state (Table 2.10.3.3).

PopulationTable 2.10.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Morehead City, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000

25 www.morehead.com/history 26 Interviews conducted by Ana Pitchon, May 2002


http://www.morehead.com/history

Total Persons 5226 4359 6046 7649Persons Age 0-5 394 256 497 578Persons Age 6-15 1037 601 744 780Persons Age 16-17 225 152 109 106Persons Age 18-24 543 379 528 584Persons Age 25-34 556 594 1037 1058Persons Age 35-44 584 478 792 975Persons Age 45-54 642 434 549 1128Persons Age 55-64 576 576 535 748Persons Age 65+ 570 854 1255 1692

Housing TenureTable 2.10.2.2. Housing Tenure for Morehead City, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Rent 1990 2000

44.7 44.8Percent Own 1990 2000

55.3 55.2

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.10.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Morehead City, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

1710 1061Same House 1990 2000

2532 3296

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.10.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Morehead City, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 59.4 60.2Percent unemployed 4.1 7.8

RaceTable 2.10.2.5. Race for Morehead City, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 1009 789 1066 1071Latino Black Persons 0 5 0 4Latino Persons 151 50 26 180White Persons 4170 3563 4941 6213Latino White Persons 151 45 26 71


EducationTable 2.10.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Morehead City, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 884 721 495 40125+ w/ 9-11 years education 655 724 730 66025+ w/ HS diploma 717 712 1231 146725+ w/ 13-15 years. education 425 453 890 147425+ w/ College Degree 247 326 552 1547Drop outs 84 29 35 52

Income and PovertyTable 2.10.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Morehead City, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6676 $13267 $22827 $28737Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 1008 782 1098 1105Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 185 125 155 199Households with Public Assistance 120 152 276 99

IndustryTable 2.10.2.8. Employment by Industry for Morehead City, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 51 43 84 37Construction 114 125 183 394Business Services 51 39 86 260Communication/Utilities 50 84 28 87Manufacturing 151 202 226 252Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 74 100 120 272Services 70 112 190 1404Wholesale/Retail Trade 602 291 727 543Transportation 543 409 797 62

OccupationTable 2.1.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Morehead City, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 114 238 406 -Clerical 272 2550 285 -


Craft 306 253 391 -Exec/Managerial 246 188 297 -Farm/Fish/Forest 5 52 86 37Household Services 117 41 10 -Laborer/Handler 116 105 121 -Operative/Transport 148 92 92 -Service, except Household 389 289 495 -Technical 0 33 65 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.10.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Morehead City, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 2.10.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Morehead City, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.10.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Morehead City, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 211Dealer License 14Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 19Standard Commercial Fishing License 150


Shellfish License 53Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 2Total 448

Community Profiles – Beaufort, NCBeaufort was built on a former Native American village, called Warelock which means “fish town” or “fishing village,” near Cape Lookout and borders the southern portion of the Outer Banks. Its deep water harbor is home to vessels of all sizes and its marinas are a favorite stop-over for transient boaters. Originally a fishing village and port of safety, it was known as "Fishtowne" until incorporated in 1722. 27 A whaling community, Diamond City, was located on Shackleford Banks, six miles to the southeast by boat during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Lumber, barrel staves, rum, and molasses comprised some of Beaufort's main exports. However, when the port declined as a trade center, commercial fishing gained greater importance and became the primary economic activity of the town. Beaufort served as home port for a large menhaden fishing fleet and had numerous processing facilities for menhaden products.28

Today, tourism, service industries, retail businesses and construction are important mainstays of the area, with many shops and restaurants catering to visitors from outside the area. The community has some exclusive homes along the waterfront but overall most housing is modest. It is home to both the NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research and Duke Marine Sciences Center. Directly across the bridge from Morehead city is Radio Island, which is the commercial fishing hub for Beaufort. There are a few private boats along the waterfront in downtown Beaufort, but the commercial enterprises are predominantly located on Radio Island. The waterfront does have two tour/party boats, in addition to private boats, some of which may be smaller charter vessels. There are several marinas in the community and several businesses that provide support services for both the recreational and commercial fishing industries.

According to one individual, Beaufort is a commercial fishing community, although less so now, than in the past. This seems to be largely due to fewer young people getting into the fishing business as it does not seem to pay well. This same individual has seven trawlers and four small snapper/grouper boats as part of his business. During the summer three longline vessels travel from New York and dock at his facility. The majority of fish they purchase is marketed in Virginia and farther north. Shrimp is a large part of the seafood industry here, but, imports are having an impact on the domestic market lowering prices. His facility is a full service fish house, with processing, ice, fuel, and its own net repair. There was, at one time, an ice plant across the bridge, which has now become a condominium development. The last shad factory in the state is located on Front St. in Beaufort. At the time, there were only two shad vessels left in the state, and they are there, too. Shad built the fishing industry in Beaufort. He said that people are trying to put them (the Shad company) out of business because their property is valuable. He estimates that on Radio Island there are 20 trawlers that dock there permanently.

Another individual said that his fish house used to process year round, but now only operates seven months of the year due to closures. They used to have four employees, but now employ only two. It was in1987 that Beaufort had its best year for shrimp. According to this individual

27 www.clis.com/beaufortnc28http://www.beaufort-nc.com/history/bn-his02.html


http://www.beaufort-nc.com/history/bn-his02.html

http://www.clis.com/beaufortnc

most people involved in the fishery live in Beaufort or Morehead City. There are three fish houses in Beaufort, one of which deals primarily in bait. In 1987 there were about 25 larger commercial vessels (70-90’) in addition to a lot of smaller boats; now there are approximately 11 large commercial vessels in Beaufort.29

There were only 10 federally permitted vessels in Beaufort in 2001and those vessels held primarily coastal pelagic permits (Table 2.11.3.1). Most of the employment that is fishing related according to census business pattern data is related to boat building with 184 persons employed in that business. Others are employed in fish processing and fish and seafood according to Table 2.11.3.2. There are over 400 commercial vessels registered with the state from Beaufort with almost 300 standard commercial fishing licenses. There are 172 shellfish licenses and 32 dealer license (Table 2.11.3.3).

PopulationTable 2.11.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Beaufort, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 3368 3826 3808 3528Persons Age 0-5 155 199 305 145Persons Age 6-15 665 498 393 299Persons Age 16-17 152 126 76 75Persons Age 18-24 272 401 376 208Persons Age 25-34 372 621 597 451Persons Age 35-44 337 353 511 516Persons Age 45-54 448 414 399 518Persons Age 55-64 451 557 423 508Persons Age 65+ 465 616 728 808

Housing TenureTable 2.11.2.2. Housing Tenure for Beaufort, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Rent 1990 2000

44.3 42.9Percent Own 1990 2000

55.7 57.1

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.11.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Beaufort, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

888 471Same House 1990 2000

2096 1905



Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.11.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Beaufort, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 61.0 56.3Percent unemployed 6.8 4.7

RaceTable 2.11.2.5. Race for Beaufort, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 1042 922 908 751Latino Black Persons 0 0 0 3Latino Persons 28 26 71 142White Persons 2326 2897 2815 2812Latino White Persons 28 26 0 49

EducationTable 2.11.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Beaufort, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 697 555 229 15125+ w/ 9-11 years education 490 562 432 41525+ w/ HS diploma 506 572 832 74725+ w/ 13-15 years. education 222 412 542 69125+ w/ College Degree 158 460 399 773Drop outs 78 49 26 24

Income and PovertyTable 2.11.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Beaufort, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6803 $13988 $23933 $28763Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 774 614 660 568Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 170 126 120 84Households with Public Assistance 67 216 163 64

IndustryTable 2.11.2.8. Employment by Industry for Beaufort, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 38 153 51 40Construction 43 27 87 165Business Services 43 44 39 90Communication/Utilities 9 18 18 61Manufacturing 130 171 233 124Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 46 104 134 52Services 26 63 68 675Wholesale/Retail Trade 386 148 440 315Transportation 358 362 486 66

OccupationTable 2.11.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Beaufort, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 114 178 268 -Clerical 131 1910 282 -Craft 269 170 177 -Exec/Managerial 123 169 228 -Farm/Fish/Forest 0 124 16 20Household Services 72 12 0 -Laborer/Handler 63 59 91 -Operative/Transport 164 68 101 -Service, except Household 224 196 270 -Technical 0 40 40 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.11.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Beaufort, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 2.11.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Beaufort, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)

Category NAIC Code Number EmployedFishing 114100 8Seafood Canning 311711 0Seafood Processing 311712 36Boat Building 336612 184


Fish and Seafoods 422460 20Fish and Seafood Markets 445220 4Marinas 713930 48Total Fishing Employment 300

Table 2.11.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Beaufort, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 430Dealer License 32Flounder License 21Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 1Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 37Standard Commercial Fishing License 294Shellfish License 178Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 1Total 994

Community Profiles – Harker’s Island, NC

Harker’s Island has a small marina at the entrance to the island where approximately nine small trawlers dock. The island does not seem to have seen the same residential development that many other coastal communities have, although it has reportedly been discovered by outsiders who are using it as a retirement destination. Fishermen on Cedar Island that were interviewed indicated that many of the locals from Harker’s Island have moved to Gloucester because of high property taxes.

A few individuals consider Harker’s Island a fishing community, even though landings are not nearly as high as in the past. Increasingly, there are more part-time fishermen, whereas in the past most were full-time. Accordingly, most have other jobs in order to make a living and fishing is to supplement income or solely more of a recreational endeavor. The hardcore old-timers who were the fishing mainstay on the island are too old and can’t fish anymore or have passed away. Approximately one quarter of the island residents are full or part-time commercial fishermen according to several individuals. The island is also known for its boat building.

Ten years ago the island’s economy was split evenly between fishing and tourism according to one individual, but more recently tourism has become the dominant industry. Rising property values have made it difficult for second and third generation islanders to remain. Recently, some undeveloped lots have been priced at or near $125,000; in addition property taxes seem to double every few years according to that individual. Locals are slowly being pushed from their heritage (commercial fishing), because they cannot afford the higher costs of living associated with the demographic shift when those of a higher socioeconomic class move to the area and are willing pay higher prices for land and housing. Imports are also taking a toll on the fishing industry as the domestic seafood has to compete with cheaper imports. The majority of the boats built in the


past were commercial and made of wood; today there are more, larger sport and head boats that are often built in Florida or other states. It is estimated that there are approximately 25 trawlers in the area today. There is some long hauling that is also done by some, where two boats pull a net with 5-8 men per boat. 30

There are only 8 vessels homeported in Harker’s Island with federal permits (Table 2.12.3.1) and most of those hold coastal pelagic permits and snapper grouper class 1. This does not include shrimp vessels unless they have other permits. There are over 170 commercial vessels with state licenses according to Table 2.12.3.3, with 96 standard commercial licenses and 68 shellfish licenses. Most of the fishing related employment according to census zip code business patterns in Table 2.12.3.2 is in the boat building sector.

PopulationTable 2.12.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 132 117 1588Persons Age 0-5 . 351 193 17Persons Age 6-15 . 73 50 165Persons Age 16-17 . 240 213 52Persons Age 18-24 . 270 256 126Persons Age 25-34 . 263 258 160Persons Age 35-44 . 194 270 258Persons Age 45-54 . 171 219 256Persons Age 55-64 . 181 180 237Persons Age 65+ . 132 117 317

Housing TenureTable 2.12.2.2. Housing Tenure for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percemt Rent 1990 2000

18.9 81.4Percent Own 1990 2000

81.1 16.6

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.12.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

336 80Same House 1990 2000

1212 1227



Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.1.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 53.6 47.1Percent unemployed 2.5 2.9

RaceTable 2.12.2.5. Race for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 0 0 2White Persons . 1868 1751 1502Latino White Persons . 0 0 1

EducationTable 2.12.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 381 216 11225+ w/ 9-11 years education . 327 295 33725+ w/ HS diploma . 301 399 38325+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 50 157 24625+ w/ College Degree . 20 77 133Drop outs . 55 17 17

Income and PovertyTable 2.12.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $13099 $22808 $33125Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 381 345 245Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 87 41 59Households with Public Assistance . 83 34 1

IndustryTable 2.12.2.8. Employment by Industry for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 175 62 71Construction . 42 48 95Business Services . 9 25 17Communication/Utilities . 11 26 12Manufacturing . 78 111 71Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 65 81 0Services . 0 5 255Wholesale/Retail Trade . 60 181 50Transportation . 67 192 23

OccupationTable 2.12.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Harker’s Island, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 16 54 -Clerical . 690 74 -Craft . 149 120 -Exec/Managerial . 46 50 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 174 73 61Household Services . 0 0 -Laborer/Handler . 20 44 -Operative/Transport . 17 82 -Service, except Household . 67 89 -Technical . 12 33 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.12.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Harker’s Island, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 2.12.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Harker’s Island, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)

Category NAIC Code Number EmployedFishing 114100 0Seafood Canning 311711 0Seafood Processing 311712 0


Boat Building 336612 24Fish and Seafoods 422460 0Fish and Seafood Markets 445220 0Marinas 713930 8Total Fishing Employment 32

Table 2.12.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Harker’s Island, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 179Dealer License 12Flounder License 2Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 1Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 31Standard Commercial Fishing License 93Shellfish License 68Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 0Total 386

Community Profiles – Hatteras, NC

Hatteras is located on the southern end of Hatteras Island on North Carolina's Outer Banks. The isolation of the community adds to the local character. Hatteras has historically been a seaport community with whaling an important part of the economy in its early history. Since World War II, the economy of the Hatteras community has depended on charter and commercial fishing. More recently, tourism has become an increasingly important economic activity (McCay and Cieri 2000).

The entire north end of Hatteras Island was once known as Chicamacomico, but in 1874, the postal service changed the name to Rodanthe.31 In earlier times, the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci landed in the area in the 16th Century. Centuries later, in 1858, the island became a popular fishing and shipping village and a post office was established. In 1861, Confederates troops landed on the northern end of the island to re-take Fort Hatteras and Fort Clark, which had fallen to the Union’s first naval invasion of the South. After the Civil War, development began to increase on the island and the Durant’s lifesaving station was built in 1878. By the turn of the century, a US weather station was established on the island and in the mid-1930s the Army Corps of Engineers had dredged a deep channel which allowed for better access from Pamlico Sound to Hatteras Inlet. Soon after, a sizable fishing fleet was established at Hatteras. During World War II, the area was known as “Torpedo Junction” due to more than 100 ships that were lost due to German submarines.32

31 www.hatteras-nc.com/history/rodanhis.html 32 www.hatteras-nc.com/history/hattehis.html


http://www.hatteras-nc.com/history/hattehis.html

http://www.hatteras-nc.com/history/rodanhis.html

Hatteras Village is a small and quiet town surrounded by coast on either side. It is located next to a state park with a historic lighthouse. Hatteras is host to several prestigious fishing tournaments and is homeport for the island's famous charter fishing fleet. In addition, there are numerous restaurants that offer fresh caught seafood.

There were as many as 10 or 12 fish houses once and most recently, the largest fish house was sold for condominium development; there are four working fish houses left now. According to one individual, many fishermen are leaving the fishing business as tourism is dominating the economy for the area. This same individual further commented that water quality has changed and that there used to be more shellfish on the shoreline; now it is all gone due to development. He further suggested that the bridges that have recently been built have changed the currents of the inlet and have affected the local ecosystem.

Hatteras has 60 federally permitted vessels and most of those have commercial coastal pelagic permits. Almost half have charter permits for coastal pelagic or snapper grouper (Table 2.13.3.1). Most of the fishing related employment is in the marina sector (Table 2.13.3.2). There are 81 state registered commercial fishing vessels and 72 standard commercial fishing licenses in Hatteras. There are ten dealer licenses and 21 shellfish licenses in the community (Table 2.13.3.3).

The census demographic table that follows was compiled using census block data for the area. Long term census data from 1970 and 1980 were not available for Hatteras.

Table 2.13.2.1 Hatteras Census DemographicsFactor 1990 2000

Total population 2675 2797Gender Ratio M/F (Percent) 51.6/48.4 50.5/49.5Age (Percent of total population)

Under 18 years of age 23.9 20.018 to 64 years of age 65.0 64.265 years and over 11.1 15.1

Ethnicity or Race (Number)White 2644 2705Black or African American 10 0American Indian and Alaskan Native 0 0Asian 21 0Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0 0Some other race 0 38Two or more races - 54Hispanic or Latino (any race) 18 98

Educational Attainment ( Population 25 and over)Percent with less than 9th grade 7.1 6.6Percent high school graduate or higher 74.4 80.2Percent with a Bachelor’s degree or higher 20.6 17.2

Language Spoken at Home (Population 5 years and over)Percent who speak a language other than English at home 1.6 5.1And Percent who speak English less than very well 0.0 2.6

Household income (Median $) N/A1 N/A1

Poverty Status (Percent of population with income below poverty line) 6.0 10.0Percent female headed household 9.0 6.2


Home Ownership (Percent)Owner occupied 72.3 78.1Renter occupied 27.7 21.9

Value Owner-occupied Housing (Median $) N/A2 N/A2

Monthly Contract Rent (Median $) N/A3 N/A3

Employment Status (Population 16 yrs and over)Percent in the labor force 67.3 68.2Percent of civilian labor force unemployed 4.2 8.9

Occupation (Percent)Management, professional, and related occupations 23.7 24.6Service occupations 15.4 16.8Sales and office occupations 17.3 20.4Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 6.4 7.8Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 16.4 20.0Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 13.9 10.5

Industry (Percent)Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 11.3 8.4Manufacturing 3.4 4.4Percent government workers 21.0 19.3

1 Median Household Income is between $16,799-29,900 for 1990; $33,456-40,718 for 20002 Median Value Owner-occupied Housing is between $51,900-127,600 for 1990; $111,300-155,100 for 20003 Median Contract Rent is between $325-338 for 1990; $335-421 for 2000

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.13.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Hatteras, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 2.13.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Hatteras, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)



Table 2.13.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Hatteras, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 81Dealer License 10Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 5Standard Commercial Fishing License 73Shellfish License 21Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 1Total 190

Community Profiles – Wanchese, NCRoanoke Island has a mix of tall, green, piney woods and miles of sheltered shoreline on the sound side providing a contrast to the open dunes of the outer islands. Wanchese, one of the island's two villages and is located at the southern end. It is a small, unincorporated fishing community with docks that provide services to many types of local and non-local commercial and recreational fishermen. Throughout the nineteenth century, the commercial industry was able to expanded owing in part to the first local postmaster, who owned or financed most of the commercial fishing boats in Wanchese. That individual established a system of credit for local fishermen at his store where debts were paid off when fishermen brought in their catches. It was said that at that time all residents were commercial fishermen (Wilson and McCay 1998).

Wanchese first fish house was established in 1936 by ER (Zeke) Daniels, the grandfather of the current generation of two fish house owners. Zeke’s son was the first to fish a trawler in Wanchese in the 1950s. He converted a 65’ wooden boat which was primarily used to fish for things like flounder during the winter time. As mentioned most of their fishing occurred in the Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds, however there was a certain amount beach fishing that occurred, targeting species such as sea mollusks, trout, croaker, spots, striped bass (rock fish) and blue fish. The sounds provided croakers, butterfish, Spanish mackerel, spots and pig fishes. At that time, sea bass was the primary species targeted in the ocean during the winter months of the year. Later a WWI subchaser was purchased and converted for scalloping (Wilson and McCay 1998).

The largest industrial area in Wanchese is centered round the Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park. The Park was built to enhance business opportunities in the seafood and marine trades. It encourages outside as well as local development in an effort to create a “new day for seafood and marine commerce.”33 Between 1978 and 1985 it was reported that there were nine fish houses in operation in Wanchese. Today, there are six packing houses all operational and all dealing in many of the same species, with each house having a slightly different specialty. In the past all of the houses packed basically the same fish, with flounder being one of the most prominent species. However, overtime this has changed as each house has had to specialize in order to remain in business.

33 www.nccommerce.com


http://www.nccommerce.com/

Charter boat fishing has become an increasing popular in Wanchese over the last 10 years. The number of charter boats has increased and facilities have been created to handle the increased presence of the for hire industry. Currently, there are 27 charter boats and 2 head boats working out of Wanchese. Many of these individuals are from outside the Wanchese area; however, there are a few local fishermen who have decided to try the recreational fishing instead of the commercial.

Wanchese has seen an increase in its population over the past decade but a reduction in the percentage of people in the labor force. Percent of unemployed has dropped from 8.9 in 1990 to 2.8 in 2000. While average wage and salary has increased, number of persons below the poverty level has remained constant. Yet the number of households with public assistance has gone from a high of 35 in 1990 to none in 2000. Employment in farm, fishing and forestry rose from 1980 to 1990 but has seen a decline in the year 2000. There have remained about 30 vessels with federal permits homeported in the community for the past four years (Table 2.18.3.1). Employment in fishing related activities reported in Table 2.18.3.2 indicates 120 people employed in several categories with 56 in fish and seafood, 40 in boatbuilding, 16 in fishing and 8 in seafood processing. There were 228 commercial vessels registered and over 200 standard commercial fishing licenses in the community according to Table 2.18.3.3. There were also 12 dealer licenses and 18 flounder licenses for Wanchese.

