ECONOMIC IMPACT AND PROFILE OF MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHING IN COBSCOOK BAY MAINE

Prepared by

Kevin Athearn, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Economics University of Maine at Machias

and

Christopher Bartlett Marine Extension Associate University of Maine Cooperative Extension Maine Sea Grant College Program

May 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Maine Sea Grant, University of Maine Cooperative Extension, and the Center for Tourism Research and Outreach for funding this project. We would like to acknowledge Bruce Joule at the Maine Department of Marine Resources for his advice on conducting recreational fishing surveys and for providing informational brochures for survey participants. We would like to thank Inez Lombardo for her many hours at the Eastport Breakwater and other locations counting and interviewing anglers. Also, this report benefited from comments by Dr. Andrea Ednie on an earlier draft. Finally, we would like to extend our appreciation to the numerous anglers who participated in the survey.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... iv INTRODUCTION ...... 1 RESEARCH METHODS ...... 2 RESULTS ...... 7 Description of Fishing Locations...... 7 Boating Angler Profile...... 8 Eastport Breakwater Angler Count, Segment Profiles, and Economic Impact ...... 9 Miscellaneous Angler Comments...... 12 CONCLUSIONS...... 13 REFERENCES ...... 16 APPENDIX...... 17 Figure 1. Map of Cobscook Bay region...... 17 Figure 2. Average number of anglers per day at the Breakwater by month ...... 18 Figure 3. Percent of angler fishing days in each angler segment...... 18 Figure 4. Location of primary residence for nonlocal angler segments ...... 19 Figure 5. Percent keeping vs. releasing fish for different angler segments ...... 19 Figure 6. Household income categories for different angler segments ...... 20 Figure 7. Percent of adult respondents in different age categories...... 20 Table 1. Relationship between angler segment, income, and intention for fish ....21 Table 2. Total angler fishing days & local spending at the Eastport Breakwater..21 Table 3. Local economic impact of fishing at the Eastport Breakwater...... 22 Table 4. Local spending profiles per angler fishing day at the Breakwater ...... 22

iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our study investigates marine recreational fishing activity in the Cobscook Bay region during the summer of 2007. Specific objectives are to estimate the number of fishing trips, describe characteristics of anglers and their trips, and estimate county-level economic impacts generated by the fishing trips. This report describes our research methods and presents the results of our study. Primary data collection involved counting observed anglers and conducting a visitor intercept survey at selected sites on selected days. We took a random sample of one weekday and one weekend day per week between May 26th and September 30th, 2007. We attempted a census of all anglers at the Eastport Breakwater on selected days and made sporadic checks at five other locations. We completed 205 full interviews of shoreside anglers at the Eastport Breakwater and 10 interviews of private boat anglers mostly at other locations in the region. We define angler fishing days as one person fishing on one day. Based on our counting of observed anglers on randomly selected days, we estimate 2,690 shoreside angler fishing days for the Eastport Breakwater between May 26th and September 30th, 2007. We were not able to collect adequate data to estimate the number of private boat anglers or shoreside anglers at other locations. We believe that the number of private boat anglers is substantial, but that shoreside anglers at other locations are far fewer than at the Eastport Breakwater. Most fishing trips to the Breakwater occur in late July, August, and September when the mackerel are present. August is the most popular month, averaging 43 anglers per weekday and 63 anglers per weekend day at the Breakwater in 2007. Approximately 72% of angler fishing days at the Breakwater are day trips from a primary residence or owned summer home, whereas 28% are part of an overnight trip. Five distinct angler segments, including 3 different day trip segments and 2 different overnight trip segments, are identified. Profiles are created for each angler segment, based on the interview data. Local businesses may find the angler profile information useful in targeting anglers. Although recreation is an important aspect of fishing for nearly everyone, its role as a source of food is important for many anglers at the Eastport Breakwater. More than 69% of anglers report intending to keep the fish to eat. The intention of catching and releasing or keeping the fish is related to income. Lower income anglers are less likely to release and more

iv likely to keep the fish to eat. Fishing at the Breakwater is often part of a family trip, and about one-third of angler parties have kids fishing with them. The average angler party spent $42 per angler fishing day in 2007, but expenditure amounts varied widely according to angler segment. Washington County residents spent an average of about $12 per angler fishing day, whereas anglers on overnight trips not primarily to fish spent an average of about $104 per angler fishing day. Spending by nonresident anglers as part of their fishing trips to the Eastport Breakwater generated an economic impact of about $77,500 in local value of sales between May 26th and September 30th, 2007. An estimated $20,700 in additional income accrued to Washington County residents (about $1.50 per household) as a result of marine recreational fishing at the Breakwater during that time period. The economic impact of recreational fishing at the Eastport Breakwater is not large compared to major tourist attractions, but is significant for the town of Eastport and Washington County. Marine recreational fishing provides other important, but less quantifiable, benefits for the region. It provides an inexpensive source of recreation for people of all ages. For many households, especially those in lower income brackets, saltwater fishing is an important source of food. Mackerel is by far the most popular species targeted from the Breakwater, but boaters often target other species as well. Other species targeted include flounder, cod, halibut, harbor pollock, striped bass, and shark. Fish abundance is reportedly not as great as in years past, but still appears adequate to support a substantial recreational fishery. At least six locations in the Cobscook Bay region have good infrastructure for recreational fishing, including breakwaters, piers, floating docks, and boat ramps. Much of this infrastructure appears underutilized. Besides the Breakwater, piers and docks at the other locations are used infrequently for shoreside fishing, and most boat ramps are seldom crowded. Washington County offers excellent fishing opportunities, both in freshwater and saltwater. Greater efforts to promote the Cobscook Bay area and Washington County as a fishing destination could attract additional visitors and increase the economic impact of recreational fishing.

v INTRODUCTION

The Cobscook Bay region lies in eastern Washington County and is the easternmost corner of the United States. It is bordered by Passamaquoddy Bay and New Brunswick to the northeast and by the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Maine to the east and south, respectively. A map of the region is shown in the Appendix (Figure 1). The Cobscook Bay area contains vast woodlands, sparsely populated landscapes, and small towns. It is a place where rivers and bays converge with the sea. It features the highest tides in the eastern United States and abundant marine life. The area has a rich cultural heritage based on natural resource harvesting, both from land and sea. Nature-based tourism has been identified as a promising economic development opportunity for Maine and, in particular, Washington County (Flanagan; VRC). Washington County is Maine’s poorest county in terms of household income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a) and currently attracts only 1.5% of overnight visits in the state (VRC). The county lacks a big tourist draw, but features smaller natural attractions, such as Quoddy Head State Park, the Bold Coast Trail, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, Cobscook Bay State Park, and numerous outdoor recreation opportunities. Our study investigates marine recreational fishing activity in the Cobscook Bay region during the summer of 2007. Specific objectives are to estimate the number of fishing trips, describe characteristics of anglers and their trips, and estimate county-level economic impacts generated by the fishing trips. Also, we document the fish species and access points on which this tourism activity depends. Our analysis should be valuable for Washington County leaders, resource managers, regional planners, and other stakeholders by providing an improved understanding of the economic impact of recreational fishing and the resources on which it depends. Our study provides information on angler market segments and size that may be helpful to local businesses interested in expanding services for recreational anglers. Also, improved knowledge of angler market segments and local fishing opportunities may enhance future tourism promotion efforts. Ultimately we hope to provide useful information to support public and private decision making and contribute to sustainable tourism development in the region.

1 RESEARCH METHODS

To achieve the objectives of the project, our research relied on primary data collection in the form of a visitor intercept survey and counting observed anglers at selected sites on selected days. Also, we used descriptive, quantitative analysis, in the form of statistical generalization and comparison procedures, as well as economic impact analysis. First, we needed data on the number of angler fishing trips at different locations over time. Second, we needed data about relevant characteristics of anglers and their trips. Third, we needed data on angler spending associated with their fishing trips. Fourth, we needed analysis that would allow us to estimate the total number of angler fishing trips during the season, segment anglers according to relevant grouping characteristics, and estimate the economic impact of angler spending in the region. We identified the primary types of fishing as (1) fishing from shore, (2) fishing from a private boat, and (3) charter boat fishing. We relied on our prior observations and discussion with knowledgeable members of the community to identify primary fishing locations and seasonal distribution of fishing. The Eastport Breakwater, Seaview Campground, Gleason’s Cove, Lubec Public Landing, Robbinston Public Landing and Calais Public Landing were identified as the primary fishing locations in the region. We expected most fishing activity for the year to take place between Memorial Day Weekend and the end of September. We took a random sample of one weekend and one weekday each week between May 26th and September 30th, and stationed interviewers at fishing locations on those selected days, regardless of the weather. With only three interviewers, we ultimately decided that it would be impossible to obtain accurate count estimates by spreading interviewer hours evenly among six different fishing locations that are separated by as much as 48 miles driving distance. Instead we covered the most popular fishing location (Eastport Breakwater) for a full eight hours each day (once fishing activity started up), and made sporadic checks at the other five locations. Interviewers were instructed to count the number of people engaged in fishing upon arrival at the site, number of arrivals and departures each hour, and the number of people still fishing at the end of the shift. Interviewers were present at the Breakwater either from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM or from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. We initially started covering the Breakwater from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, but found that more fishing activity was taking place in the morning than in late afternoon. After July 26th, we changed to a 9:00 to 5:00 shift, believing that we were less likely to miss any early or late anglers over that 8-hour period. The number of anglers was