PopulationTable 2.18.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Wanchese, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 1020 1374 1544Persons Age 0-5 . 74 141 100Persons Age 6-15 . 168 249 244Persons Age 16-17 . 39 48 43Persons Age 18-24 . 92 149 80Persons Age 25-34 . 195 253 273Persons Age 35-44 . 115 157 276Persons Age 45-54 . 136 186 262Persons Age 55-64 . 99 92 106Persons Age 65+ . 73 99 160

Housing TenureTable 2.18.2.2. Housing Tenure for Wanchese, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


72.1 72.3


Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.18.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Wanchese, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

342 118Same House 1990 2000

672 1100

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.18.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Wanchese, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 78.1 66.6Percent unemployed 8.9 2.8

RaceTable 2.18.2.5. Race for Wanchese, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 0 5Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 0 0 28White Persons . 1020 1354 1477Latino White Persons . 0 0 21

EducationTable 2.18.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Wanchese, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 120 85 4825+ w/ 9-11 years education . 168 172 20525+ w/ HS diploma . 205 259 38825+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 94 170 22125+ w/ College Degree . 31 61 215Drop outs . 13 14 0

Income and PovertyTable 2.18.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Wanchese, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . 13702 25574 39250Poverty Level


Persons Below Poverty Level . 135 127 125Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 13 12 26Households with Public Assistance . 18 35 0

IndustryTable 2.18.2.8. Employment by Industry for Wanchese, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 86 137 64Construction . 41 35 77Business Services . 0 25 8Communication/Utilities . 21 9 10Manufacturing . 26 66 102Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 16 57 15Services . 10 23 302Wholesale/Retail Trade . 32 184 143Transportation . 134 179 26

OccupationTable 2.18.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Wanchese, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 62 82 -Clerical . 670 70 -Craft . 48 88 -Exec/Managerial . 41 65 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 80 131 74Household Services . 0 0 -Laborer/Handler . 24 23 -Operative/Transport . 0 35 -Service, except Household . 54 97 -Technical . 7 19 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 2.18.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Wanchese, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 36 32 32 30Commercial King Mackerel 29 23 24 22Commercial Spanish Mackerel 30 27 25 29Commercial Spiny Lobster 0 0 0 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 10 5 4 4Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 1 2 2 2Snapper Grouper Class 1 4 7 7 9Snapper Grouper Class 2 4 3 3 2Swordfish 1 8 7 9Shark 0 14 8 14


Rock Shrimp 1 1 1 1Federal Dealers 4 3 5 4

Table 2.18.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Wanchese, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.18.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Wanchese, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 228Dealer License 12Flounder License 18Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 13Standard Commercial Fishing License 201Shellfish License 2Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 0Total 474

Community Profiles – Manteo, NCManteo has seen steady population growth with a decline in its African American population. The percent of the population that is unemployed has risen over the past ten years while the percent of people in the labor force has also declined slightly. Average wage and salary has raised some but, the number of persons living below the poverty line has increased. There has been a steady decline in the number of individuals working in the farm, fish and forestry sectors also over the past three decades. There are only 13 vessels with federal permits homeported in Wanchese and most of them have coastal pelagic permits (Table 2.19.3.1). Fishing related employment is highest among the fish and seafood sector according to Table 2.19.3.2 with 176 persons employed in that sector and 16 in marinas. The state reports over 170 commercially registered vessels and 142 standard commercial fishing licenses for Wanchese (Table 2.19.3.3).

PopulationTable 2.19.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Manteo, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000


Total Persons . 951 997 1045Persons Age 0-5 . 51 73 104Persons Age 6-15 . 128 88 123Persons Age 16-17 . 24 10 23Persons Age 18-24 . 132 76 66Persons Age 25-34 . 147 215 478Persons Age 35-44 . 75 137 924Persons Age 45-54 . 86 88 125Persons Age 55-64 . 75 94 128Persons Age 65+ . 222 216 184

Housing TenureTable 2.19.2.2. Housing Tenure for Manteo, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


60.4 53.6

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 2.19.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Manteo, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

153 115Same House 1990 2000

493 422

Employment/UnemploymentTable 2.19.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Manteo, North Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 64.6 61.0Percent unemployed 2.4 5.5

RaceTable 2.19.2.5. Race for Manteo, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 221 133 106Latino Black Persons . 0 0 0Latino Persons . 1 10 27White Persons . 730 854 899Latino White Persons . 1 0 9


EducationTable 2.19.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Manteo, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 142 52 2525+ w/ 9-11 years education . 112 127 5525+ w/ HS diploma . 181 200 21725+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 83 200 22525+ w/ College Degree . 87 119 207Drop outs . 4 10 0

Income and PovertyTable 2.19.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Manteo, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $14919 $25666 $29803Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 103 104 202Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 34 26 0Households with Public Assistance . 55 17 2

IndustryTable 2.19.2.8. Employment by Industry for Manteo, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 25 20 14Construction . 35 48 14Business Services . 9 27 0Communication/Utilities . 4 21 42Manufacturing . 18 36 32Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 17 15 7Services . 28 26 58Wholesale/Retail Trade . 55 195 14Transportation . 75 139 10


OccupationTable 2.19.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Manteo, North Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 43 73 -Clerical . 560 71 -Craft . 39 59 -Exec/Managerial . 28 71 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 27 21 17Household Services . 7 2 -Laborer/Handler . 16 23 -Operative/Transport . 19 14 -Service, except Household . 57 90 -Technical . 12 4 -


Fishing DemographicsTable 2.19.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Manteo, North Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 2.19.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Manteo, North Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 2.19.3.3. Number of State Permit by Type for Manteo, North Carolina (Source: NCDMF 2002)Type PermitsCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 171Dealer License 9Flounder License 0Land or Sell License 0Non-resident Menhaden License 0Ocean Fishing Pier License 0Spotter Plane License 0Retired Standard Commercial Fishing License 3Standard Commercial Fishing License 142Shellfish License 4Recreational Fishing Tournament to Sell License 0Total 329


North Carolina Fishing Infrastructure and Community CharacterizationThe following tables provide a general view of the presence or absence of fishing infrastructure located within the coastal communities of North Carolina with substantial fishing activity. It should be noted that there are many other attributes that might have been included in this table, however, because of inconsistency in rapid appraisal for all communities, these items were selected as the most consistently reported or had secondary data available to determine presence or absence. It should also be noted that in some cases certain infrastructure may exist within a community but was not readily apparent or could not be ascertained through secondary data. Table 2.22.1 offers an overview of the presence of the selected infrastructure items and provides an overall total score that is merely the total of infrastructure present.

Table 2.22.1. Fishing Infrastructure Table for North Carolina Potential Fishing Communities

Community

Fede

ral

Com

mer

cial

Pe

rmits

(5+)

Stat

e C

omm

erci

al

Lic

ense

s (10

+)Fe

dera

l C

hart

er

Perm

its (5

+)

Seaf

ood

Lan

ding

s

Seaf

ood

reta

il m

arke

ts

Fish

pro

cess

ors,

Who

lesa

le fi

sh

hous

e

Rec

reat

iona

l do

cks /

mar

inas

Rec

reat

iona

l Fi

shin

g T

ourn

amen

ts

TotalVarnamtown - - - - + + + - 3Southport + + + + + + + + 8Bald Head Island - - - - - - + + 2Carolina Beach + + + + + - + + 7Wilmington + + - + + + + + 7Wrightsville Beach + + - + + + + + 7Topsail Beach/Surf City - - - + - - + + 3Sneads Ferry + + - + + + + + 7Swansboro + + + + + - + + 7Atlantic Beach + + - - - - + + 4Morehead City + + + + + + + + 8Beaufort + + + + + + + + 8Harker’s Island + + - - - - + - 3Hatteras + + + + + - + + 7Oriental + + - + - - + + 5Vandemere/Mesic - + - - + + + - 4Bath - + - - - - + - 2Belhaven - + - - - + + - 3Wanchese + + - + + + + - 6Manteo + + + + + + + + 8Ocracoke - + - - + + + - 4Elizabeth City - + - - + + + - 4

In providing a preliminary characterization of potential fishing communities in Table 2.22.2, we have provided a grouping of communities that seem to have more involvement in various fishing enterprises and therefore are classified as primarily involved. These communities seem to have considerable fishing infrastructure, but also appear to have a history and culture surrounding both commercial and recreational fishing that contributes to an appearance and perception of being a fishing community in the mind of residents and others. The communities of Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach, which have considerable fishing infrastructure but are listed in secondarily involved are placed in that category largely because these two communities are located in a more


metropolitan area that has a very diversified economy and while there seems to be an emphasis upon fishing, it is most likely that fishing has a small role in the overall economy and culture of the area. Others like Elizabeth City has a large processor located in the community, but may lack other components that are considered part of fishing culture or history. Many of these communities are in transition due to various social and demographic changes from coastal development, growing populations, changing regulations, etc. This preliminary characterization is just that and should not be considered a definite designation as fishing community, but a general guide for locating communities that may warrant consideration as a potential fishing community. Furthermore communities are not ranked in any particular order, this is merely a categorization.

Table 2.22.2 Preliminary Characterization of Potential Fishing Communities in North CarolinaPrimarily-Involved Secondarily-Involved

Southport VarnamtownCarolina Beach Bald Head IslandSneads Ferry WilmingtonSwansboro Wrightsville Beach

Morehead City Topsail Beach/Surf CityBeaufort Atlantic BeachHatteras Oriental

Wanchese Vandemere/MesicManteo Bath

Harker’s Island BelhavenOcracoke

Elizabeth City

South CarolinaSouth Carolina landed over 14 and over 13 million pounds of seafood in 2001 and 2002 respectively. The value of those landings was over 23 million dollars in 2001 and over 20 million dollars in 2002. No South Carolina port was listed in the top 50 U.S. ports in terms of pounds landed or in terms of value of landings. According to NMFS (2002) South Carolina recreational fishermen landed over 3 million pounds of finfish in 2001 and in 2002 that number dropped to just less than 2 million pounds. There were three processors in South Carolina for 2001 with a total of 28 employees. The number of wholesale dealers was not listed in the report under South Carolina, but was combined under Inland States. In the years 2001 and 2002, South Carolina did have approximately 520 and 556 registered vessels respectively.

Since 1998, South Carolina has had a high of 132 vessels with federal permits, now down to 113 in 2001 (Table 3.1.1). Most vessels with federal permits had either king or Spanish mackerel with snapper grouper class 1 permits being the next most common.

Table 3.1.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for South Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 127 132 121 113Commercial King Mackerel 60 68 64 65Commercial Spanish Mackerel 47 36 15 19Commercial Spiny Lobster 4 3 4 2Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 36 36 33 37Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 41 41 36 44


Snapper Grouper Class 1 66 89 72 86Snapper Grouper Class 2 11 14 8 9Swordfish 7 3 3 2Shark 65 21 15 19Rock Shrimp 12 12 12 14

South Carolina requires licenses for both recreational and commercial fishing, including the sale of seafood and other marine products. The table below lists commercial licenses only (Table 3.1.2). The majority of South Carolina state permits are saltwater licenses and trawler licenses. The next most common are crab pots, bait dealer and shellfish licenses.

Table 3.1.2. Number of State Permits by Type for South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 42Channel Net 8Crab Pots 73Drag Dredge 5Gill Net 14Hand Held Equipment 45Herring Net 26Mechanical Equipment 5Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 5Other Equipment 17Peeler Crab Permit 19Saltwater License 187Seine Net 6Shad Net 34Shellfish Dealer 21Shellfish License 40Trawler License 167Trotlines 15Wholesale Dealer 58Total 787

Community Profiles – Hilton Head, SCHilton Head has seen steady population growth since 1980 and has tripled in size in 2000. While average wage and salary have also tripled over that time period and unemployment has remained low, the number of people living under the poverty level has also risen noticeably. There were at one time hundreds of persons employed in the farm, fish and forestry categories for occupation and industry. Recently, however, those numbers have dropped significantly. There are relatively few federally permitted vessels homeported at Hilton Head (Table3.1.3.1) and most employment in fishing related business is in marinas sector according to Table 3.1.3.2. There were 46 total state permits for Hilton Head and 22 of those were Saltwater licenses and 12 trawler licenses (Table 3.1.3.3). Nearby Bluffton had 68 state permits with 26 of those being saltwater licenses and 20 trawler licenses and 6 wholesale dealers (Table 3.1.3.4).


PopulationTable 3.1.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 11344 23694 33,775Persons Age 0-5 . 619 1636 1843Persons Age 6-15 . 1287 2191 3328Persons Age 16-17 . 323 419 595Persons Age 18-24 . 1191 1845 2370Persons Age 25-34 . 1968 4032 3986Persons Age 35-44 . 1209 3288 2231Persons Age 45-54 . 962 2428 4540Persons Age 55-64 . 1885 3061 4558Persons Age 65+ . 1782 4794 8098

Housing TenureTable 3.1.2.2. Housing Tenure for Hilton Head, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


64.7 77.7

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 3.1.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Hilton Head, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

4996 5864Same House 1990 2000

7662 14712

Employment/UnemploymentTable 3.1.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Hilton Head, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 61.0 55.5Percent unemployed 2.8 1.8

RaceTable 3.1.2.5. Race for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 1647 2318 2758Latino Black Persons . 10 11 39Latino Persons . 86 246 3886



EducationTable 3.1.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 441 291 59425+ w/ 9-11 years education . 361 792 125225+ w/ HS diploma . 1855 3394 465125+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 1815 4533 559025+ w/ College Degree . 3334 7485 13464Drop outs . 60 78 88

Income and PovertyTable 3.1.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Hilton Head Island, 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $20858 $42896 $60438Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 758 1662 2442Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 79 279 215Households with Public Assistance . 165 228 176

IndustryTable 3.1.2.8. Employment by Industry for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 158 216 41Construction . 607 923 2459Business Services . 293 644 994Communication/Utilities . 104 236 548Manufacturing . 290 621 593Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 85 240 1606Services . 681 1693 5914Wholesale/Retail Trade . 1139 4676 4309Transportation . 1335 2993 226

OccupationTable 3.1.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 728 2477 -Clerical . 7870 1366 -Craft . 462 1076 -Exec/Managerial . 965 2148 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 114 165 58Household Services . 59 70 -Laborer/Handler . 174 216 -Operative/Transport . 49 200 -Service, except Household . 947 1921 -Technical . 119 295 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 3.1.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 3.1.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 3.1.3.3. Number of State Permits by Type for Hilton Head, South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 0Channel Net 0Crab Pots 5Drag Dredge 0Gill Net 0Hand Held Equipment 2Herring Net 0


Mechanical Equipment 0Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 0Other Equipment 0Peeler Crab Permit 0Saltwater License 22Seine Net 0Shad Net 0Shellfish Dealer 0Shellfish License 1Trawler License 12Trotlines 0Wholesale Dealer 4Total 46

Table 3.1.3.3. Number of State Permits by Type for Bluffton, South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 0Channel Net 0Crab Pots 6Drag Dredge 0Gill Net 0Hand Held Equipment 4Herring Net 0Mechanical Equipment 0Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 0Other Equipment 0Peeler Crab Permit 0Saltwater License 26Seine Net 0Shad Net 1Shellfish Dealer 2Shellfish License 0Trawler License 20Trotlines 0Wholesale Dealer 6Total 68

Community Profiles – Mt. Pleasant, SCThe first inhabitants of the Mount Pleasant area were the Sewee Indians. The first English settlers arrived around 1680 under the leadership of Captain Florentia O’ Sullivan. He had been granted 2,340 acres and each time a new family arrived, they were allotted several hundred acres. The first small settlement of the area was the village of Greenwich, which was adjacent to Jacob Motte’s “Mount Pleasant” estate. Motte’s estate was purchased in 1803 and divided into 35 large lots. In 1837, the village of Greenwich was merged with Mount Pleasant. Many of the families in this area had timber concerns and some maintained the ferries.


Mount Pleasant also played a leading role in the first major military engagement of the Revolutionary War in 1775. After the war, the area was known as a resort town with many storesand rentals available. The area is still widely known as a vacation area and “model town” in South Carolina.34

Mount Pleasant has seen its population double every ten years from 1970 to 1990 and now has reached a high of 47,386 in 2000. The number of persons in the labor force has dropped slightly to 69.9 percent while percent unemployed has remained fairly low at 2.2 percent. Average wage and salary has risen substantially but so has the number of persons living below the poverty level. While there was a significant jump in the number of persons working in farm, fish and forestry in 1990, that number dropped significantly in 2000. While there are only 6 vessels with federal permits homeported in Mount Pleasant (Table 3.5.3.1), there are 12 persons listed as fishing and 28 persons employed in fish and seafood and markets (Table 3.5.3.2). There are 170 state permits in Mt. Pleasant with 57 saltwater licenses (Table 3.5.3.3). There were 23 trawler licenses and 11 wholesale dealer licenses.

PopulationTable 3.5.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 6172 13838 30108 47386Persons Age 0-5 513 1089 2706 4309Persons Age 6-15 1473 2183 4060 6499Persons Age 16-17 266 489 571 1061Persons Age 18-24 594 1479 2704 3087Persons Age 25-34 809 3267 6690 7757Persons Age 35-44 805 1862 5872 4676Persons Age 45-54 771 1179 2690 7122Persons Age 55-64 447 1241 2039 3935Persons Age 65+ 384 861 2776 4773

Housing TenureTable 3.5.2.2. Housing Tenure for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


62.1 74.0

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 3.5.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

8729 11501

34 www.townofmountpleasant.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=5


http://www.townofmountpleasant.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=5

Same House 1990 200010092 18087

Employment/UnemploymentTable 3.5.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 74.5 69.9Percent unemployed 2.0 2.2

RaceTable 3.5.2.5. Race for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 779 991 2754 3445Latino Black Persons 0 0 17 8Latino Persons 40 124 373 635White Persons 5389 12723 27096 42515Latino White Persons 40 124 335 413

EducationTable 3.5.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 494 611 630 45325+ w/ 9-11 years education 555 865 1325 140825+ w/ HS diploma 1181 2037 3549 457125+ w/ 13-15 years. education 545 1923 4596 638625+ w/ College Degree 441 2974 8378 19537Drop outs 98 60 69 75

Income and PovertyTable 3.5.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $10501 $22344 $41109 $61054Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 660 925 1724 2335Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 73 116 207 277Households with Public Assistance 66 143 330 154


IndustryTable 3.5.2.8. Employment by Industry for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 14 60 245 81Construction 187 418 1400 1565Business Services 21 187 607 2189Communication/Utilities 159 244 394 681Manufacturing 468 933 1549 1816Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 372 569 932 2025Services 138 507 1436 15121Wholesale/Retail Trade 526 1350 6669 5534Transportation 509 1383 3208 1008

OccupationTable 3.5.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 213 843 2703 -Clerical 452 12500 2043 -Craft 449 659 1543 -Exec/Managerial 284 1006 2910 -Farm/Fish/Forest 0 81 162 72Household Services 36 105 54 -Laborer/Handler 40 187 351 -Operative/Transport 182 235 323 -Service, except Household 186 600 1394 -Technical 19 400 853 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 3.5.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)



Table 3.5.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 3.5.3.3. Number of State Permits by Type for Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 3Channel Net 0Crab Pots 24Drag Dredge 0Gill Net 0Hand Held Equipment 19Herring Net 1Mechanical Equipment 2Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 1Other Equipment 1Peeler Crab Permit 1Saltwater License 57Seine Net 0Shad Net 1Shellfish Dealer 2Shellfish License 15Trawler License 23Trotlines 1Wholesale Dealer 11Total 170

Community Profiles – Georgetown, SCGeorgetown is South Carolina’s third oldest city, following Charleston and Beaufort.35 The town became a busy seaport by 1729 as the import and export of cargo created wealth for the town, as well as targets for the pirates who were hiding out in the bays of the barrier islands. Many of the local stores in the area sold naval materials and uniforms. The indigo plant, of which the blue dye was derived from, grew along the coastal plains. An aristocratic society of plantation owners was established and they formed the “Winyah Indigo Society”. However as the price of the dye fell from overseas markets, local planters began cultivating rice instead. The original rice seeds were brought in from Madagascar to the port of Charleston around 1680. Grocers in England were said to praise the “Carolina Gold” rice above all other rice. Rice even was used as

35 www.cityofgeorgetownsc.com/history


http://www.cityofgeorgetownsc.com/history

a replacement for money, being accepted as payment for taxes. However with the Emancipation Proclamation and destructive hurricanes, the last commercial rice harvest in Georgetown County was in 1919.36 The area then turned to lumber production. In 1936, the International Paper Company built a plant in Georgetown. By 1942, this plant became the largest craft paper mill in the world. Commercial fishing and tourism are now significant industries in the area that contribute greatly to its economic well-being.37

Georgetown’s population has been declining from 1980 when it was 10,144 until 2000 where it dropped to 8,934. Georgetown’s population is predominantly African-American and has approximately 56 percent of its population in the labor force. The unemployment rate has gone down since 1990 to 7.8 percent. Average wage and salary have grown slightly over the past 30 years, but the number of people living below the poverty level has dropped little. As is the case for most communities the number of persons employed in farm, fish and forestry has seen a steady decline. There are five vessels with federal permits homeported in Georgetown (Table 3.8.3.1) and most fishing related employment is in boat building (Table 3.8.3.2). There are 8 persons reported as working in fish and seafood and markets also. With little fishing employment evident elsewhere, it is surprising to see over 350 state permits issued for Georgetown residents. Over 140 of those permits were for saltwater licenses and 50 were trawler permits. There are 13 wholesale dealer licenses in the community as well as, 64 crab pot permits and 27 channel net (Table 3.8.3.3).

PopulationTable 3.8.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Georgetown, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 10144 9517 8934Persons Age 0-5 . 812 909 735Persons Age 6-15 . 1763 1652 1496Persons Age 16-17 . 362 358 299Persons Age 18-24 . 1162 810 745Persons Age 25-34 . 1458 1374 1101Persons Age 35-44 . 940 1289 646Persons Age 45-54 . 1052 753 1151Persons Age 55-64 . 1058 816 701Persons Age 65+ . 1362 1556 1515

Housing TenureTable 3.8.2.2. Housing Tenure for Georgetown, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


62.5 61.7

36 www.georgetown-sc.com/history37 www.cityofgeorgetownsc.com/history


http://www.cityofgeorgetownsc.com/history

http://www.georgetown-sc.com/history

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 3.8.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Georgetown, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

2,174 2,129Same House 1990 2000

5,222 4,900

Employment/UnemploymentTable 3.8.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Georgetown, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 57.6 56.3Percent unemployed 9.4 7.8

RaceTable 3.8.2.5. Race for Georgetown, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 4729 5111 5078Latino Black Persons . 85 23 26Latino Persons . 96 49 168White Persons . 5386 4307 3611Latino White Persons . 11 8 58

EducationTable 3.8.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Georgetown, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 1489 917 53425+ w/ 9-11 years education . 1303 1188 107725+ w/ HS diploma . 1495 1596 167625+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 809 853 106225+ w/ College Degree . 774 907 1178Drop outs . 85 118 132

Income and PovertyTable 3.8.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Georgetown, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $14727 $26608 $29424Poverty Level



IndustryTable 3.8.2.8. Employment by Industry for Georgetown, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 141 117 61Construction . 337 242 251Business Services . 61 106 98Communication/Utilities . 62 86 80Manufacturing . 794 760 669Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 295 371 216Services . 161 148 1431Wholesale/Retail Trade . 739 1144 973Transportation . 707 846 90

OccupationTable 3.8.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Georgetown, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 317 510 -Clerical . 6230 380 -Craft . 436 360 -Exec/Managerial . 319 315 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 55 65 53Household Services . 48 25 -Laborer/Handler . 255 178 -Operative/Transport . 343 458 -Service, except Household . 759 681 -Technical . 128 77 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 3.8.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Georgetown, South Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)



Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 0 1 1 1

Table 3.8.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Georgetown, South Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 3.8.3.3. Number of State Permits by Type for Georgetown, South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 2Channel Net 27Crab Pots 64Drag Dredge 0Gill Net 2Hand Held Equipment 11Herring Net 0Mechanical Equipment 0Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 0Other Equipment 0Peeler Crab Permit 2Saltwater License 144Seine Net 0Shad Net 25Shellfish Dealer 0Shellfish License 10Trawler License 50Trotlines 2Wholesale Dealer 13Total 352

Community Profiles – Murrells Inlet, SCMurrells Inlet is known as the Seafood Capital of South Carolina. The origin of its name remains a mystery. However Murrells Inlet was officially named by the post office in 1913. The first settlers of the area were Native American Tribes. However beginning in the 16th and 17th Centuries, Spanish and English colonists arrived in the area. Pirates also utilized the Inlet’s winding creeks for refuge and a hiding place. Large tracts of land were cultivated into successful rice plantations. By 1850, almost 47 million pounds of rice were produced in this area. Murrells Inlet was used a port during the Civil War to sneak cotton and other products to England in exchange for war supplies, such as food and medicine. The Civil War led to the decline of the rice culture and in 1916, the last remaining commercial rice grower was out of business.


By this time, commercial and recreational fishing became a popular industry. By 1914, captain-led fishing excursions cost $5 per person for a day trip out of the Inlet on a 20-foot skiff. Today, charter, recreational and commercial fishing are still popular in Murrells Inlet.38

Murrells Inlet has seen its population increase to a high of 5492 in 2000. The percentage of owner occupied housing has also increased to 85 percent. The percent of the population in the labor force has remained practically the same while unemployment has risen from 3 percent in 1990 to 5.2 percent in 2000. Average wage and salary has risen over the past few decades while the number of persons living below the poverty level has fluctuated and now is 435 in 2000. The number of persons working in farm, fish and forestry occupations has seen a decline like most communities.

There are a total of 33 vessels with federal permits. The majority has king mackerel and snapper grouper class 1 permits. Almost half of those permitted vessels have charter permits for either coastal pelagics or snapper grouper (Table 3.9.3.1). There are four federal dealers in the community. Most of the fishing employment is in fish and seafood markets with 10 persons employed in that sector out of the 16 total (Table 3.9.3.2). There are 111 state permits issued to residents of Murrell’s Inlet. Forty-four of those permits are for saltwater licenses. Another 14 are for handheld equipment and 12 are for crab pots. There are 10 wholesale dealer licenses held by Murrell’s Inlet residents (Table 3.9.3.3).

PopulationTable 3.9.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 2394 3277 5492Persons Age 0-5 . 145 218 213Persons Age 6-15 . 388 281 541Persons Age 16-17 . 102 12 98Persons Age 18-24 . 264 292 249Persons Age 25-34 . 291 602 629Persons Age 35-44 . 329 480 408Persons Age 45-54 . 182 370 860Persons Age 55-64 . 333 527 859Persons Age 65+ . 337 495 1189

Housing TenureTable 3.9.2.2. Housing Tenure for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


79.9 85.3

38 www.murrellsinletsc.com/history.html


http://www.murrellsinletsc.com/history.html

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 3.9.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

615 495Same House 1990 2000

1194 2857

Employment/UnemploymentTable 3.9.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 60.7 61.6Percent unemployed 3.0 5.2

RaceTable 3.9.2.5. Race for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 516 410 389Latino Black Persons . 2 0 4Latino Persons . 7 0 34White Persons . 1867 2827 5035Latino White Persons . 0 0 20

EducationTable 3.9.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 323 156 11025+ w/ 9-11 years education . 364 477 57225+ w/ HS diploma . 445 784 128525+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 205 426 96925+ w/ College Degree . 135 456 1427Drop outs . 26 21 28

Income and PovertyTable 3.9.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $13233 $30776 $39877Poverty Level



IndustryTable 3.9.2.8. Employment by Industry for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 58 39 15Construction . 57 168 361Business Services . 13 162 149Communication/Utilities . 25 59 84Manufacturing . 123 97 140Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 75 55 243Services . 38 98 1077Wholesale/Retail Trade . 161 646 861Transportation . 424 476 69

OccupationTable 3.9.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 189 231 -Clerical . 1300 141 -Craft . 98 172 -Exec/Managerial . 132 339 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 39 39 11Household Services . 10 11 -Laborer/Handler . 42 68 -Operative/Transport . 53 100 -Service, except Household . 216 297 -Technical . 30 15 -

Table 3.9.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 34 37 37 33Commercial King Mackerel 20 23 22 21Commercial Spanish Mackerel 13 6 0 2Commercial Spiny Lobster 0 0 0 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 10 11 8 10Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 12 13 11 12Snapper Grouper Class 1 17 26 26 30Snapper Grouper Class 2 5 6 2 2Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 1 0 1Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0


Federal Dealers 5 5 5 4

Table 3.9.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Murrell’s Inlet, South Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 3.9.3.3. Number of State Permits by Type for Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 4Channel Net 0Crab Pots 12Drag Dredge 0Gill Net 0Hand Held Equipment 14Herring Net 0Mechanical Equipment 0Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 0Other Equipment 0Peeler Crab Permit 3Saltwater License 44Seine Net 0Shad Net 0Shellfish Dealer 8Shellfish License 7Trawler License 9Trotlines 0Wholesale Dealer 10Total 111

Community Profiles – Little River, SCNative American tribes who settled this area called the stream “Mineola”, which means “Little River”. Little River is one of the oldest settlements along the South Carolina coast. Fishermen and farmers began settling the area in the late 1600s and 1700s. The small, protected harbor was a refuge for shipwreck survivors and pirates, who needed a place to repair their boats and rest. It is still common to see treasure maps attempting to locate buried treasure on the placemats of the local restaurants.


For a time, Little River became known as “Yankee Town” by the rest of Horry County because of the settlers from New England. The area became a thriving port town in the 1850s. The shipments included fine lumber and navel supplies to Northern markets. The town had a few stores, sawmill, water house, school, churches and a bank. However the Civil War halted much of the town’s developments. Today, Little River is widely known for its charter boats, deep-sea and commercial fishing.39

Little River’s population has nearly doubled in the last decade. The percent of owner occupied housing has risen from 61 percent in 1990 to over 80 percent in 2000. The percent of the population in the labor force has remained unchanged while unemployment has dropped. Average wage and salary have increased and so has the number of person living below the poverty level. The number of person working in the agriculture, fishing and mining sector has grown to 87 over the past ten years, while those in the occupation of farm, fishing and forestry has dropped. There are 17 vessels with federal permits homeported in Little River and the majority of them have either snapper grouper class 1 or snapper grouper charter permits (Table 3.10.3.1). Fishing related employment reported in Table 3.10.3.2 is mostly in the marinas sector with 31 persons and 7 more are in fish and seafood.. Of the 24 state permits listed in Table 3.10.3.3, ten were for saltwater licenses.

PopulationTable 3.10.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Little River, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . . 3682 6904Persons Age 0-5 . . 244 337Persons Age 6-15 . . 325 682Persons Age 16-17 . . 81 100Persons Age 18-24 . . 270 258Persons Age 25-34 . . 601 723Persons Age 35-44 . . 539 487Persons Age 45-54 . . 356 1017Persons Age 55-64 . . 618 1206Persons Age 65+ . . 648 1842

Housing TenureTable 3.10.2.2. Housing Tenure for Little River, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


67.7 81.8

39 www.littleriverchamber.org/areainfo.html


http://www.littleriverchamber.org/areainfo.html

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 3.10.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Little River, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

589 1408Same House 1990 2000

1568 2748

Employment/UnemploymentTable 3.10.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Little River, South Carolina 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 56.6 58.0Percent unemployed 6.5 3.4

RaceTable 3.10.2.5. Race for Little River, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . . 487 466Latino Black Persons . . 0 12Latino Persons . . 22 72White Persons . . 3186 6385Latino White Persons . . 13 38

EducationTable 3.10.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Little River, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . . 94 7225+ w/ 9-11 years education . . 335 50325+ w/ HS diploma . . 937 211925+ w/ 13-15 years. education . . 672 127725+ w/ College Degree . . 565 1533Drop outs . . 22 23

Income and PovertyTable 3.10.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Little River, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . . $30023 $40427Poverty Level


Persons Below Poverty Level . . 496 517Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . . 63 32Households with Public Assistance . . 45 24

IndustryTable 3.10.2.8. Employment by Industry for Little River, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . . 68 87Construction . . 163 354Business Services . . 50 156Communication/Utilities . . 83 153Manufacturing . . 54 156Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . . 54 463Services . . 73 1340Wholesale/Retail Trade . . 605 925Transportation . . 465 31

OccupationTable 3.10.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Little River, South Carolina 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . . 260 -Clerical . . 241 -Craft . . 180 -Exec/Managerial . . 244 -Farm/Fish/Forest . . 58 31Household Services . . 10 -Laborer/Handler . . 64 -Operative/Transport . . 39 -Service, except Household . . 278 -Technical . . 28 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 3.10.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Little River, South Carolina (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 15 17 15 17Commercial King Mackerel 7 7 5 6Commercial Spanish Mackerel 6 5 1 2Commercial Spiny Lobster 0 0 0 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 7 6 7 8Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 9 9 8 10Snapper Grouper Class 1 13 15 10 13Snapper Grouper Class 2 1 1 1 2Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 3 2 5Rock Shrimp 0 1 2 2


Federal Dealers 1 1 2 2

Table 3.10.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Little River, South Carolina (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Table 3.10.3.3. Number of State Permits by Type for Little River, South Carolina. (Source South Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2003).Type PermitsBait Dealer 0Channel Net 0Crab Pots 2Drag Dredge 0Gill Net 2Hand Held Equipment 2Herring Net 0Mechanical Equipment 0Miscellaneous Pots/Traps 1Other Equipment 0Peeler Crab Permit 0Saltwater License 8Seine Net 0Shad Net 0Shellfish Dealer 0Shellfish License 1Trawler License 5Trotlines 0Wholesale Dealer 3Total 24

The following tables provide a general view of the presence or absence of fishing infrastructure located within the coastal communities of South Carolina with substantial fishing activity. It should be noted that there are many other attributes that might have been included in this table, however, because of inconsistency in rapid appraisal for all communities, these items were selected as the most consistently reported or had secondary data available to determine presence or absence. It should also be noted that in some cases certain infrastructure may exist within a community but was not readily apparent or could not be ascertained through secondary data. Table 3.11.1 offers an overview of the presence of the selected infrastructure items and provides an overall total score which is merely the total of infrastructure present.

Table 3.11.1. Fishing Infrastructure Table for South Carolina Potential Fishing Communities


Community

Fede

ral

Com

mer

cial

Pe

rmits

(5+)

Stat

e C

omm

erci

al

Lic

ense

s (10

+)Fe

dera

l C

hart

er

Perm

its (5

+)Se

afoo

d L

andi

ngs

Fish

pr

oces

sors

, W

hole

sale

fish

Rec

reat

iona

l do

cks /

mar

inas

Rec

reat

iona

l Fi

shin

g T

ourn

amen

ts

TotalHilton Head Island - + - + + + + 5Port Royal - - - + + + - 3Edisto Beach - + - - + - - 2Seabrook Island - + - - - - - 1Mt. Pleasant + + - + + + - 5Isle of Palms - - - - - + - 1McClellanville - + - + + + - 3Georgetown + + - + + + + 6Murrells Inlet + + + + + + - 6Little River + + + + + + - 6

In attempting a preliminary characterization of potential fishing communities in Table 3.11.2, we have provided a grouping of communities that appear to have more involvement in various fishing enterprises and therefore are classified as primarily involved. These communities have considerable fishing infrastructure, but also have a history and culture surrounding both commercial and recreational fishing that contributes to an appearance and perception of being a fishing community in the mind of residents and others. The communities are not ranked in any particular order, this is merely a categorization.

Table 3.11.2 Preliminary Characterization of Potential Fishing Communities in South CarolinaPrimarily-Involved Secondarily-Involved

Mt. Pleasant Edisto BeachMcClellanville Seabrook Island

Georgetown Isle of PalmsMurrells InletLittle River

Hilton Head Island

Charleston, while having many commercial and charter permits is a large enough metropolitan area that fishing is rather small when compared to the larger economy and although historically may have played a role in the community culture is likely not a major focus historically or does it play a large role in the economy at this time. It is likely that the fishing community of Charleston has become ensconced in other parts of the metropolitan area, such as Shem Creek (Mt. Pleasant) and has become a component of that community’s history and culture. Many of these communities are in transition due to various social and demographic changes from coastal development, growing populations, increasing tourism, changing regulations, etc. This preliminary characterization is just that and should not be considered a definite designation as fishing community, but a general guide for locating communities that may warrant consideration as a potential fishing community.


Georgia

Georgia landed over 9 million pounds of seafood in both 2001 and 2002. The value of those landings was over 14 million dollars in 2001 and over 15 million dollars in 2002. No Georgia port was listed in the top 50 U.S. ports in terms of pounds landed or in terms of value of landings. According to NMFS (2002) Georgia recreational fishermen landed over 2 million pounds of finfish in 2001 and in 2002 that number dropped to just over than 1 million pounds. There were 5 processors in Georgia for 2001 with a total of 1,119 employees and 30 wholesale dealers employing 432 persons. In the years 2001 and 2002, Georgia did have approximately 265 and 226 registered vessels respectively.

Georgia has had just over 50 federally permitted vessels since 1998 and through 2001. The majority of those vessels carried rock shrimp permits with the next most common being king mackerel and snapper grouper class 1. It must be remembered that there is no shrimp permit in the South Atlantic region; so many vessels in the state are not included in the federal permit list.

Table 4.1 Number of Federal Permit by Type for Georgia (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 50 53 57 53Commercial King Mackerel 15 17 19 16Commercial Spanish Mackerel 11 10 11 8Commercial Spiny Lobster 5 4 5 5Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 7 6 6 5Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 6 5 5 4Snapper Grouper Class 1 14 18 14 14Snapper Grouper Class 2 1 6 2 2Swordfish 0 0 0 0Shark 0 5 5 4Rock Shrimp 22 25 28 29

The disparity between federal and state permits is evident in Table 4.2 where 947 licensed commercial fishing vessels are listed and 482 of those have shrimp gear. Overall, Georgia has 759 licensed fishermen and 612 of those are full-time.

Table 4.2. Number of State Permit by Type for Georgia (Source: GADNR 2002)Type NumberCommercial Fishing Vessel Registration 947Vessels with shrimp gear 482Full-time commercial fishermen 612Part-time commercial fishermen 147

Georgia requires commercial fishermen to be licensed and also requires a license for commercial crabbing and commercial cast netting. A commercial trawling license is required to use power drawn nets in the state waters. In addition, the state requires a dealer license for retail and wholesale fish to be sold, soft-shell crab and bait dealers.


Georgia Fishing Infrastructure and Community CharacterizationThe following tables provide a general view of the presence or absence of fishing infrastructure located within the coastal communities of Georgia with substantial fishing activity. It should be noted that there are many other attributes that might have been included in this table, however, because of inconsistency in rapid appraisal for all communities, these items were selected as the most consistently reported or had secondary data available to determine presence or absence. It should also be noted that in some cases certain infrastructure may exist within a community but was not readily apparent or could not be ascertained through secondary data. Table 4.7.1 offers an overview of the presence of the selected infrastructure items and provides an overall total score that is merely the total of infrastructure present.

Table 4.7.1. Fishing Infrastructure Table for Georgia Potential Fishing Communities

Community

Fede

ral

Com

mer

cial

Pe

rmits

(5+)

Stat

e C

omm

erci

al

Lic

ense

s (10

+)Fe

dera

l C

hart

er

Perm

its (5

+)Se

afoo

d L

andi

ngs

Seaf

ood

reta

il m

arke

ts

Fish

pr

oces

sors

, W

hole

sale

fish

Rec

reat

iona

l do

cks /

mar

inas

Rec

reat

iona

l Fi

shin

g T

ourn

amen

ts

TotalTybee Island - - - - + - + - 2Thunderbolt - - - - - - + - 1Darien - + - + + + + - 5Brunswick + + - - + + + + 6St. Simons Island - - - - + + + + 4St. Mary’s - + - - + - + + 4


Table 4.7.2 Preliminary Characterization of Potential Fishing Communities in GeorgiaPrimarily-Involved Secondarily-Involved

Darien Tybee IslandBrunswick ThunderboltSt. Mary’s

St. Simons Island

Many of these communities are in transition due to various social and demographic changes from coastal development, growing populations, increasing tourism, changing regulations, etc. This preliminary characterization is just that and should not be considered a definite designation as fishing community, but a general guide for locating communities that may warrant consideration as a potential fishing community.

FloridaThe East coast of Florida landed over 37 million and over 32 million pounds of seafood in 2001 and 2002 respectively. The value of those landings was over 48 million dollars in 2001 and over


38 million dollars in 2002. Florida had one port, Key West, listed in the top 50 U.S. ports in terms of pounds landed and in terms of value of landings there were three ports for Florida: Key West, St. Petersburg and Ft. Myers. According to NMFS (2002) Florida recreational fishermen landed over 68 million pounds of finfish in 2001 and in 2002 that number dropped to just over 59 million pounds for the entire state. There were 93 processors in all of Florida for 2001 with a total of 2,654 employees and 284 wholesale dealers employing 2,485. In the years 2001 and 2002, Florida had approximately 2,136 and 1,934 registered vessels respectively. During those same years there were 5,502 boats registered in 2001 and in 2002 that number was 4,438.

Table 2.1 Number of Federal Permit by Type for Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 3384 1949 2432 2311Commercial King Mackerel 1359 1216 1559 1519Commercial Spanish Mackerel 1540 1228 1479 1377Commercial Spiny Lobster 574 457 532 498Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 790 275 397 417Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 401 182 241 257Snapper Grouper Class 1 83 564 676 641Snapper Grouper Class 2 48 239 269 258Swordfish 460 58 79 75Shark 1039 212 251 242Rock Shrimp 167 149 176 167

Florida has seen the number of permitted vessels decline over the past four years with a high of 3,384 vessels in 1998 and in 2001 that number dropped to 2311. The majority of those vessels held either of both king mackerel permits or Spanish mackerel permits. The next most commonly held permits were snapper grouper class1 and spiny lobster.

Community Profiles – Fernandina Beach, FLFernandina Beach is located in Nassau County, Florida, on the northernmost barrier island (Amelia Island) of the state’s east coast. The island extends from the mouth of the St. Mary’s River southward to Nassau Sound and is just over thirteen miles long and two miles wide (Jacob et al. 2002).

Fishing has had a long history in the community as immigrants in the 1700s were net fishermen seeking mullet, sheepshead, crabs, trout, turtles, drum, oysters and "pogies" (menhaden). Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and tourism were the most prominent industries in the Fernandina Beach area during the early 1900’s. Shrimp fishing was developed in 1902 by a Sicilian immigrant living in Fernandina Beach who fished with a small diesel engine on his boat to pull a shrimp seine net across the ocean floor. Commercial shrimp fishing grew substantially when a New England fisherman, who was searching the Florida peninsula for blue fish, began harvesting large quantities of shrimp. Shrimp processing and shipment facilities were soon developed in Fernandina Beach. That fishing heritage has been preserved in Old Town Fernandina Beach, which has been designated a National Historic District. Today, Fernandina’s harbor is filled with commercial and charter fishing boats, shrimp boats and private vessels. Seafood restaurants contribute to the fishing village theme which continues to resonate throughout the community although tourism has become the primary source of economic revenue (Jacob et al. 2002).


PopulationTable 5.1.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 6955 7224 8765 10242Persons Age 0-5 586 468 652 682Persons Age 6-15 1594 1252 1121 1128Persons Age 16-17 371 351 252 234Persons Age 18-24 577 723 805 712Persons Age 25-34 754 1076 1344 1063Persons Age 35-44 831 786 1457 1565Persons Age 45-54 755 816 903 1550Persons Age 55-64 767 878 923 1337Persons Age 65+ 599 791 1308 1971

Housing TenureTable 5.1.2.2. Housing Tenure for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


64.8 68.2

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.1.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

1672 1776Same House 1990 2000

3630 4802

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.1.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 63.9 58.9Percent unemployed 4.5 7.1

RaceTable 5.1.2.5. Race for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 2136 2054 1975 1698Latino Black Persons 13 61 0 10Latino Persons 58 248 48 246


White Persons 4819 5158 6739 8434Latino White Persons 45 187 48 168

EducationTable 5.1.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 1128 796 556 43825+ w/ 9-11 years education 767 625 754 71325+ w/ HS diploma 1159 1493 1869 201925+ w/ 13-15 years. education 301 707 1071 214025+ w/ College Degree 351 726 1371 3145Drop outs 127 74 67 80

Income and PovertyTable 5.1.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $8499 $19526 $35352 $40893Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 1366 897 1211 1026Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 214 146 189 158Households with Public Assistance 145 251 215 97

IndustryTable 5.1.2.8. Employment by Industry for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 79 90 71 25Construction 169 58 305 341Business Services 60 68 156 304Communication/Utilities 63 73 59 161Manufacturing 921 769 686 442Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 74 199 220 295Services 106 186 268 2112Wholesale/Retail Trade 709 556 1389 1230Transportation 448 537 916 248

OccupationTable 5.1.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Fernandina Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 95 197 426 -Clerical 381 3630 440 -


Craft 319 385 491 -Exec/Managerial 318 363 636 -Farm/Fish/Forest 22 74 90 12Household Services 114 63 35 -Laborer/Handler 235 133 162 -Operative/Transport 391 190 155 -Service, except Household 517 601 773 -Technical 15 108 189 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.1.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Fernandina Beach, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.1.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Fernandina Beach, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Atlantic Beach, FLSt. Augustine has the distinction of being the oldest European city in the United States. First sited by the Spanish explorer Don Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513, it was not settled until 1565 by Don Pedro Menendez de Aviles, a Spanish admiral, in the name of King Phillip II.40 The town’s boom did not occur until the 1880s with the arrival of Henry M. Flagler. His goal was to turn St. Augustine into a winter resort for wealthy Americans. It was this thinking that transformed the town. The construction of the railroad linked the city with much of the east coast. Flagler built three large hotels to help fulfill his dream of a tourist mecca. By the mid-1900s, St. Augustine’s local economy was dominated by tourism.41

40 http://www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/history/history.html

41 http://www.ci.st-augustine.fl.us/visitors/history_fullprint.html


http://www.ci.st-augustine.fl.us/visitors/history_fullprint.html

http://www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/history/history.html

The commercial fishing industry began in the St. Augustine/Fernandina area around 1900 with the arrival of a Sicilian immigrant named Sallecito Salvador. He placed an engine on his boat that allowed him to pull a shrimp seine across the ocean floor in 1902, and in 1906, he began his company, S. Salvador & Sons. Salvador moved his business to St. Augustine in 1922, where it thrived until 1929. Shrimp catch levels soared from about 1934 to 1940.42 These stories illustrate the longstanding culture of fishing in the St. Augustine area and the importance it holds for many of the fishing families there. Commercial fishing still continues at the port, the oldest continuously active port in the United States. Boat building, tourism, and recreational activities are also important to St. Augustine’s port.43

St. Augustine has seen a steady decline in its population since 1970. Both the percent of population in the labor force and unemployment have remained relatively stable over the years. Average wage and salary has grown steadily, while the number of person living below the poverty level has dropped. The number of people employed in farm, fish and forestry has also dropped significantly over the past three decades, with the most pronounced decline from 1990 to 2000. St. Augustine hs 28 vessels with federal permits and the majority of them have charter permits for either snapper grouper or coastal pelagics (Table 5.3.3.1). There is significant employment in fishing related business as there are over 370 people employed in boat building according to Table 5.3.3.2 and another 75 in the seafood processing sector.

PopulationTable 5.3.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 12352 11985 11692 11512Persons Age 0-5 676 574 696 560Persons Age 6-15 2550 1708 1304 1069Persons Age 16-17 510 425 367 214Persons Age 18-24 1242 1833 1720 1767Persons Age 25-34 927 1418 1522 1181Persons Age 35-44 1181 909 1404 1542Persons Age 45-54 1300 1114 1163 1760Persons Age 55-64 1540 1363 1098 1187Persons Age 65+ 2197 2529 2418 2232

Housing TenureTable 5.3.2.2. Housing Tenure for St. Augustine, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


62.1 59.7

42 http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/fernidina.htm43 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/ports/port.cfm?name=St_Augustine


http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/ports/port.cfm?name=St_Augustine

http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/fernidina.htm

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.3.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for St. Augustine, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

2239 2547Same House 1990 2000

5388 5121

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.3.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for St. Augustine, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 57.3 61.9Percent unemployed 5.6 5.4

RaceTable 5.3.2.5. Race for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 2679 2527 2303 1,741Latino Black Persons 0 45 30 6Latino Persons 139 367 560 361White Persons 9673 9383 9154 9,193Latino White Persons 139 279 438 221

EducationTable 5.3.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 2293 1597 697 51925+ w/ 9-11 years education 1291 1352 1152 109925+ w/ HS diploma 2193 2128 2037 243025+ w/ 13-15 years. education 615 1204 1528 256825+ w/ College Degree 753 1052 1789 3074Drop outs 240 165 116 66

Income and PovertyTable 5.3.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6958 $13757 $26572 $32358Poverty Level


Persons Below Poverty Level 2927 1876 1697 1664Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 760 355 301 200Households with Public Assistance 275 422 372 125

IndustryTable 5.3.2.8. Employment by Industry for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 142 126 67 19Construction 259 327 287 353Business Services 111 127 253 226Communication/Utilities 149 109 91 202Manufacturing 522 441 437 423Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 342 304 292 420Services 227 193 249 2827Wholesale/Retail Trade 1622 1237 2203 1941Transportation 948 1123 1421 225

OccupationTable 5.3.2.9. Employment by Occupation for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 323 510 866 -Clerical 726 6710 569 -Craft 568 536 509 -Exec/Managerial 481 631 536 -Farm/Fish/Forest 86 141 105 43Household Services 145 103 36 -Laborer/Handler 231 220 149 -Operative/Transport 232 256 175 -Service, except Household 898 1125 1040 -Technical 58 124 140 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.3.3.1 Number of Federal Permit by Type for St. Augustine, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)



Rock Shrimp 1 1 1 1Federal Dealers

Table 5.3.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for St. Augustine, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – St. Augustine, FLSt. Augustine has the distinction of being the oldest European city in the United States. First sited by the Spanish explorer Don Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513, it was not settled until 1565 by Don Pedro Menendez de Aviles, a Spanish admiral, in the name of King Phillip II.44 The town’s boom did not occur until the 1880s with the arrival of Henry M. Flagler. His goal was to turn St. Augustine into a winter resort for wealthy Americans. It was this thinking that transformed the town. The construction of the railroad linked the city with much of the east coast. Flagler built three large hotels to help fulfill his dream of a tourist mecca. By the mid-1900s, St. Augustine’s local economy was dominated by tourism.45

The commercial fishing industry began in the St. Augustine/Fernandina area around 1900 with the arrival of a Sicilian immigrant named Sallecito Salvador. He placed an engine on his boat that allowed him to pull a shrimp seine across the ocean floor in 1902, and in 1906, he began his company, S. Salvador & Sons. Salvador moved his business to St. Augustine in 1922, where it thrived until 1929. Shrimp catch levels soared from about 1934 to 1940.46 These stories illustrate the longstanding culture of fishing in the St. Augustine area and the importance it holds for many of the fishing families there. Commercial fishing still continues at the port, the oldest continuously active port in the United States. Boat building, tourism, and recreational activities are also important to St. Augustine’s port.47

St. Augustine has seen a steady decline in its population since 1970. Both the percent of population in the labor force and unemployment have remained relatively stable over the years. Average wage and salary has grown steadily, while the number of person living below the poverty level has dropped. The number of people employed in farm, fish and forestry has also dropped significantly over the past three decades, with the most pronounced decline from 1990

44 http://www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/history/history.html

45 http://www.ci.st-augustine.fl.us/visitors/history_fullprint.html46 http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/fernidina.htm47 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/ports/port.cfm?name=St_Augustine


http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/ports/port.cfm?name=St_Augustine

http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/fernidina.htm

http://www.ci.st-augustine.fl.us/visitors/history_fullprint.html

http://www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/history/history.html

to 2000. St. Augustine hs 28 vessels with federal permits and the majority of them have charter permits for either snapper grouper or coastal pelagics (Table 5.3.3.1). There is significant employment in fishing related business as there are over 370 people employed in boat building according to Table 5.3.3.2 and another 75 in the seafood processing sector.

PopulationTable 5.3.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 12352 11985 11692 11512Persons Age 0-5 676 574 696 560Persons Age 6-15 2550 1708 1304 1069Persons Age 16-17 510 425 367 214Persons Age 18-24 1242 1833 1720 1767Persons Age 25-34 927 1418 1522 1181Persons Age 35-44 1181 909 1404 1542Persons Age 45-54 1300 1114 1163 1760Persons Age 55-64 1540 1363 1098 1187Persons Age 65+ 2197 2529 2418 2232

Housing TenureTable 5.3.2.2. Housing Tenure for St. Augustine, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


62.1 59.7

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.3.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for St. Augustine, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

2239 2547Same House 1990 2000

5388 5121

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.3.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for St. Augustine, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 57.3 61.9Percent unemployed 5.6 5.4


RaceTable 5.3.2.5. Race for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 2679 2527 2303 1,741Latino Black Persons 0 45 30 6Latino Persons 139 367 560 361White Persons 9673 9383 9154 9,193Latino White Persons 139 279 438 221

EducationTable 5.3.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 2293 1597 697 51925+ w/ 9-11 years education 1291 1352 1152 109925+ w/ HS diploma 2193 2128 2037 243025+ w/ 13-15 years. education 615 1204 1528 256825+ w/ College Degree 753 1052 1789 3074Drop outs 240 165 116 66

Income and PovertyTable 5.3.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6958 $13757 $26572 $32358Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 2927 1876 1697 1664Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 760 355 301 200Households with Public Assistance 275 422 372 125

IndustryTable 5.3.2.8. Employment by Industry for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 142 126 67 19Construction 259 327 287 353Business Services 111 127 253 226Communication/Utilities 149 109 91 202Manufacturing 522 441 437 423Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 342 304 292 420


Services 227 193 249 2827Wholesale/Retail Trade 1622 1237 2203 1941Transportation 948 1123 1421 225

OccupationTable 5.3.2.9. Employment by Occupation for St. Augustine, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 323 510 866 -Clerical 726 6710 569 -Craft 568 536 509 -Exec/Managerial 481 631 536 -Farm/Fish/Forest 86 141 105 43Household Services 145 103 36 -Laborer/Handler 231 220 149 -Operative/Transport 232 256 175 -Service, except Household 898 1125 1040 -Technical 58 124 140 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.3.3.1 Number of Federal Permit by Type for St. Augustine, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 34 14 15 28Commercial King Mackerel 9 8 8 7Commercial Spanish Mackerel 10 8 8 8Commercial Spiny Lobster 3 1 2 2Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 1 4 5 19Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 18 4 5 18Snapper Grouper Class 1 1 7 9 9Snapper Grouper Class 2 3 3 2 2Swordfish 2 0 0 0Shark 3 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 1 1 1 1Federal Dealers

Table 5.3.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for St. Augustine, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)



Community Profiles – Ponce Inlet, FLThe town of Ponce Inlet was originally referred to as the port of mosquitoes until the early twentieth century and is located at the southern boundary of Ponce de Leon Inlet. There is some controversy as to whom actually first stepped foot on Ponce Inlet; perhaps it was Ponce de Leon in 1513 that went ashore to high ground to search for a lost vessel. Others believe it may have been Frenchman Jean Ribault in 1563 (Davies, 1995).

Sport fishing became the mainstay for most residents of the Ponce Inlet area. The industry began to grow in the 1950s; however, many found that it was not very profitable. “In the winter the waters were so uncertain that sometimes the boats rocked at the dock for days while the tourist sought other recreation” (Davies, 1995:54). However, when charter fishermen in the Florida Keys heard about the good conditions in the summer months in northern Florida, they would work out of the “growing number of docks from Daytona to the Inlet” (Davies, 1995:55). The arrival of the head boat scared many of the original fishermen because they thought it would ruin the business. Eventually, the locals understood the economic opportunities associated with the head boat. By the 1960s, the sport fishing industry was quite successful for the fishermen of Ponce Inlet (Davies, 1995).

The population of Ponce Inlet has grown over the years, but most of that growth came within the last decade. The percent of population in the labor force has remained around 45 percent and unemployment has dropped to a low of 1.9 in 2000 from 4.5 in 1990. Average wage and salary have risen significantly over the years, but so has the number of persons living below the poverty level. The number of people who work in farm, fish and forestry has dropped to fewer than 3 people according to census measures of occupation and industry. However, Table 5.4.3.1 shows over 25 vessels with federal permits homeported in the community with the majority of those with charter permits for either snapper grouper or coastal pelagics. There is also some fishing related employment according to Table 5.4.3.2 which indicates over 180 people employed in the marinas sector.

PopulationTable 5.4.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Ponce Inlet, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 1003 1704 2514Persons Age 0-5 . 20 55 37Persons Age 6-15 . 86 70 184Persons Age 16-17 . 44 24 52Persons Age 18-24 . 88 104 83Persons Age 25-34 . 121 185 131Persons Age 35-44 . 99 250 266Persons Age 45-54 . 120 190 450Persons Age 55-64 . 250 350 542Persons Age 65+ . 163 476 769


Housing TenureTable 5.4.2.2. Housing Tenure for Ponce Inle, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


85.4 90.4

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.4.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Ponce Inle, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

274 402Same House 1990 2000

716 1250

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.4.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Ponce Inle, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 48.1 45.6Percent unemployed 4.2 1.9

RaceTable 5.4.2.5. Race for Ponce Inlet, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 1 14Latino Black Persons . 0 1 1Latino Persons . 16 21 39White Persons . 982 1662 2420Latino White Persons . 7 20 36

EducationTable 5.4.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Ponce Inlet, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 52 40 5025+ w/ 9-11 years education . 85 145 11825+ w/ HS diploma . 265 463 55725+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 184 346 55625+ w/ College Degree . 167 326 877Drop outs . 7 2 0


Income and PovertyTable 5.4.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Ponce Inlet, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . 15923 33162 52112Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 66 116 128Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 6 15 24Households with Public Assistance . 10 22 0

IndustryTable 5.4.2.8. Employment by Industry for Ponce Inlet, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 16 20 0Construction . 16 40 71Business Services . 26 23 67Communication/Utilities . 6 13 26Manufacturing . 28 57 99Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 21 31 108Services . 49 83 518Wholesale/Retail Trade . 69 235 238Transportation . 107 211 55

OccupationTable 5.4.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Ponce Inlet, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 74 131 -Clerical . 510 93 -Craft . 25 53 -Exec/Managerial . 70 121 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 16 20 2Household Services . 0 0 -Laborer/Handler . 0 26 -Operative/Transport . 2 19 -Service, except Household . 59 113 -Technical . 5 28 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.4.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Ponce Inlet, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001


Total permitted vessels 28 13 18 29Commercial King Mackerel 11 7 10 10Commercial Spanish Mackerel 12 6 12 11Commercial Spiny Lobster 4 2 2 2Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 21 8 13 25Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 22 8 12 22Snapper Grouper Class 1 1 11 12 12Snapper Grouper Class 2 0 0 0 0Swordfish 4 0 1 1Shark 11 5 7 7Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 0 0 0 0

Table 5.4.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Ponce Inlet, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Merritt Island, FLMerritt Island’s population has grown slowly over the past three decades. The percent of the population in the labor force has dropped slightly over the past ten years, but unemployment has increased slightly. Average wage and salary have increased to over $40,000 for the year 2000, but the number of persons living under the poverty level has also grown considerably. As for most coastal communities the number of people working in the farm, fish and forestry sector of the economy has dropped significantly over the past decade but has shown a steady decline prior to the 2000 census. Merritt Island has only 8 vessels with federal permits and half of them have charter permits (Table 5.5.3.1). There is substantial employment represented in the fishing related sector of boat building with over 1100 persons employed in that sector according to Table 5.5.3.2. PopulationTable 5.5.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Merritt Island, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 29233 30708 32886 36091Persons Age 0-5 2822 1558 2346 2171Persons Age 6-15 7486 4786 3929 4496Persons Age 16-17 1095 1380 776 1158Persons Age 18-24 2343 3448 2476 2191Persons Age 25-34 4813 3804 5148 3335Persons Age 35-44 4630 4126 4817 6038


Persons Age 45-54 3170 4308 4278 5182Persons Age 55-64 1190 3802 4055 4323Persons Age 65+ 1068 3163 5061 7197

Housing TenureTable 5.5.2.2. Housing Tenure for Merritt Island, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


72.3 74.9

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.5.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Merritt Island, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

7987 9158Same House 1990 2000

15381 18634

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.5.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Merritt Island, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 65.1 58.4Percent unemployed 4.2 5.0

RaceTable 5.5.2.5. Race for Merritt Island, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 1586 1641 1711 1871Latino Black Persons 32 3 41 47Latino Persons 657 759 1067 1381White Persons 27466 28602 30345 31565Latino White Persons 520 698 887 995

EducationTable 5.5.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Merritt Island, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 1601 1878 877 79625+ w/ 9-11 years education 2018 2282 2512 285825+ w/ HS diploma 5899 6905 6328 7416


25+ w/ 13-15 years. education 2936 4294 6082 702025+ w/ College Degree 2417 3844 5457 10002Drop outs 223 191 98 90

Income and PovertyTable 5.5.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Merritt Island, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $12011 $20355 $39680 $43532Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 2176 2512 2331 3334Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 257 260 287 478Households with Public Assistance 187 409 636 354

IndustryTable 5.5.2.8. Employment by Industry for Merritt Island, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 180 165 298 79Construction 620 1014 1021 1142Business Services 983 1001 918 1358Communication/Utilities 312 416 371 494Manufacturing 3169 2424 2965 2051Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 2864 2209 2760 987Services 357 743 1113 7378Wholesale/Retail Trade 3156 2188 5105 3750Transportation 1737 3107 3627 632

OccupationTable 5.5.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Merritt Island, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 677 1805 2231 -Clerical 1877 22430 2342 -Craft 1426 1636 1936 -Exec/Managerial 975 1861 2597 -Farm/Fish/Forest 89 152 232 79Household Services 94 13 15 -Laborer/Handler 220 455 405 -Operative/Transport 608 449 431 -Service, except Household 1118 1367 2003 -Technical 692 793 862 -


Fishing DemographicsTable 5.5.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Merritt Island, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total Permitted Vessels 7 4 7 8Commercial King Mackerel 3 3 6 5Commercial Spanish Mackerel 4 3 2 0Commercial Spiny Lobster 2 0 0 0Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 1 0 1 4Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 0 0 1 4Snapper Grouper Class 1 0 0 2 2Snapper Grouper Class 2 0 0 0 0Swordfish 2 0 0 0Shark 4 1 1 0Rock Shrimp 1 0 0 0Federal Dealers 2 1 1 1

Table 5.5.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Merritt Island, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Cape Canaveral, FLCape Canaveral received its name from the Spanish explorers who found it in the early 1500s. The word “Cape” was used to describe the land formation, and the word “Canaveral” comes from the Spanish word for “canebreak.” There is much debate over the exact translation and meaning of the name. A traveling exhibition for the Smithsonian Institute translates Cape Canaveral as “Place of the Cane Bearers,” so named by Spanish explorer Francisco Gordillo after he was shot by an Ais Indian arrow made of cane. Others believe it should be translated as “Point of Reeds” or “Point of Canes” because the Spanish mistook some of the indigenous plants for sugar cane. Whatever the exact translation of the name may be, all agree that it is of Spanish origin.48

Even before the area of Cape Canaveral was settled, it was an important landmark for sailors. Once sighted, they would turn northeastward for the journey back to Europe. Douglas D. Dummitt arrived in the area in the 1820s, establishing Dummitt Grove on Merritt Island. He used the Indian River to ship his oranges northward, beginning in 1828. However, the actual geographic area known as Cape Canaveral was not settled until the 1840s. Cut off from the mainland, this small community remained self-reliant until the late 1800s.49

48 http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory/1a.html49 http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory/1a.html


http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory/1a.html

http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory/1a.html

The city of Cape Canaveral really began to expand in the early 1920s when a group of retired Orlando journalists were vacationing in the area and appraising its value. They invested over $150,000 in the surrounding beach areas, calling it Journalista, the area today known as Avon-by-the-Sea. Instead of the area becoming solely a beach resort for wealthy inland residents and northerners, many fishermen moved into the area as well.50 However, with the establishment and expansion of the space program in the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Cape Canaveral, Titusville, Merritt Island, and the surrounding communities truly began to expand.

Today, the residents of Cape Canaveral and the rest of Brevard County rely on the surrounding waters. Port Canaveral, constructed in the 1950s, is the second busiest cruise port in the world and home to many charter fishing companies in the area.51 The more than three dozen charter fishing boats offer half-day, three-quarter-day, full-day, and gulf stream trips for dolphin, tuna, king and Spanish mackerel, wahoo, redfish, tarpon, snook, snapper, grouper, and many others. Both light tackle flats fishing on the Indian and Banana Rivers and Mosquito Lagoon as well as deep sea fishing are available. Most of the boat captains are second or third generation fishermen. The history of fishing in Brevard County dates back more than 100 years.

Cape Canaveral’s population has grown steadily over the years while the percent of the population in the labor force has dropped. Unemployment has also dropped but remains above 5 percent. Average wage and salary has grown while the number of persons living below the poverty level has dropped from a high in 1990 of 1282 to 1035 in 2000. The number of persons working in the fish, farm and forestry sector has dropped significantly to only 17 persons in 2000 for both occupation and industry. Cape Canaveral has 15 vessels with federal permits homeported there (Table 5.6.3.1) with a large portion of the employment in fishing related business in marinas with 125 according to Table 5.6.3.2. with 35 in boat building and 17 in fish and seafood.

PopulationTable 5.6.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 4258 5733 8014 8954Persons Age 0-5 352 251 466 308Persons Age 6-15 618 444 540 509Persons Age 16-17 81 100 100 163Persons Age 18-24 838 1165 789 589Persons Age 25-34 855 1073 1870 1155Persons Age 35-44 664 639 1239 1504Persons Age 45-54 435 552 850 1416Persons Age 55-64 221 734 867 1138Persons Age 65+ 132 721 1293 2172

50 http://fcn.state.fl.us/cape/LocalArea.html51 http://www.portcanaveral.org/business


http://www.portcanaveral.org/business

http://fcn.state.fl.us/cape/LocalArea.html

Housing TenureTable 5.6.2.2. Housing Tenure for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


41.9 49.6

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.6.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

2371 2812Same House 1990 2000

2117 3196

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.6.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 70.2 59.6Percent unemployed 6.8 5.3

RaceTable 5.6.2.5. Race for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 0 182 277 119Latino Black Persons 0 0 40 7Latino Persons 95 159 374 307White Persons 4242 5410 7545 8,114Latino White Persons 95 121 300 245

EducationTable 5.6.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 209 280 213 17925+ w/ 9-11 years education 306 419 814 84925+ w/ HS diploma 904 1461 1939 231525+ w/ 13-15 years. education 458 863 1368 2147


25+ w/ College Degree 430 696 1311 2585Drop outs 49 58 36 13

Income and PovertyTable 5.6.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $9357 $14616 $27764 $30858Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 332 890 1282 1035Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 40 52 74 155Households with Public Assistance 43 115 204 147

IndustryTable 5.6.2.8. Employment by Industry for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 20 32 68 17Construction 83 276 319 398Business Services 263 146 309 323Communication/Utilities 77 89 32 132Manufacturing 739 584 864 462Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 722 501 799 283Services 86 166 201 1722Wholesale/Retail Trade 656 360 1438 1191Transportation 327 621 1060 270

OccupationTable 5.6.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Cape Canaveral, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 86 240 638 -Clerical 492 3840 583 -Craft 242 410 492 -Exec/Managerial 175 353 488 -Farm/Fish/Forest 0 23 123 17Household Services 0 10 18 -Laborer/Handler 30 107 143 -Operative/Transport 119 138 199 -Service, except Household 216 469 754 -Technical 137 179 238 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.6.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Cape Canaveral, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)



Table 5.6.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Cape Canaveral, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Sebastian, FLSebastian and Vero Beach are two of the five districts that comprise Indian River County. Both communities were first settled in the 1880s. Communication with the rest of the country and even other counties was difficult. Therefore, settlers had to hunt, trap, and fish for everything. The railroad was completed in time for the Spanish American War, bringing troops to Florida (Newman, 1953). The arrival of the railroad also increased the commercial fishing sector of Sebastian and Vero Beach. Icehouses developed to pack and store the fish around 1900, and the trains exported the products north. The original fish house of one of the very first commercial fishing families still operates today on Indian River Drive in Sebastian.52

Today, recreational fishing, along with commercial fishing, is an important part of the Indian River County culture. The Indian River Lagoon is home to more than 700 species of fresh and saltwater fish.53 Saltwater anglers can fish the Sebastian Inlet and the Sebastian River for snook and red drum in the 20 to 30 pound class. Grouper, snapper, flounder, sheepshead, permit, whiting, blues, and shark can be caught off the Sebastian Inlet pier.54 Deep sea fishing charters also leave from Sebastian and Vero Beach, offering bottom fishing and blue water trolling for dolphin, sailfish, wahoo, grouper, and cobia.

52 http://www.sebastian.fl.us/chamber53 http://www.tcrweb.com/einrcir1.html54 http://sebastian.fl.us/chamber/recreation.htm


http://sebastian.fl.us/chamber/recreation.htm

http://www.tcrweb.com/einrcir1.html

http://www.sebastian.fl.us/chamber

Sebastian has seen moderate population growth since 1990 to 2000 after a large increase from 1980 to 1990. The percent of the population in the labor force has remained relatively stable while unemployment has dropped from 5.7 percent in 1990 to 3.2 in 2000. Average wage and salary have grown steadily over the past few decades, but the number of persons who live under the poverty level has increased dramatically. The number of persons working in the farm, fish and forestry sectors for occupation and industry has fluctuated since 1980, but has dropped in the most recent census. There are 71 commercial vessels with federal permits according to Table 5.7.3.1 and most of those have coastal pelagic permits. Only 12 of those vessels have charter permits. There is not much employment reported in the fishing related sectors of Table 5.7.3.2 with only15 in the marinas sector, 9 in fish and seafood and 3 in fishing.

PopulationTable 5.7.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Sebastian, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 2831 10158 16450Persons Age 0-5 . 144 762 909Persons Age 6-15 . 346 1201 1990Persons Age 16-17 . 66 138 427Persons Age 18-24 . 208 499 855Persons Age 25-34 . 324 1475 1279Persons Age 35-44 . 226 1267 2507Persons Age 45-54 . 230 928 2145Persons Age 55-64 . 587 1323 1848Persons Age 65+ . 682 2565 4490

Housing TenureTable 5.7.2.2. Housing Tenure for Sebastian, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


80.8 87.2

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.7.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Sebastian, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

1923 2735Same House 1990 2000

3066 7761

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.7.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Sebastian, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000


Percent in labor force 51.3 52.0Percent unemployed 5.7 3.2

RaceTable 5.7.2.5. Race for Sebastian, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 51 503Latino Black Persons . 0 0 12Latino Persons . 48 90 625White Persons . 2808 9856 14748Latino White Persons . 27 51 407

EducationTable 5.7.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Sebastian, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 347 532 40125+ w/ 9-11 years education . 413 1473 198625+ w/ HS diploma . 835 2894 485925+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 320 1389 380425+ w/ College Degree . 134 749 2478Drop outs . 37 85 52

Income and PovertyTable5.7.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Sebastian, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $13218 $28122 $39327Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 290 684 1025Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 48 203 223Households with Public Assistance . 65 150 126

IndustryTable 5.7.2.8. Employment by Industry for Sebastian, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 89 149 82Construction . 130 567 602Business Services . 34 184 245Communication/Utilities . 42 71 222


Manufacturing . 130 326 408Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 111 264 558Services . 77 306 3615Wholesale/Retail Trade . 152 1221 1833Transportation . 237 1048 171

OccupationTable 5.7.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Sebastian, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 138 547 -Clerical . 1560 620 -Craft . 197 591 -Exec/Managerial . 76 429 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 70 139 50Household Services . 2 35 -Laborer/Handler . 31 193 -Operative/Transport . 94 203 -Service, except Household . 114 541 -Technical . 12 172 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.7.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Sebastian, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.7.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Sebastian, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)

Category NAIC Code Number EmployedFishing 114100 3Seafood Canning 311711 0Seafood Processing 311712 0Boat Building 336612 0Fish and Seafoods 422460 9Fish and Seafood Markets 445220 0


Marinas 713930 15Total Fishing Employment 27

Community Profiles – Ft. Pierce, FLThe Spanish built Fort Santa Lucia on the Jupiter Inlet in 1565 from which the county now draws its name—St. Lucie County.55 Permanent US inhabitance of Ft. Pierce dates back to the Seminole Indian War. US Army Lt. Col. Benjamin Kendrick Pierce, for whom the town is named, built a fort in 1837 to use as the army’s headquarters. The war ended in the early 1840s, making way for settlement and development: “Water transportation, fishing and canning fish were key to the area’s early economy.”56 The arrival of Henry Flagler’s railroad in the early 1900s opened Ft. Pierce’s economy to the rest of the east coast. Ft. Pierce beach was used as a naval base during World War II.57

The culture of fishing has been in the area since its inception. Anecdotes passed down from one generation to the next of Ft. Pierce residents describe the abundance of fish in the area in the late 1800s and early 1900s. One such story, told by Newman (1953) in her book, Early Life Along the Beautiful Indian River, tells of a man who bound his shirt at the sleeves and waist and cut a plunging neckline. He would then stand in the water until the shirt was full of fish and then empty it out into a bucket on the shore. In the late 1800s, a man from the nearby town of Titusville helped to create the commercial fishing sector in Ft. Pierce. He would bring the fish to Titusville for shipping to the rest of the east coast. The first icehouse for packaging fish was built in 1900 (Newman, 1953).

Recreational fishing has also become a popular pastime in Ft. Pierce and the rest of St. Lucie County. This is due in large part to the fleet of Spanish galleons that sunk off the St. Lucie and Martin Counties coastline. These artificial reefs have created excellent fishing and diving spots for locals and tourists. The reefs attract spiny lobsters, marlin, snook, flounder, and grouper.58 Some of the more popular fish in the St. Lucie River include channel bass, snook, ladyfish, jack crevalle, and trout. Black bass is another famous catch in the area.59 Most charter fishing boats in the area offer half, three-quarter, and full-day trips for dolphin, sailfish, wahoo, amberjack, tuna, kingfish, snapper, and grouper.

Fort Pierce has seen moderate population growth over the past three decades while the percent of the population in the labor force has remained around 55 percent while unemployment has dropped from 12.4 percent in 1990 to 8.8 percent in 2000. Average wage and salary has grown slowly over the past ten years while the number of persons living under the poverty level has risen significantly. The number of people working in farm, fish and forestry has remained relatively high for both occupation and industry over the years with both categories having over 1000 persons in each. There are over 100 vessels with federal permits homeported in Ft. Pierce and most of those have coastal pelagic permits (Table 5.8.3.1). There are over 260 persons employed in the boat building sector of fishing related employment according to Table 5.8.3.2.

55 www.rootsweb.com/~flstluci/slchistory.htm56 http://plato.stlucie.k12.fl.us/html/ft._pierce.html57 www.cityoffortpierce.com/fp000.html58 www.flausa.com/destinations/location.php/location=ci-fpi59 http://www.visitstluciefla.com/marinas.html


http://www.visitstluciefla.com/marinas.html

http://www.flausa.com/destinations/location.php/location=ci-fpi

http://www.cityoffortpierce.com/fp000.html

http://plato.stlucie.k12.fl.us/html/ft._pierce.html

http://www.rootsweb.com/~flstluci/slchistory.htm

PopulationTable 5.8.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Fort Pierce, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 29728 33802 36830 37489Persons Age 0-5 2825 2672 3770 3319Persons Age 6-15 6204 5161 5001 5685Persons Age 16-17 1153 1227 950 961Persons Age 18-24 3013 4263 3203 3912Persons Age 25-34 3232 4507 5372 4627Persons Age 35-44 3038 3110 4245 5004Persons Age 45-54 3261 3149 3322 4135Persons Age 55-64 2810 3691 3586 3172Persons Age 65+ 3633 5471 7381 6674

Housing TenureTable 5.8.2.2. Housing Tenure for Fort Pierce, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


53.3 53.0

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.8.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Fort Pierce, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

10927 10892Same House 1990 2000

15288 16134

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.8.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Fort Pierce, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 55.0 55.1Percent unemployed 12.4 8.8

RaceTable5.8.2.5. Race for Fort Pierce, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 14422 14600 15666 15109Latino Black Persons 17 63 197 217Latino Persons 37 736 2168 5629


White Persons 15289 18978 19807 15516Latino White Persons 20 622 851 3069

EducationTable 5.8.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Fort Pierce, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 5802 5688 4386 473725+ w/ 9-11 years education 3515 3786 5929 700425+ w/ HS diploma 3872 5936 6091 683925+ w/ 13-15 years. education 1585 2710 3590 554925+ w/ College Degree 1200 1808 2691 4229Drop outs 696 753 612 1025

Income and PovertyTable 5.8.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Fort Pierce, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6273 $13564 $23595 $25121Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 10006 9135 10591 11471Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 1337 1129 1145 1168Households with Public Assistance 857 1503 1660 863

IndustryTable 5.8.2.8. Employment by Industry for Fort Pierce, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 2460 1838 1324 1119Construction 885 1258 1100 1803Business Services 260 467 521 388Communication/Utilities 315 693 463 365Manufacturing 846 1149 962 1139Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 342 485 593 625Services 440 693 661 6453Wholesale/Retail Trade 3110 1916 4277 3822Transportation 2405 3005 3387 433

OccupationTable 5.8.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Fort Pierce, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000


Sales 749 1504 1658 -Clerical 1267 15320 1869 -Craft 1244 1786 1407 -Exec/Managerial 891 1104 1072 -Farm/Fish/Forest 2095 1568 1313 1289Household Services 368 176 108 -Laborer/Handler 884 870 805 -Operative/Transport 876 746 578 -Service, except Household 1708 1895 2552 -Technical 54 155 251 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.8.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Fort Pierce, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.8.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Fort Pierce, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Jupiter, FLThe name Jupiter derives from the original inhabitants of the area, the Jeaga Indians. The Native Americans called themselves Jobe, so the Spanish explorers called the inlet the Jobe River. The English settlers who arrived in the 1760s thought the name was Jove, a mythological god also known as Jupiter.60 Jupiter first became famous when Jonathan Dickinson’s boat the “Reformation” was shipwrecked along the coast in 1696. However, it was not until 1821 that real development of the area began. Eusebio Gomez was given 12,000 acres in a land grant in

60 http://www.jupiterfl.org/history.htm


http://www.jupiterfl.org/history.htm

1815. In 1821, he “started the real estate business on Jupiter Island by selling 8,000 of his acres for $8,000” (Reed, 1955:12).

Sport fishermen have been present in the Jupiter Island region since the 1800s. Stanley (1988) lists numerous species of fish that were and still are popular in Jupiter Island. Snook, tarpon, mangrove snapper, and jack crevalle were some of the most desired fish. Later, with the advancement of boat technology, species in the Gulf Stream, such as sailfish, dolphin, wahoo, and King mackerel became popular catches of the local fishermen.

Two events of the late 1920s decreased some of the fishing in the area. A hurricane struck Lake Okeechobee in 1928. The devastation it caused led to the Okeechobee Flood Control Project. The project created high levels of silt and mud around Jupiter Island, causing a severe decline in the snapper and grouper populations, “two of the most sought after food fish” (Stanley, 1988:20). However, this did not diminish the appeal of sport fishing. J.D. Bassett moved from Virginia to Palm Beach in 1925. He was one of the most avid fishermen in Jupiter. “He made the trip to and from Palm Beach so often that the captain of his boat said, ‘Mr. Bassett, you come up here almost every day. Why don’t you just move up here’” (Stanley, 1988:28). Bassett was not the only person drawn to Jupiter’s waters.

Many of the fishermen in Jupiter practice catch and release. “In February 1986, three Palm Beach-based sportfishing boats caught and released 72 sailfish in a span of five hours five miles east of the Jupiter Island Beach Club” (Stanley, 1988:21). Many of those who enjoy fishing Jupiter Island today are said to be descended from those families that have been fishing the area for decades.

Jupiter has seen fairly steady population growth with its 2000 population reaching 39,314. The labor force has remained fairly constant with just over 60 percent of the population participating. Unemployment has also remained low at 3.3 percent for both 1990 and 2000. Average wage and salary have risen to a high of $54, 945 and the number of persons living under the poverty level has also climbed to a high of 1885 in 2000. The number of people working in farm, fish and forestry occupations and industry reached a peak in 1990 but has since declined dramatically in 2000. Jupiter has 77 vessels homeported with federal permits as shown in Table 5.9.3.1 and most of them have coastal pelagic permits with 20 holding snapper grouper class 1 permits. There is some fishing related employment according to Table 5.9.3.2 with 40 persons employed in the marinas sector and 16 in fish and seafood.

PopulationTable 5.9.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Jupiter, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 9868 24986 39314Persons Age 0-5 . 655 1847 2619Persons Age 6-15 . 1233 2568 4579Persons Age 16-17 . 284 478 908Persons Age 18-24 . 1160 1677 2018Persons Age 25-34 . 1849 4609 4540


Persons Age 35-44 . 1115 4396 6868Persons Age 45-54 . 902 2328 5939Persons Age 55-64 . 994 2763 4469Persons Age 65+ . 1533 4320 7374

Housing TenureTable 5.9.2.2. Housing Tenure for Jupiter, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


71.8 80.8

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.9.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Jupiter, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

7270 8997Same House 1990 2000

7191 18257

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.9.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Jupiter, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 66.0 61.7Percent unemployed 3.3 3.3

RaceTable 5.9.2.5. Race for Jupiter, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 90 242 461Latino Black Persons . 2 24 19Latino Persons . 128 668 2881White Persons . 9698 24550 35152Latino White Persons . 114 617 2155

EducationTable 5.9.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Jupiter, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 517 494 115325+ w/ 9-11 years education . 1014 1826 200325+ w/ HS diploma . 2712 5498 7725


25+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 1164 4083 740725+ w/ College Degree . 986 5020 13165Drop outs . 88 72 133

Income and PovertyTable 5.9.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Jupiter, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $19706 $45280 $54945Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 506 1450 1885Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 69 259 340Households with Public Assistance . 111 194 109

IndustryTable 5.9.2.8. Employment by Industry for Jupiter, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 96 286 45Construction . 727 1095 1386Business Services . 186 705 1686Communication/Utilities . 196 494 896Manufacturing . 866 1733 1389Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 782 1471 1738Services . 542 1487 9725Wholesale/Retail Trade . 760 4321 4334Transportation . 882 2962 594

OccupationTable 5.9.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Jupiter, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 536 2299 -Clerical . 8230 1758 -Craft . 919 1303 -Exec/Managerial . 461 1898 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 118 226 58Household Services . 6 46 -Laborer/Handler . 201 207 -Operative/Transport . 184 289 -Service, except Household . 579 1764 -Technical . 96 535 -


Fishing DemographicsTable 5.9.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Jupiter, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.9.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Jupiter, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)



Community Profiles – Palm Beach, FLPalm Beach was originally known as Lake Worth. The name was changed to Palm Beach in the 1900s, when a man from Philadelphia noticed the coconut palm trees growing near the lake. In 1878, a ship named the “Providencia” was sailing from South America back to Barcelona with a shipment of coconuts. The ship wrecked on the beach and hundreds “of the coconuts washed ashore, embedded themselves in the sandy beaches, and sprouted into young trees” (Spencer, 1975:19).

Life for the early settlers was difficult. The only lumber available to build their homes was from wood washed ashore from shipwrecks. Residents of Palm Beach had to sail north to Titusville for supplies, such as flour, meal, and other staples (Spencer, 1975). Most of the original settlers, prior to 1900, were from Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. A.O. Lang, a German horticulturist and one of the first residents of Palm Beach, planted numerous citrus fruit trees, such as limes, lemons, oranges, and pineapples (First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake Worth, 1967).

Citrus groves were not the only source of food and income for the residents of Palm Beach. Fish were plentiful for the early settlers. The importance of fish dates back to the Native Americans who once inhabited the land. They partook in shark-fishing, using the teeth for cutting, the vertebrae as ornaments, and the rest for meat. Shellfish were an important part of the Indians diet as well (McGoun, 1998).

The western part of Palm Beach County was known for its catfish industry. The arrival of Henry Flagler’s Florida East Coast Railroad assisted in increasing the profitability of the catfish industry in Palm Beach, making it easier to ship the fish northward (McGoun, 1998). However, during WWII, fishermen were not only retrieving fish from the waters. West Palm Beach was an embarkation point for the Air Force bomber crews. German submarines would sit offshore and sink US military vessels. “In the early days of the war, local fishermen would go out and pick up survivors from these ill-fated ships” (First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake Worth, 1967).

The Frontier days of 1873 to 1893, pioneers called the area from Jupiter to Hypoluxo the “Lake Worth Region” and traveled by boat from one homestead to another. H.F. Hammon was the first to claim a homestead in the area that is now Palm Beach. E.N. “Cap” Dimick was the most influential settler by being the first hotelier in Palm Beach and the first Mayor! Most of his family had settled in the area by 1876 and his descendants still remain.

Palm Beach has seen relatively slight population growth over the past two decades. It has a low percentage of its population in the labor force with only 31 percent and Unemployment is low at 3.3 percent. Average wage and salary is extremely high at $94,562 and the number of people living below the poverty line has remained fairly constant at 551. The number of persons working in farm, fish, and forestry occupation and industry has dropped considerably since 1990 as is the case for most coastal communities. Table 5.10.3.1 indicates there are 23 vessels with federal permits and about half of them are holding coastal pelagic permits. There is relatively


little fishing related employment according to Table 5.10.3.2 with only 3 in the fishing sector and 3 in marinas.


PopulationTable 5.10.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Palm Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 9729 9814 10374Persons Age 0-5 . 115 222 302Persons Age 6-15 . 505 357 644Persons Age 16-17 . 168 115 78Persons Age 18-24 . 347 253 121Persons Age 25-34 . 575 527 456Persons Age 35-44 . 623 917 744Persons Age 45-54 . 1148 812 1131Persons Age 55-64 . 1682 1443 1414Persons Age 65+ . 4530 5168 5484

Housing TenureTable 5.10.2.2. Housing Tenure for Palm Beach, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


77.5 83.9

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.10.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Palm Beach, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

1763 1826Same House 1990 2000

5853 6236

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.10.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Palm Beach, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 35.2 31.6Percent unemployed 3.5 3.3

RaceTable 5.10.2.5. Race for Palm Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 64 52 262Latino Black Persons . 7 6 7


Latino Persons . 272 266 268White Persons . 9640 9456 9817Latino White Persons . 254 249 232

EducationTable 5.10.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Palm Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 381 148 6225+ w/ 9-11 years education . 503 360 31925+ w/ HS diploma . 2235 1736 127625+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 2209 2293 209325+ w/ College Degree . 3230 3827 5461Drop outs . 13 0 18

Income and PovertyTable 5.10.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Palm Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $29092 $78972 $94562Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 484 577 551Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 155 215 161Households with Public Assistance . 133 125 10

IndustryTable 5.10.2.8. Employment by Industry for Palm Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 47 16 18Construction . 100 121 86Business Services . 185 142 469Communication/Utilities . 21 11 80Manufacturing . 188 222 133Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 100 97 807Services . 657 824 956Wholesale/Retail Trade . 984 1261 558Transportation . 627 596 26

OccupationTable 5.10.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Palm Beach, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 659 785 -Clerical . 3060 200 -Craft . 96 117 -Exec/Managerial . 823 815 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 10 11 0Household Services . 235 157 -Laborer/Handler . 43 16 -Operative/Transport . 46 15 -Service, except Household . 537 361 -Technical . 40 46 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.10.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Palm Beach, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.10.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Palm Beach, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Boca Raton, FLThe area of current day Boca Raton was inhabited by Native Americans for nearly 1,000 years before the arrival of the Spanish. The original name given to the area by the Spanish explorers was “Boca de Ratones.” In nautical terms, “boca” denotes an inlet. Some of the translations include, “haulage inlet,” “inlet of mice,” “inlet of sharp-pointed rocks,” and “inlet of cowardly thieves.” “Rata,” not “raton” is the Spanish word for rat (Ashton, 1984).


Captain Thomas Moore Rickards, Sr. of Missouri was one of the first people who wanted to settle the area of Boca Raton. He arrived in Florida in 1876 and became a citrus farmer in Candler. The freeze of 1894-5 forced him farther south to Lake Boca Raton. A year later, the tracks for Henry Flagler’s East Coast Railroad were laid in Boca Raton, allowing for easier, faster shipping and more convenient modes of transportation. By the beginning of the 1900s, Boca Raton “came into existence as a little agricultural center of orchards and farms” (Ashton, 1984:3).

In 1904, a Japanese immigrant, Joseph Sakai, established a Japanese farming community of pineapple farmers in Boca Raton. He named the area Yamato.61

The land boom of the 1920s and the arrival of famous architect Addison Mizner helped Boca Raton gain the image it still retains today as that of a luxurious resort town. He had already helped build up Palm Beach and was now aiding in the development of the areas to its south (Ashton, 1984).

Boca Raton has experienced fairly steady population growth reaching 75,594 in 2000. Unemployment has risen slightly in 2000 from 1990 but the percentage of the population in the labor force has remained around 59 percent. The average wage and salary is high being above $60,000 yet the number of persons living below the poverty level has grown steadily since 1970. The number of persons employed in farm, fish and forestry occupations and industry dropped dramatically in 2000 from a high in 1990. There are 8 vessels with federal permits listed in Table 5.11.3.1 but there are no federal dealers in Boca Raton. As far as fishing related employment there are 21 people listed in the fish and seafood sector according to Table 5.11.3.2.

PopulationTable 5.11.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Boca Raton, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 28542 49505 61491 75594Persons Age 0-5 1443 1650 3573 4282Persons Age 6-15 4321 5681 5589 8325Persons Age 16-17 701 1668 1334 1566Persons Age 18-24 2901 5249 5241 6284Persons Age 25-34 2709 5943 9418 7859Persons Age 35-44 2794 5654 9377 9536Persons Age 45-54 2835 5173 7155 11508Persons Age 55-64 3900 6313 6592 8564Persons Age 65+ 6622 11789 13212 15016

Housing TenureTable 5.11.2.2. Housing Tenure for Boca Raton, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000

25.6 24.3

61 http://www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us/econ/history.cfm


http://www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us/econ/history.cfm

Percent Owner Occupied 1990 200074.4 75.7

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.11.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Boca Raton, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

11678 15372Same House 1990 2000

26473 35856

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.11.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Boca Raton, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 60.1 59.1Percent unemployed 3.3 5.8

RaceTable 5.11.2.5. Race for Boca Raton, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 730 992 1734 2725Latino Black Persons 0 22 31 85Latino Persons 690 2167 3378 6359White Persons 27781 47930 58008 62925Latino White Persons 690 2047 2880 4926

EducationTable 5.11.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Boca Raton, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 2464 2493 1672 143625+ w/ 9-11 years education 2591 2982 3615 398825+ w/ HS diploma 6051 11947 10984 1203725+ w/ 13-15 years. education 3720 7748 10352 1250925+ w/ College Degree 4034 9702 15952 29350Drop outs 144 320 94 351

Income and Poverty

Table 5.11.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Boca Raton, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $11409 $24986 $54959 $60248Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 1763 2458 3282 4886Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 399 530 541 716Households with Public Assistance 120 517 592 389

IndustryTable 5.11.2.8. Employment by Industry for Boca Raton, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 148 437 731 60Construction 764 1775 1889 1875Business Services 313 1334 1384 3854Communication/Utilities 223 583 768 1845Manufacturing 1726 2803 2429 2205Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 1565 2168 1605 4648Services 812 2552 4014 16276Wholesale/Retail Trade 3537 4486 10629 8583Transportation 1784 4864 8070 821

OccupationTable 5.11.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Boca Raton, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 965 3613 6048 -Clerical 1754 31030 4074 -Craft 1012 2226 2183 -Exec/Managerial 1339 3370 5692 -Farm/Fish/Forest 51 395 477 43Household Services 193 158 251 -Laborer/Handler 280 402 516 -Operative/Transport 310 541 376 -Service, except Household 1242 2906 3518 -Technical 150 834 1203 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.11.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Boca Raton, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permitted vessels 7 2 4 8Commercial King Mackerel 3 2 3 5Commercial Spanish Mackerel 3 2 1 2Commercial Spiny Lobster 1 1 1 1Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 2 0 1 4Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 2 1 1 2Snapper Grouper Class 1 0 0 0 1


Snapper Grouper Class 2 0 2 2 3Swordfish 2 0 0 0Shark 2 0 0 0Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 0 0 0 0

Table 5.11.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Boca Raton, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Key Largo, FLThe Florida Keys were first discovered by Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513. He named them Los Martires, the martyrs, “because they seemed twisted and tortured” (Williams, 1991:3). The first permanent European settlement did not occur until the mid-1800s; however, the Keys were inhabited by the Calusa Indians for thousands of years. Williams notes (1991:3), the first people to establish permanent homes in the Upper Keys—Key Largo and Islamorada—were Methodist fishermen and farmers. Ben Baker established pineapple farming in Key Largo, the longest Key and oldest named site in Florida, in 1866. He shipped his fruit on small boats to Key West, where the produce was loaded onto larger vessels for shipment to the northern states.62

PopulationTable 5.12.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Key Largo, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 2866 7447 11350 11980Persons Age 0-5 217 333 624 584Persons Age 6-15 467 844 1018 1503Persons Age 16-17 57 144 213 282Persons Age 18-24 195 537 660 656Persons Age 25-34 271 1045 1789 1384Persons Age 35-44 307 738 1833 2199Persons Age 45-54 411 1127 1491 2160Persons Age 55-64 455 1279 1697 1451Persons Age 65+ 468 1360 2025 1761

62 http://floridakeys.com/keylargo/history.htm


http://floridakeys.com/keylargo/history.htm

Housing TenureTable 5.12.2.2. Housing Tenure for Key Largo, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


73.6 71.2

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.12.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Key Largo, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

1937 2518Same House 1990 2000

5124 5490

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.12.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Key Largo, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 62.7 63.1Percent unemployed 3.9 3.5

RaceTable 5.12.2.5. Race for Key Largo, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 270 276 336 227Latino Black Persons 0 0 26 16Latino Persons 89 265 1062 1979White Persons 2596 7054 10758 9,446Latino White Persons 89 257 896 1772

EducationTable 5.12.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Key Largo, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 535 479 598 36025+ w/ 9-11 years education 447 1072 1333 123025+ w/ HS diploma 735 2048 2772 305925+ w/ 13-15 years. education 95 1227 1758 252825+ w/ College Degree 100 723 1776 2992Drop outs 32 32 93 34


Income and PovertyTable 5.12.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Key Largo, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6860 $14893 $38138 $42577Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 477 643 1233 996Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 125 151 149 138Households with Public Assistance 40 97 192 86

IndustryTable5.12.2.8. Employment by Industry for Key Largo, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 60 199 175 136Construction 124 450 524 680Business Services 49 110 365 302Communication/Utilities 42 191 268 243Manufacturing 14 221 419 160Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 0 135 317 449Services 25 218 454 2108Wholesale/Retail Trade 335 530 1912 2021Transportation 284 612 1403 281

OccupationTable 5.12.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Key Largo, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 79 240 740 -Clerical 145 4710 785 -Craft 142 544 946 -Exec/Managerial 141 315 685 -Farm/Fish/Forest 0 195 174 129Household Services 30 41 44 -Laborer/Handler 90 147 223 -Operative/Transport 67 131 126 -Service, except Household 226 559 1053 -Technical 0 68 242 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.12.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Key Largo, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)




Table 5.12.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Key Largo, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Islamorada, FLIncorporated in 1997 and officially named Islamorada, Village of Islands, the community includes the islands of Upper and Lower Matecumba Keys, Plantation Key and Windley Key. The first settlers were Conchs who were of British descent by way of the Bahamas. They fished and raised fruits and vegetables to survive. In the early 1930’s wealthy Americans began to vacation in this area, particularly for the sport fishing. It has remained an important sport fishing center and self proclaimed “Sportfishing Capital of the World.” It has been estimated that there are over 100 charter fishing vessels in Islamorada. In addition to offshore charters there are probably just as many guide boats that fish the nearshore and inshore waters. The community supports a large tourist economy that is centered on the charter fishing industry and has at least 24 marinas and approximately 45 hotels/motels to cater to fishermen. There are at least 6 air fill stations where divers can fill their tanks and several marinas offer dive trips. There are a few commercial operations in the community but not many with most supporting a retail wholesale operation with a restaurant.

The community has seen substantial population growth because of its recent incorporation. Employment and unemployment have not changed dramatically. Average wage and salary have increased and so has the number of persons living below the poverty level. Both may be artifacts of the incorporation. This community is one of the few that has seen an increase in the number of persons working in farm, fish and forestry according to Table 5.13.2.8 and fishing related employment is spread out among marinas, fish and seafood and boat building (Table 5.13.3.2).


PopulationTable 5.13.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Islamorada, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 1482 1293 6847Persons Age 0-5 . 49 46 344Persons Age 6-15 . 149 95 590Persons Age 16-17 . 23 7 149Persons Age 18-24 . 144 58 313Persons Age 25-34 . 259 148 459Persons Age 35-44 . 148 346 1442Persons Age 45-54 . 254 107 1377Persons Age 55-64 . 214 238 992Persons Age 65+ . 235 248 1181

Housing TenureTable 5.13.2.2. Housing Tenure for Islamorada, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


65.9 71.1

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.13.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Islamorada, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

331 1171Same House 1990 2000

564 3614

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.13.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Islamorada, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 74.0 62.9Percent unemployed 1.2 3.7

RaceTable 5.13.2.5. Race for Islamorada, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 0 11 12Latino Black Persons . 0 0 5Latino Persons . 177 109 66



EducationTable 5.13.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Islamorada, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 226 104 15825+ w/ 9-11 years education . 153 137 35425+ w/ HS diploma . 412 222 172625+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 175 322 153825+ w/ College Degree . 144 249 2054Drop outs . 6 6 29

Income and PovertyTable 5.13.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Islamorada, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $17848 $35041 $41522Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 200 117 466Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 26 20 50Households with Public Assistance . 29 13 65

IndustryTable 5.13.2.8. Employment by Industry for Islamorada, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 134 57 129Construction . 69 32 232Business Services . 19 18 196Communication/Utilities . 57 26 88Manufacturing . 36 38 66Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 36 23 193Services . 51 48 1345Wholesale/Retail Trade . 247 216 1283Transportation . 192 353 222


OccupationTable 5.13.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Islamorada, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 81 153 -Clerical . 770 79 -Craft . 66 66 -Exec/Managerial . 192 153 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 162 65 138Household Services . 8 7 -Laborer/Handler . 29 19 -Operative/Transport . 8 7 -Service, except Household . 129 194 -Technical . 8 24 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.13.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Islamorada, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)

Type of Permit 1998 1999 2000 2001Total permits 88 28 36 83Commercial King Mackerel 24 19 20 18Commercial Spanish Mackerel 26 13 14 12Commercial Spiny Lobster 10 5 6 6Charter/Headboat for Coastal Pelagics 52 5 5 54Charter/Headboat for Snapper Grouper 36 5 7 40Snapper Grouper Class 1 7 19 21 21Snapper Grouper Class 2 1 5 7 5Swordfish 12 0 0 0Shark 15 1 1 1Rock Shrimp 0 0 0 0Federal Dealers 2 2 3 1

Table 5.13.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Islamorada, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Marathon, FLMarathon, or Key Vaca as it was called by the Spanish, was originally settled in the early 1800s by a group of Bahamians and numerous families from Mystic, Connecticut involved in fishing.


Salvaging cargo from the Spanish Galleons in the area was also steeped in this key’s history as well.63 Marathon has seen steady growth in its population since 1970. The percentage of the population employed in the labor force along with unemployment has remained constant over the past ten years. Average wage and salary have also slowly increased over the years, but the number of individuals living under the poverty level has also climbed to over 1400 persons. The number of persons working in occupations or industry sector of farm, fish and forestry has dropped since 1990 but still remains high at over 200 persons. There are over 180 vessels with federal permits and the majority of those have coastal pelagic permits (Table 5.14.3.1). Over 50 of those vessels have charter permits for either coastal pelagics or snapper grouper. Other permits that are held by over 40 vessels include spiny lobster, snapper grouper class 1 and 2. There are also 7 federal dealers in Marathon. According to Table 5.14.3.2 there are 92 persons employed in the fish and seafood sector of fishing related employment. There are 39 in the fishing sector and 47 in marinas.

PopulationTable 5.14.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Marathon, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 4461 7568 8857 10194Persons Age 0-5 284 267 585 482Persons Age 6-15 740 945 864 1002Persons Age 16-17 100 190 196 194Persons Age 18-24 358 801 509 643Persons Age 25-34 520 1262 1275 1198Persons Age 35-44 482 833 1397 1778Persons Age 45-54 620 870 1237 1961Persons Age 55-64 686 1196 1223 1349Persons Age 65+ 589 1149 1571 1587

Housing TenureTable 5.14.2.2. Housing Tenure for Marathon, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


65.5 63.3

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.14.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Marathon, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

2103 1898Same House 1990 2000

3184 5029

63 http://floridakeys.com/marathon/history.htm


http://floridakeys.com/marathon/history.htm

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.14.2.4. Employment and Unemployment for Marathon, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 59.0 63.7Percent unemployed 3.9 3.5

RaceTable 5.14.2.5. Race for Marathon, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 351 274 586 449Latino Black Persons 0 0 85 28Latino Persons 49 302 1075 2095White Persons 4110 7076 8001 7,513Latino White Persons 49 244 802 1828

EducationTable 5.14.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Marathon, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 586 668 635 44525+ w/ 9-11 years education 629 859 1241 131625+ w/ HS diploma 931 2095 1908 269625+ w/ 13-15 years. education 505 918 1423 224025+ w/ College Degree 246 770 1080 2222Drop outs 78 62 33 19

Income and PovertyTable 5.14.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Marathon, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6745 $15495 $28609 $36010Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 677 959 1313 1422Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 102 126 114 205Households with Public Assistance 52 155 178 99

IndustryTable 5.14.2.8. Employment by Industry for Marathon, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).


Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 217 319 379 217Construction 242 477 300 619Business Services 85 96 157 227Communication/Utilities 24 152 141 165Manufacturing 69 174 184 110Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 41 90 121 267Services 49 146 274 1800Wholesale/Retail Trade 601 705 1332 2003Transportation 453 920 1278 233

OccupationTable 5.14.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Marathon, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 144 353 617 -Clerical 195 4580 364 -Craft 324 476 537 -Exec/Managerial 244 441 553 -Farm/Fish/Forest 59 328 365 217Household Services 32 16 18 -Laborer/Handler 166 171 156 -Operative/Transport 104 158 137 -Service, except Household 339 525 958 -Technical 46 55 81 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.14.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Marathon, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.14.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Marathon, Florida. (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)

Category NAIC Code Number EmployedFishing 114100 39Seafood Canning 311711 0Seafood Processing 311712 0Boat Building 336612 0


Fish and Seafoods 422460 92Fish and Seafood Markets 445220 6Marinas 713930 47Total Fishing Employment 184

Community Profiles – Big Pine Key, FLBig Pine Key, located in the Lower Keys, does not have a true history of its own. Settlement was sparse well into the twentieth century. The 1870 census for Big Pine Key lists only one inhabitant, George Wilson.64 Wilson was a charcoal burner, providing his product for residents of Key West before the days of electricity.65 A shark processing plant was established on Big Pine in 1923 by Hydenoil Products. The sharks were harvested for their leather and liver oil. The company averaged 100 sharks a day in 1930. The fishermen caught mostly hammerhead, sand, nurse, dusky, leopard, sawfish sharks. Even with this seeming success, the plant was shutdown in 1931 because of possible financial difficulty.66

Big Pine Key and Cudjoe Key are included in tables for fishing demographics but the census demographics include only Big Pine Key. The population for this area has seen steady growth, while the percent of the population in the labor force and unemployment have remained fairly constant over the years with unemployment fairly low at 2.1 percent. Average wage and salary have increased steadily along with the number of persons living under the poverty level. The number of person working in the farm, fish and forestry occupation has dropped since 1990 but still remains high compared to other coastal communities. There are over 100 vessels with federal permits and they are spread out among the different types with most holding coastal pelagic permits but many with snapper grouper also (Table 5.15.3.1). According to Table 5.15.3.2 there are 50 people employed in the fishing sector and another 27 in the marinas sector.

PopulationTable 5.15.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Big Pine Key, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons . 2321 4124 5049Persons Age 0-5 . 64 260 206Persons Age 6-15 . 260 270 524Persons Age 16-17 . 36 60 96Persons Age 18-24 . 218 206 157Persons Age 25-34 . 359 678 622Persons Age 35-44 . 252 714 759Persons Age 45-54 . 288 603 1033Persons Age 55-64 . 417 603 707Persons Age 65+ . 427 730 752

64 http://floridakeys.com/lowerkeys/history.htm65 http://floridakeys.com/lowerkeys/history.htm66 http://floridakeys.com/lowerkeys/history.htm


http://floridakeys.com/lowerkeys/history.htm



Housing TenureTable 5.15.2.2. Housing Tenure for Big Pine Key, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


77.9 77.0

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.15.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Big Pine Key, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

1015 777Same House 1990 2000

1530 2743

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.15.2.4 Employment and Unemployment for Big Pine Key, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 54.5 62.3Percent unemployed 2.4 2.1

RaceTable 5.15.2.5. Race for Big Pine Key, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons . 49 49 51Latino Black Persons . 0 0 4Latino Persons . 49 144 338White Persons . 2256 4033 4,496Latino White Persons . 49 136 276

EducationTable 5.15.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Big Pine Key, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education . 236 125 10225+ w/ 9-11 years education . 299 477 47925+ w/ HS diploma . 628 1011 147525+ w/ 13-15 years. education . 334 842 100625+ w/ College Degree . 246 659 1453Drop outs . 30 0 8


Income and PovertyTable 5.15.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Big Pine Key, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) . $16176 $29418 $44514Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level . 204 330 472Age 65+ Below Poverty Level . 52 61 53Households with Public Assistance . 19 33 67

IndustryTable 5.15.2.8. Employment by Industry for Big Pine Key, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining . 74 195 105Construction . 152 174 253Business Services . 36 73 151Communication/Utilities . 23 65 111Manufacturing . 32 61 22Financial, Insurance & Real Estate . 16 43 284Services . 39 125 806Wholesale/Retail Trade . 168 627 650Transportation . 194 385 111

OccupationTable 5.15.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Big Pine Key, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales . 132 248 -Clerical . 860 284 -Craft . 177 217 -Exec/Managerial . 55 191 -Farm/Fish/Forest . 93 177 81Household Services . 3 0 -Laborer/Handler . 36 61 -Operative/Transport . 0 24 -Service, except Household . 144 313 -Technical . 0 32 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.15.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Big Pine Key, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)




Table 5.15.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Big Pine Key, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)


Community Profiles – Key West, FLSpanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon and chronicler Antonio de Herrera were the first Europeans to set eyes upon Key West on May 15, 1513. It has the distinction of being the oldest city in south Florida (Williams, 1991:125). They called the island Cayo Hueso (Isle of Bones) because of the numerous bones they found on what was either a Calusa Indian burial ground or battlefield. It is believed that the English thought the Spanish meant oeste (west) and changed the name to Key West. However, the first permanent occupancy of Key West did not occur until 1822.67 In 1822, Spaniard Juan Salas sold the city of Key West to a Mobile, Alabama businessman named John Simonton for $2,000.68 Naval Commodore David Porter was sent to establish a naval post to help rid the area of pirates in that same year. They also established a port in order to open the shipping lanes from the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Atlantic. A Customs House was established later that year.69 By 1830, the pirates were gone; however, hurricanes and the fear of running aground on the coral reefs still plagued boat captains. These boating difficulties gave way to one of the first profitable ventures in Key West—salvaging of shipwrecks (Williams, 1991:126-7).

When salvaging was no longer profitable, sponging and Cuban cigar manufacturing became the mainstays of Key West’s economy (Williams, 1991:128). The people of Key West, or conchs as they are commonly known, began the sponge trade in Florida, and by the 1890s, they made Key West “the commercial sponging capital of the world.”70 Nevertheless, fishing was a primary

67 http://www.keywestcity.com/ourcity/cityinfo.asp68 http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/keywest.htm69 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/ports/port.cfm?name=Key_West70 http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/keywest.htm


http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/keywest.htm

http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/ports/port.cfm?name=Key_West


http://www.keywestcity.com/ourcity/cityinfo.asp

source of income and survival since the very beginning. Before permanent settlement of Key West, fishermen from New England and the Bahamas would come to take advantage of the species the waters of Key West had to offer. Similarly, in the early 1900s, fishermen from St. Augustine would fish in Key West and sell their catch in Havana. Since the beginning, grouper and spiny lobster have been the most profitable species of the Key West fishing industry.

Shrimp has been another important species for the Key West fishing community. John Salvador, a son of one of the original fishing families in St. Augustine, discovered rich shrimping grounds in the Dry Tortugas in 1950. The rush to harvest the shrimp has been related to the gold rush of 1849, naming the shrimp “pink gold.” “Currently, Key West pink shrimp make up almost 50% of the total Monroe County shrimp landings.”71 The marine resources have been the key to survival and income for conchs for nearly 200 years. Today, the port in Key West is famous for its scuba diving, sport fishing, and yachting opportunities.

The population of Key West has not grown much over the past three decades. The percent of the population in the labor force and unemployment have both remained fairly constant since 1990. Average wage and salary has grown over the years while the number of people living under the poverty level has decreased overall. Key West has the greatest number of persons working in the farm, fish and forestry categories of any coastal community with over 300 in both occupation and industry. Table 5.16.3.1 shows over 360 vessels with federal permits that homeport in the community. The majority of those vessels have coastal pelagic permits but other permits are also held by many of these vessels. There are 15 dealers with federal permits in the community also. Given so many fishing vessels the number of persons employed in fishing related employment seems low with only 18 in the fishing sector and 49 in marinas.

The city of Key West boasts more than two dozen fishing charters in its area. Most of the boats can support between two and six anglers. Half and full-day trips seem to be the most popular, with many offering swordfish fishing excursions at night as well. Some of the most popular species for offshore sport fishing adventures in the waters off Key West include sailfish, tuna, wahoo, and dolphin. Many of the fishermen offer reef and wreck fishing trips, allowing anglers to catch various species of snapper and grouper. Some of the more popular targeted species include red snapper, yellowtail snapper, mutton snapper, black grouper, and mangrove snapper. There are about half a dozen headboats that fish the waters of Key West as well. These boats can accommodate far more fisherman. Trips usually last for about four hours. Some of these boats specifically target snappers and groupers.

Tournaments are also an important part of the recreational fishing sector in Key West. One of the largest tournaments in the area, The Key West Fishing Tournament, lasts from April through November; this is the tournament’s thirty-eighth year. Forty-four species of fish are fished, six of which are groupers and six species of snappers. Other longstanding tournaments in the area include the Mercury Redbone at Large Key West Classic and the Mercury S.L.A.M (Southernmost Light tackle Anglers Masters) held in April and September, respectively. These tournaments are an opportunity for the recreational fishing boat owners to make money as well as many of them rent their boats to tournament participants who do not have vessels of their own.

71 http://www.fl-seafood.com/water/places/keywest.htm



Marinas and bait and tackle shops are important to the recreational sector as well as the commercial industry. Key West has more than half a dozen marinas, many of which are full service marinas. For example, the Sunset and Oceanside Marinas offer boat repairs, fuel, storage, and repairs. Many of the recreational fishermen in the area are docked at either Garrison Bight Marina or at Amberjack Pier at the City Marina.

PopulationTable 5.16.2.1. Total Persons and Persons by Age category for Key West, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Total Persons and Age Category 1970 1980 1990 2000Total Persons 27323 24382 24832 25480Persons Age 0-5 2441 1425 2135 1373Persons Age 6-15 4902 3279 2333 2322Persons Age 16-17 825 599 383 339Persons Age 18-24 4717 3308 2565 2062Persons Age 25-34 3992 5007 5659 4558Persons Age 35-44 3045 2749 4515 4944Persons Age 45-54 2828 2321 2452 4357Persons Age 55-64 2054 2638 1904 2574Persons Age 65+ 1986 2795 2886 2951

Housing TenureTable 5.16.2.2. Housing Tenure for Key West, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Percent Renter Occupied 1990 2000


42.1 45.6

Residence in 1985 and 1995Table 5.16.2.3. Residence in 1985 and 1995 for Key West, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Different House Same County 1990 2000

4471 5572Same House 1990 2000

8742 9569

Employment/UnemploymentTable 5.16.2.4. Employment and Unemployment for Key West, Florida 1990-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).Persons 16 yrs and over 1990 2000Percent in labor force 73.7 70.1Percent unemployed 3.3 3.0


RaceTable 5.16.2.5. Race for Key West, Florida 1970-2000. (Source U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Race 1970 1980 1990 2000Black Persons 3224 2790 2584 2237Latino Black Persons 191 280 91 128Latino Persons 3293 4959 3951 4215White Persons 23795 20679 21361 18195Latino White Persons 3102 4360 3402 3447

EducationTable 5.16.2.6. Years of Education by Category for those 25 Years and Older for Key West, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Education 1970 1980 1990 200025+ w/ 0-8 years education 4005 2721 1646 119625+ w/ 9-11 years education 2792 2199 1863 219225+ w/ HS diploma 4628 5462 4831 559825+ w/ 13-15 years. education 1232 2634 4102 549125+ w/ College Degree 1248 2494 3630 7080Drop outs 697 233 132 286

Income and PovertyTable 5.16.2.7. Average Household Wage/Salary and Persons Below the Poverty Level for Key West, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Wage or Salary 1970 1980 1990 2000Average Household Wage/Salary Income (dollars) $6949 $15039 $32320 $43021Poverty LevelPersons Below Poverty Level 4747 3760 2507 2535Age 65+ Below Poverty Level 678 554 505 318Households with Public Assistance 355 470 555 169

IndustryTable 5.16.2.8. Employment by Industry for Key West, Florida 1970-2000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Industry 1970 1980 1990 2000Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 352 589 296 319Construction 442 860 865 1123Business Services 165 401 581 682Communication/Utilities 393 433 366 463Manufacturing 312 558 365 231Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 101 210 150 917Services 273 673 718 4738


Wholesale/Retail Trade 2183 1995 4176 5069Transportation 1971 2655 4011 487

OccupationTable 5.16.2.9. Employment by Occupation for Key West, Florida 1970-2000 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau & MARFIN Sociodemographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center & National Marine Fisheries Service).Occupation 1970 1980 1990 2000Sales 595 1246 1888 -Clerical 1555 16130 1908 -Craft 1029 1375 1229 -Exec/Managerial 717 1348 1541 -Farm/Fish/Forest 67 505 265 301Household Services 141 63 51 -Laborer/Handler 582 353 347 -Operative/Transport 361 268 177 -Service, except Household 1483 2226 3003 -Technical 59 209 314 -

Fishing DemographicsTable 5.16.3.1. Number of Federal Permit by Type for Key West, Florida (Source: NMFS 2002)


Table 5.16.3.2. Employment in Fishing Related Industry for Key West, Florida (Zip code Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau 1998)



Florida Fishing Infrastructure and Community CharacterizationThe following tables provide a general view of the presence or absence of fishing infrastructure located within the coastal communities of Florida with substantial fishing activity. It should be noted that there are many other attributes that might have been included in this table, however, because of inconsistency in rapid appraisal for all communities, these items were selected as the most consistently reported or had secondary data available to determine presence or absence. It should also be noted that in some cases certain infrastructure may exist within a community but was not readily apparent or could not be ascertained through secondary data. Table 5.17.1 offers an overview of the presence of the selected infrastructure items and provides an overall total score which is merely the total of infrastructure present.

Table 5.17.1. Fishing Infrastructure Table for Florida Potential Fishing Communities

Community

Fede

ral

Com

mer

cial

Pe

rmits

(5+)

Stat

e C

omm

erci

al

Lic

ense

s (10

+)Fe

dera

l C

hart

er

Perm

its (5

+)Se

afoo

d L

andi

ngs

Seaf

ood

reta

il m

arke

ts

Fish

pr

oces

sors

, W

hole

sale

fish

Rec

reat

iona

l do

cks /

mar

inas

Rec

reat

iona

l Fi

shin

g T

ourn

amen

ts

TotalAtlantic Beach - + - + + + + - 5Big Pine Key + + + + + + + - 7Boca Raton + + - - + - + - 4Cape Canaveral + + - + + + + + 7Fernandina Beach + + + + + + + + 8Fort Pierce + + + + + + + + 8Islamorada + + + + + + + + 8Jupiter + + + + + + + + 8Key Largo + + + + + + + + 8Key West + + + + + + + + 8Marathon + + + + + + + + 8Merritt Island + + - + + + + - 6Palm Beach + + - + + - + + 6Ponce Inlet + + + + + + + + 8Sebastian + + + + + + + + 8St. Augustine + + + + + + + + 8


Table 5.17.2 Preliminary Characterization of Potential Fishing Communities in Florida

Primarily-Involved Secondarily-InvolvedFernandina Beach Atlantic Beach

Fort Pierce Boca RatonIslamorada Palm Beach


JupiterKey LargoKey WestMarathon

Fernandina BeachFort PierceIslamorada

Many of these communities are in transition due to various social and demographic changes from coastal development, growing populations, increasing tourism, changing regulations, etc. This preliminary characterization is just that and should not be considered a definite designation as fishing community, but a general guide for locating communities that may warrant consideration as a potential fishing community.


Appendix B. Public Hearing Minutes for September 2006

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MACKEREL REGULATORY AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING

The WestinHilton Head, SC

September 19, 2006

Summary Minutes

The Mackerel Regulatory Amendment public meeting for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council convened in Hilton Head, South Carolina, on Monday, September 19, 2006, and was called to order by Chairman George Geiger.

Mr. Geiger: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is George Geiger and I’m a council member from Florida and tonight I’m acting as hearing chairperson on behalf of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. As Mac said, all of our other council members are here this evening. Susan Shipman was called back to Georgia, but along with all of our staff and we would like to thank you again for coming out and making your comments, your very important comments, this evening

The purpose of this hearing is to allow you to comment on proposed fishery management actions for the king and Spanish mackerel fishery in the South Atlantic region and we’re seeking your suggestions on the alternatives for lowering the Atlantic king mackerel TAC, which lowers the commercial quota and recreational allocations, and changing the Spanish mackerel trip limits to correspond to the new fishing year beginning March 1st.

You should keep in mind these measures are proposed for regulation of the fishery and we are here to receive your comments on these proposed regulations. We’re going to review those recommendations and comments during this meeting this week and determine if the regulations should be revised or modified based on comments that we receive here this evening.

This hearing will be conducted in the following manner. First, Kate Quigley, of our council staff, will present the proposed management actions and the alternatives that the council has considered. This information is contained in the public hearing document, of which paper copies are available at the table, and in the public hearing summary.

Then you’ll be invited to comment on the proposed management alternatives, just as we did on the marine protected areas. All comments are going to be recorded by staff and shall become part of the permanent record. We ask that you limit your comments to consideration of the TAC changes and limit changes proposed through this framework action. Kate, of our council staff, will now summarize the proposed management actions and briefly discuss the alternatives that were considered by the council.

SAFMC Draft Amendment 18 to the CoastalMigratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan B-1

Ms. Quigley: First, there are three actions being considered under the regulatory framework and one action pertains to Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. This is a TAC adjustment and there are two actions pertaining to Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. There’s a TAC adjustment and a trip limit adjustment.

The purpose of Action 1, which is the TAC adjustment proposed in response to new stock assessment data, is to prevent overfishing of the South Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery. The purpose of Action 2, which is the proposed adjustment of the TAC, in response to new stock assessment data for the Spanish mackerel, is to maintain sustainable management of that fishery.

The purpose of the third action, which is to adjust the trip limit to coincide with the new fishing year, is to extend current trip limits for Spanish mackerel. What we’re talking about here, and I’ll go into this a little bit later, of course, is to adjust the trip limit to 3,500 pounds per trip for March 1st through November 30th.

The previous fishing year was April 1st through March 31st and now it’s March 1st through the end of February and so what we’re talking about now is providing a 3,500 pound trip limit for March, whereas before there was not one. It was for April through November and I’ll go into that more in just a moment.

First, what I’m going to do is go into Action 1, which is the proposed TAC adjustment for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, and so I’m going to provide some background information and go over the alternatives and talk about some potential impacts and I’ll do that for each of the different actions. First, I’m going to talk about Action 1.

This table right here gives some data with regards to the South Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. Right here, I’ve got, in the first row, Atlantic migratory group. In the second row, I’ve got Gulf migratory group. Just to make it clear, this particular action pertains only to the Atlantic migratory group. Just the Gulf migratory group information is included for reasons I’ll explain in just a moment.

The first column shows current TAC. You see the Atlantic migratory group ten million pound TAC. Then the second and third column show the king mackerel stock assessment information and so the best point estimate and the range under two different assumptions, a 100 percent mixing rate and a 50 percent mixing rate.

Throughout the document that we have available, we’ve assumed a 50 percent mixing rate and so you see here that the best point estimate is identified as 7.1 million pounds. That is quite a bit lower than the ten million pounds, the current TAC, and in the last three columns are the total estimated catches.

What you might notice is that the catches for the past three years have not approached the ten million pound TAC and they don’t approach the -- They get a little bit closer to the 7.1 million pound best point estimate and now the problem here, the issue that we’re facing, is that if the Gulf does not change their TAC, if they stay at the 10.2 million pounds and we stay at the ten


million pounds, then that is quite a bit higher than the new stock assessment information, the best point estimates for the 50 percent mixing rate, that they identified and the stock could go into an overfished status.

Right here, we’ve got written out the various alternatives. As I said before, the current TAC is ten million pounds. The Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative, which identifies 7.1 million pounds, which is the best point estimate of the new ABC range. Alternative 2 is the low end of the new ABC range and so 5.3 million pounds. Alternative 4 is 9.6 million pounds and what I’ve got there at the bottom, what you can’t see, is basically just stating what the new ABC range is, which is 5.3 million pounds to 9.6 million pounds, with 7.1 as the best point estimate.

Here are some of the potential impacts that could occur with regards to the biological environment. Alternative 1 would result in overfishing if the full TAC is taken. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would prevent overfishing. Alternative 3, which is the 5.3 million pounds, the lower end of the range, would have the highest probability of preventing overfishing and Alternative 4 would have the lowest probability.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, the commercial quota and recreational allocation identified as a result of the TACs that are identified in the alternatives, are still greater than recent catches for the past three years and for 2005/2006. Under Alternative 3, which is not the preferred alternative, the commercial quota and recreational allocation are below recent catches. If the entire TAC were taken under Alternative 3, this could result in $500,000 ex-vessel revenue loss, which is 13 percent of the 2005/2006 fishery revenues to the commercial sector and 932,000 pounds to the recreational sector.

In addition, this could potentially result in early commercial closure and we took a look at some of the historical data. It looks like it could occur in November or sooner, all else being equal and so now I’m going to talk about Action 2, which is the proposed TAC adjustment to the South Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.

Here I’ve got some of the new stock assessment data. Again, the first column is current TAC, 7.04 million pounds. The new stock assessment data shows a best point estimate of 6.7 million pounds with a range of 5.2 to 8.4 and the past three-year catches, in millions of pounds, is quite a bit lower than the current TAC and a bit lower than the best point estimate identified through the new stock assessment.

The issue here is Spanish mackerel harvested at the current TAC, the stock will not be overfished, because the current TAC is within the new range. However, the stock will have a higher probability of being overfished than it currently is. It’s just going to be less conservatively managed under Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 is the status quo, 7.04 million pounds. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative, 6.7 million pounds, which is the best point estimate of the new ABC range. Alternative 3 is the lower end of the new ABC range at 5.2 million pounds and Alternative 4 is the 8.4 million pound TAC and that’s the top end of the new ABC range.


The potential impacts from Action 2 are as follows. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would prevent overfishing. Alternatives 1 and 4 would have a slightly lower probability of resulting in overfishing and Alternative 3 would provide the highest level of biological protection.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, commercial quota and recreational allocation are still greater than recent catches. However, under Alternative 3, the commercial quota and recreational allocation are below recent catches and this could potentially result, if the entire TAC were taken, again, in $605,000 ex-vessel revenue lost, which is approximately 23 percent of 2005/2006 fishery revenues and that is to the commercial sector and it is also, again, likely under Alternative 3 that a commercial closure is likely to occur in February or sooner and so there would likely be an early closure.

Now I’m going to talk about Action 3, which is the adjustment to the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel trip limit. Under the current regulations, April 1st to November 30th, fishermen are allowed to take 3,500 pounds per trip and then there are a number of other regulations that apply after that.

I’m not going to go through those right now, because the change does not pertain to those. Those will stay the same between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. This is largely an administrative change. Under Alternative 1, we have status quo, 3,500 pounds per trip for April 1st through November 30th, even though the new fishing year begins March 1st. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, is 3,500 pounds per trip from March 1st through November 30th and so this is coinciding with the new fishing year.

Under Alternative 3, neither alternative is expected to impact the biological environment. Under Alternative 2, the fishery would open in March when other fishermen would be able to take fish in March, when other fisheries are closed. Alternative 2, also, a fishery closure may occur earlier in the year than otherwise, because in March there’s not many fish being taken under Alternative 1 and that’s what I have right now.

The next steps, the public comment period ends today. Revisions will be made to the framework document, which is in draft form, based on comments received. The council will discuss the document tomorrow and it will be finalized by council staff and then the document will be sent to NMFS for review and implementation.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you, Kate. For those of you folks who participate in the council process and know the staff very well, you may not have met Kate yet. She’s our new economist, Kate Quigley, and Kate has extensive experience on the west coast and so thank you, Kate. Now wewill open the hearing for your comments and first we shall hear from those persons who have indicated a desire to speak on their registration card.

Certainly if you haven’t filled out a card or you change your mind and if you indicated you didn’t want to speak, we’ll get to you at the end of the comment period. On making your statements, please come forward, again, and speak into the microphone and identify yourself or


any organization you may represent. The first person up is Andy High and then we have Kelly Schoolcraft. Welcome, Andy. Andy is a member of our Mackerel AP.

Mr. High: Now you’ve got the first half of my paragraph. Don’t go that far now.

Mr. Geiger: Do you want me to finish it?

Mr. High: I don’t think yours and mine will be the same. Again, I’m Andy High from Wrightsville Beach. I am on the current King Mackerel Advisory Panel and how I keep getting there, I don’t know. I was in attendance at the Miami meeting when a lot of this came up. I got up and left the meeting early for several reasons, not the least of which I am disturbed by the way the meetings are being run.

I worked in private industry. I worked for DuPont for seven-and-a-half years before I came back to being a fisherman and I’ve sat in and put together meetings on numerous occasions for department heads, project managers, plan engineers, plant managers, corporate heads, as well as the corporate head for the whole division for engineering for textile fibers for DuPont and so I’ve got some experience in the meeting process.

The meeting in Miami, as well as the host of meetings I’ve attended with the South Atlantic Council, lacks a well defined agenda, as well as a purpose. They’re fragmented, to be honest with you. When you told me that you wanted me down there and you told the advisory panel that the topics were just for a scoping document, I was floored. You could have gotten those through email and other types of communication.

Then when we started to discuss some issues, not everybody was wanting to be heard from. Guys, I like seeing you. I like coming down and hanging out with you and having a cold beer with you, but do not waste my time and I will not waste yours. That was 800 miles one way for me to come and now I’m sure you all will say that we would have flown you, but fat people don’t need to be flying.

While I’m on the subject of the meeting, having the Mackerel Advisory Panel meetings always in Florida and usually in the southernmost part of Florida is kind of a slap to people like myself from North Carolina. I would ask that sometime you set aside an issue to try to move that meeting further up the coast, to Jacksonville or even a little bit of Georgia, to help minimize -- I used to have a reason to go to Florida when my parents lived there in Canaveral, but now that my father has passed away and mom is there with us, there’s no reason for me to come to Florida and that’s a long way.

We’re here to comment on this regulatory amendment and so let me start by quoting from your executive summary I got last week in the mail. The purpose of this regulatory amendment is to propose management measures for the South Atlantic coastal pelagic fisheries to avoid and reduce the potential, that word “potential,” for overfishing to occur in the Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel fisheries.


The tool that you’re using is the TAC with four alternatives. Included in the options is the low point estimates all the way to the high point estimates, plus a no action, and that’s perfectly reasonable and perfectly logical. Here’s where the rub comes in and at some point in time, you as a council will need to address this. The TAC figures contains a commercial poundage quota as well as a recreational poundage estimate.

I’ve just heard tonight that you all -- What do you call it now? An allocation and that’s the first I’ve heard of that one, but I could have been asleep. The only person who will be impacted here is the commercial fisherman. In the executive summary under Alternative 3, you expressed the impact as it will affect the commercial fisherman and the recreational. The commercial’s loss is addressed in terms of dollars as well as months lost to fishing and the recreational loss is addressed in the amount of pounds they will lose.

Unless I am mistaken, there is no mechanism in place to close the recreational industry down. They can continue to fish whether they go over their quota or their allocation, whatever you want to call it.

There is zero impact, zero impact, to the recreational community. They will be able to continue to fish under the three fish bag limit and so how is there any poundage lost to that side of the equation? Now I know what we’re saying is the estimate if they reach their quota then the bag limit would be zero, but I haven’t seen anywhere where we have the option of making their bag limit zero.

Let’s talk about this pesky little document that I keep bringing up to you time and time again called the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Section 303, Contents of Fishery Management Plans, Required Provisions. Any fishery management plan which is prepared by any council or by the Secretary with respect to any fishery shall, to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures which reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate any harvest restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational and charter fishing sectors in the fishery.

How in the world does anything about the reduction of the TAC with regard to potential closures for the commercial side and no such closures on the recreational side fulfill this section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as being fair and equitable? Yes, you reduced the numbers the same, but at some time, you will need to look at whether or not those numbers have any real meaning on the recreational side.

They absolutely have meaning on my side. An aside here before I continue, and I hope I don’t lose my place, but with the actions with 13C and what you’re going to do to me on sea bass, I’m going to have to rely more heavily on king mackerel and so yes, those numbers are going to go up as far as catch statistics.

With the actions with what’s going to happen with the deepwater species, a lot of those guys are going to turn to the king mackerel permits they’re not really using. There’s a lot of I guess you could call it latent effort out there. It’s going to come back to the mackerel stuff and so we’re


going to have a train wreck as you’re pulling the TAC down and these people are trying to make a living and I’ll see if I can get back on track here.

If you never intend on tracking closely the recreational catch and manage them with regard to their take, then the numbers you put up here are illegitimate and do not meet the intent as well as the letter of the law. Let me bring up an issue that has been beat around in some meetings, but we should start talking about it and it needs to be talked about with you all and that’s the issue of the amount of king mackerel tournaments coastwide and the effect they are having targeting the major spawners for this species, as well as the general stocks.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not against tournaments, but at the same time, questions need to be addressed. Each and every weekend in North Carolina, you can find two or three tournaments going on. I would dare say you could do that from Key West to Cape Hatteras and what impact does that have on the resource? Will this be allowed to grow at the exponential rate that it has? Should there be a federal permit on the tournaments so that they can better track their take?My take on this is that when you have a tournament where there is a check to be earned that you artificially increase effort toward the take of king mackerel and hence, you become commercial. If surveyed, I would bet that you would find out that most of the participants would not have fished as much as they are required to in these tournaments. In other words, a participant may have gone fishing that weekend and may not and mostly probably would have not with the price of fuel nowadays, but at the most, I would bet you would only see them fish maybe half a day, whereas a normal tournament would be a two-day event.

Here are my recommendations to you. Set the TAC at 8.35 million pounds. This is halfway between the best point estimate and the top end of the ABC range. At the same time, commission a study that will come up with a better way to track recreational take, tournament take, and institute measures by which if they exceed their quota they have to stop fishing. Remember the Magnuson-Stevens Act says that it must be fair and equitable.

Determine the amount of tournaments that are current in the South Atlantic and levels of participation with a focus on finding a level of take for them that will not unfairly take fish from those who are chartering and truly recreational fishing and even though king and Spanish contain the same word, mackerel, you should separate the documents for easier reading. Jumping back and forth from king mackerel to Spanish mackerel is totally distracting and confusing to me.Last, but not least, based on the document I received this week, hire a proofreader. Do not rely on Microsoft Word or Office to do the spelling and the English for you. My mother was anEnglish teacher and it bothers me highly when a document comes to me full of grammatical, capitalization, and spelling errors. It’s very hard reading and thank you for your time.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you, sir. Next is Kelly Schoolcraft and Kelly is also a member of the Mackerel AP and Ben, I’ll warn you that you’re up on deck.

Mr. Schoolcraft: Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to address you all and I see two familiar faces in here. My name is Kelly Schoolcraft. I’m probably the newest member on the Mackerel Advisory Panel. I share newness here with Kate. I see two faces on this commission that I recognize and I won’t have any problems with remembering names, but the other people, I


hope you give me a little bit of latitude in remembering names and I’m not much of a public speaker either.

Having that said, pertaining to the drop in the quota that we’re facing, since 1998, that was the year that Amendment 8 was implemented, the moratorium on king mackerel permits has been in place. As of August 18, 2004, Amendment 15 went into effect and that’s transferred it into a limited entry system.

The SEDAR assessment, which in this document that I received this week and there’s a lot to be read in here, especially for a new member not knowing a lot of things, stated that there was an assessment done in 2003. The status of the stocks, which can be found in Section 6, 1 and 2, page 30, and I quote: Atlantic kings were not considered overfished and overfishing was not occurring in fishing year 2002 and 2003. That was the first assessment, according to these documents, ever performed on the mackerel, that I know of, since 1986.

The very next year, with only one year between stock assessments, SEDAR came out, the 2004 assessment -- Keeping in mind now that Amendments 8 and 15 were in place before this assessment, what drastic changes occurred in this fishery that constitutes lowering the TAC in one year, in one year?

With a drop in commercial quota to 2.6 million from 3.7 million, the chance for an early closure is greatly increased. Had this been in effect for fishing year 2004 and 2005, we would have shut down sometime in February or January. The fishery would have been closed. King mackerel fishing commercially is a wintertime fishery for the state of North Carolina. January and February falls into that category.

To shut down any of those two months or go back earlier is devastating to the guys that work there, since king mackerel is basically the only thing that we have now to fish for. We can’t fish for striped bass. That quota gets caught in one day. Dog sharks, guys potting sea bass have had dog sharks in them and we can’t fish for dog sharks and so a closure in the mackerel fishery would be devastating.

Fishing year 2005 and 2006 would have been a little margin and it would have shut down. 2006 and 2007, at best, speculation on what might be harvested, I don’t know. How much of the quota is caught already? Does anybody know how much? Is it 15, 20, 30 percent? Is there figures onthat? At any rate, the winter fishery is just going to come about starting in -- Actually, for myself, it starts this month, but it will really come full term in October and November and December.

Any change to the TAC should be done conservatively, if at all. I personally, if you’ve got to change the TAC, would start with Alternative 4 and then go to Alternative 1 after assessment and review of the consequences of what the stock has done. Don’t go to such a drastic change.

If Alternative 2 is put in place, then it will be my contention, as a member of the panel board, to suggest changes in the quota system to more fair and equitable division instead of a 30/70, which have now, 50/50 and that’s fair and equitable. That gives everybody a shot. Since there is a -- I


should say a quote, no hard quota by the recreational fishery closes. This statement can be found under current management measures in Section 6, page 32, in the third paragraph.

The recreational fishery is never going to close, to my understanding, the same thing like Andy said. You could have a one pound quota for the recreational and the way this reads, they’re not going to shut it down, but they will shut down the commercial, because we do have a hard quota.To the best of my knowledge, tournament-caught king mackerel is sold and they go against the commercial quota. That is shown by our trip tickets in the state of North Carolina. When tournaments sell their fish, they sell them to the fish house where I sell my catch. A trip ticket is made out and submitted and just by the trip ticket made out, I’m assuming right then and there that it goes against our quota and therefore, we’re penalized of it, shortening the season.

Like Andy says, how many tournaments are up and down the coast and how many boats are entering? There again in this document, one of the biggest king mackerel tournaments, 500 boats participate in that and that’s probably conservative. How much do they ever remove from the stock? They’re targeting female spawners and they’re targeting the big fish, which eventually will come back down to the smaller ones.

What to do? I feel like this needs to stop. Any kind of recreational-caught fish, whether it be king mackerel or snapper grouper, if there is a recreational quota for a federally-regulated fish, then if they’re sold, that should not go against the guys that’s out there making their living so they guy that’s out there for fun can pay for his fuel. We’re the ones out there trying to make a living and make our mortgages and send our kids through college.

The commercial quota needs to be for the fishermen, like I say, making a living. The sale of multiple bag limits by federally-permitted vessels, this is an enforcement issue. I don’t know the answer to this question. I would assume it’s highly illegal, but a charter vessel, whether it be a headboat or a six-pack guy, holds a commercial king mackerel permit and I don’t have any problem with that, but it’s common practice, I know for a fact in my area and because of that, I’m assuming it’s also common practice in other areas, that parties will donate or give or whatever their bag limits to the captain of that vessel and if he’s got a federal permit, then he can sell those fish and there again, they go against the commercial quota.

To me, does anybody know if that’s legal? Like I’m saying, he can sell a bag limit, but instantly a person gives him the other fish and that’s way over his bag limit, but he goes ahead and sells them and that, to me, sounds illegal and if it is, that practice needs to stop and that’s an enforcement issue. All this can be totally solved if you eliminate the sale of recreationally-caught fish.

Mr. Geiger: Kelly, if I could, I think you’re reading from a lot of the alternatives that are contained in proposed regulations that we’re going to consider. This is the regulatory amendment that we’re considering this evening, is only in regard to the TAC on king mackerel. Those issues that you’re addressing --


Mr. Schoolcraft: They affect the TAC, they do. You have people selling recreational-caught fish that are going against the quota and if the quota is lowered, then it’s going to affect -- The TAC for our part is going to get caught up.

Mr. Geiger: I understand and I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. Schoolcraft: That’s where I was getting at on it. I don’t see how -- I do respect Kate’s knowledge in the economics and everything, but I again, like Andy, don’t see how you can compare revenues lost to poundage lost. We’re making it for a living. Poundage isn’t going to mean anything for the recreational sector. They’re going to keep on keeping on and we’re going to have some time shut down when other fisheries are closing.

In this book, I find it hard to believe two things in this. Somebody did an assessment on what ex-vessel price -- According to him, back in 1982, ex-vessel price was $1.43. I was commercial king mackereling in 1982 and I would say my ex-vessel prices was about seventy-five cents and so that would have meant that places around the country would have had ex-vessel prices in excess of two dollars for that to be an average and so that’s erroneous.

Communities up and down the coast, the fish houses are closing down. There was a statement in here that says that Hatteras has four and we only have two now and it’s because -- It’s not because fish aren’t out there to be caught, but it’s because they’re not getting the quantity they need to operate. Thank you.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you, Kelly. Next is Ben Hartig.

Mr. Hartig: Thank you, all, for having the opportunity to speak here this evening. My name is Ben Hartig. I’m a full-time commercial hook and line fisherman from Hobe Sound, Florida. I’m a past member of this council and also current chairman of the Mackerel Advisory Panel. I’m going to speak primarily about Spanish this evening, mainly because I’ve fielded a whole lot of calls after the last meeting.

In our biggest success story in management, Spanish mackerel, we’ve lowered the quota in that last go around. It was hard for our fishermen to comprehend. The commercial side is going to go down 186,000 pounds and the other thing is when you have an AP meeting, please, if you know something is going to come up -- There’s conspiracy theories and everything, but I don’t buy into them and I know what happens in the council process at times.

Things come up at the last minute and you all want to move with them, but when you have the AP there and you’re thinking about doing a quota reduction, you should have advised the AP at that meeting, early in the meeting, that you all were thinking about doing that and if you would have done that in Spanish mackerel, we have some mechanisms to ameliorate that 186,000 pounds.

We could have, at that meeting, in this regulatory amendment in Spanish mackerel, we could have gone ahead and taken another 5 percent out of the recreational fishery and that would have given us another 350,000 pounds. It would have actually given us a little bump and I think staff


has painted a little bit of a rosy picture in Spanish. They didn’t even mention that the quota had been caught.

Three seasons ago, we had a closure. We were down to 500 pounds for three weeks and in the last two seasons, we’ve had major environmental things that have happened in weather. There have been three eyes of three hurricanes that went across the exact area where these fish migrate in the last two years. The major over wintering area in Hobe Sound had three eyes of hurricanes go directly across this area and it’s changed the migratory pattern of these mackerel over the last average weather patterns over the last seven or eight seasons.

You have weather that’s really caused us not to produce the quota. The quota would have been caught in the last two years, under average conditions, without any problem. We’ve got too much effort in that fishery and I’ve been telling you all that for a long time. You all don’t seem to want to do anything about it. Hopefully after this next round of scoping, we can get down and do something about the problems we have in Spanish. As I said, that’s our best success story in management, the Spanish mackerel. Lowering the quota sends the wrong message and the weather, I’ve already said and I think I’ll leave it there.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you, Ben. Again, we have a whole stack of folks here who indicated they did not choose to speak in regard to the mackerel issue. Has anybody changed their mind? Sean? Don’t forget to state your name, please.

Mr. McKeon: I’m Sean McKeon, North Carolina Fisheries Association. I wasn’t going to comment, but Ben reminded me of something when he mentioned conspiracy theories. I do not believe in them, but I am reminded of a very old Irish woman that I knew in Dublin who, when asked if she believed in leprechauns, said, I myself, I don’t believe in them, but I’m sure they’re there. If you’re Irish, you understand that kind of thing.

I sit here and I listen to this stuff and, again, I’ve been around a little over a year and in so many ways, if you were writing a script on how to destroy the commercial fishing industry, I don’t think you could do a better job of it than some of the things that go on in some of the management measures that are being proposed.

I just want to say that I think that lowering the TAC here is going to be very, very problematic, particularly when I hear all day long overfishing, overfishing, overfishing and that’s the problem. We don’t have overfishing and it’s not overfished yet. Some hypothetical distance in the future, we’re going to have a problem and so let’s put something on top of the commercial folks.On top of 13C, people are going to choose to put their effort in other places and if you do lower that TAC, I think that you’re going to find some problems there. I do think that Andy hit on something that needs to be addressed and that is -- I’m not particularly against, in very narrowly focused areas, for example, selling a so-called tournament catch and I’ll tell you -- I’ll give you a reason that I’m not so much against it.

There are some that sell that catch to support cancer victims. There was a case and I think there’s one still going on up in I think it’s Pirates Cove up in the Wanchese area where they came in and they were actually selling that and the money was going to child that had cancer, but I think the


key to those very narrowly focused areas is that it’s monitored and it’s correctly attributed not to the commercial sector. That’s very, very important and I think that in many instances we’ve got to look into and make sure that those things are distinguished and once again, if we are going to look at closures when the commercial industry meets their quota, their hard quotas, then you also have to look at monitoring the recreational sector and if and when they meet their allocation or their pounds, then that also has to be contemplated quite seriously or, again, you’re looking at something that’s not fair and equitable. Those are my comments and I appreciate that and thank you.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you sir. Sure, Kelly, come on back.

Mr. Schoolcraft: I would like to go on record saying that I’m not against the selling of tournament-caught fish, like Sean was saying, but there is a way that you could revise it to be done where you could sell a certain quota and take it out of the recreational quota, not the commercial. You could take X amount of pounds out of what is allocated to them and form a recreational tournament quota or something like that where they could sell their fish to help offset the costs of tournaments and make donations to groups.

That’s fine, but I just don’t want to be penalized, myself or anybody else, in view of everything else that’s happening in the fisheries, to get a TAC that’s lower than what’s going to be detrimental to us and then have other people or whatever influencing that TAC. It should be a commercial quota. Thank you.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? That concludes the public hearing on mackerel and we stand adjourned.

Transcribed By:Graham Transcription Service, Inc.October 26, 2006

AttendeesCouncil Members:Dr. Louis Daniel, Chair George Geiger, Vice ChairRobert H. Boyles, Jr. Columbus H. BrownDr. Roy Crabtree David M. CupkaBenjamin “Mac” Currin Frank Gibson, IIICharles “Duane” Harris Anthony IarocciRita Merritt Mark RobsonJohn Wallace

Staff Members:Robert Mahood Gregg WaughMichael Collins Richard DeVictorKim Iverson Rachael LindsayJulie O’Dell Kerry O’MalleyKate Quigley


Public Comment Attendance Record:Dr. Jim Berkson Kate BonzonDick Brame Tami BreamEileen Dougherty Elizabeth FetherstonDietmar Grimm David HarterBen Hartig Andy HighValerie Hovland Caroline KeicherGreg McFall Sean McKeonHarry Morales Megan MuellerKelly Schoolcraft Dr. George SedberryMargot Stiles Dan Whittle

Other Participants/Attendees:Monica Smit-Brunello Dr. Joe KimmelDr. Jack McGovern Dr. Steve BranstetterAndy Herndon Hal Robbins


Documents

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT - Gulf of Mexico Fishery ...archive.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/BB 2007... · Web viewSuite 2115 Federal Bldg. 300 S. New Street Dover, Delaware 19904-6726