2 typically greatest around the middle of the day (late morning and early afternoon). We believe that very few anglers departed before 9:00 AM and that very few anglers arrived after 5:00 PM. We therefore believe that by covering the Breakwater from 9:00-5:00, we were successful at counting nearly 100% of anglers on the selected days. Our count estimates are for angler fishing days. An angler fishing day represents one person fishing on one day. To estimate the total number of angler fishing days for the season, we multiplied our total weekend count by two and our total weekday count by five. This procedure provides the same result as multiplying the average weekday count by the number of weekdays and the average weekend count by the number of weekend days. Then, we summed the total weekend estimate with the total weekday estimate to arrive at an estimate of the total number of angler fishing days at the Eastport Breakwater for the season. Occasionally interviewers were stationed at the other five primary fishing locations in the region. Shifts at those locations typically lasted between one and three hours. Interviewers used the same counting and interviewing procedures as at the Eastport Breakwater. A questionnaire was developed for structuring interviews with anglers and for recording data about angler characteristics and expenditures. Interviewers administered the questionnaires face-to-face with anglers. Interviewers were instructed to approach shoreside anglers while they were fishing and boaters when they returned from fishing. Interviewers introduced themselves and briefly described the purpose and nature of the survey. The anglers were handed a letter describing the study with an informed consent statement on the reverse side and a copy of the 2007 Maine marine recreational sportfishing regulations. Many anglers also received either a “Do You Know Your Catch?” brochure or Recreational Saltwater Fishing Newsletter. Both were provided compliments of the Maine Department of Marine Resources. Anglers were asked if they would be willing to participate in the voluntary survey. Most interviews lasted 10-15 minutes, and anglers were able to continue fishing during the interview. We attempted a census of angler parties at the Breakwater on the randomly selected days (one weekend and one weekday per week). Interviewers attempted to interview as many angler parties as possible without neglecting the counting duties described above. On most days, interviewers succeeded in interviewing all angler parties observed during their shift. On the most crowded days, however, it was not possible to interview 100% of angler parties. Even on those days, we succeeded at interviewing a large majority of angler parties.

3 Interviewers were instructed to select anglers in a random manner to avoid bias toward any particular type of angler. We believe that we were successful at interviewing more than 90% of angler parties on selected days, thus virtually eliminating the possibility of sample bias from interviewer selection. There may still be some sample bias related to the fact that the more days an angler went fishing in 2007, the greater the likelihood of the fishing trip falling on one of our selected survey days. We completed full interviews with 205 shoreside anglers at the Eastport Breakwater. Only 10 anglers refused interviews, giving us a response rate of 95 percent. Only one interview was requested per angler party (a group of one or more people who traveled together to the location to fish). Respondents were asked to provide expenditure data for the entire angler party. With an average of 2.8 people per angler party, our interview data cover 574 angler fishing days at the Breakwater. Since many anglers go fishing more than one day, we sometimes encountered anglers who had been interviewed previously. Repeat status was determined by the interviewer as part of introducing the survey or sometimes simply by visual recognition. Repeat anglers were not asked for another interview, but we recorded the number of repeat anglers and whether they were on a day or overnight trip. We counted a total of 253 repeat angler fishing days. Therefore, we succeeded in collecting data on 827 (574 + 253) anglers or 94% of the 881 anglers counted on selected survey days. Upon analyzing the interview data, we grouped angler parties into five distinct angler segments: (1) day trips by Washington County residents, (2) day trips by nonresidents traveling from an owned summer home in Washington County, (3) day trips by nonresidents traveling from their primary residence outside Washington County, (4) overnight trips made primarily to fish, and (5) overnight trips made not primarily to fish. We used difference tests, ANOVA, and cross-tabulation analysis to compare responses to certain questions and test for statistically significant differences between angler segments. The statistical analysis was performed using XL Data AnalystTM. As part of the interview, participants were asked about expenses related to their fishing trips. In particular, they were asked how much their angler party spent in Washington County, while away from home on the fishing trip, on various categories of goods and services. In order to be compatible with our count data (which recorded the number of people fishing), all

4 expenditure data were converted to a per-person-fishing-per-fishing-day basis, which we call “per angler fishing day.” For example, consider the case of two adults and one child who visit the area on a 5 day overnight trip and spend $600 in Washington County while on the trip. If one adult and the child (two people) spend three of those days fishing at the Breakwater, then we divide the $600 by two (the number of people fishing) and again by three (the number of days spent fishing) to arrive at $100 per angler fishing day. Then, for each angler segment we multiply our estimate of average expenditures per angler fishing day times the number of angler fishing days estimated for that segment from our count data. Adding across all angler segments produces an estimate of total spending in Washington County related to fishing trips at the Breakwater. The local economic impact of spending by anglers at the Breakwater is estimated using standard economic impact analysis methodology. Economic impact analysis is a method of estimating the effect of an initial change in demand for a region’s products on sales revenue for all businesses and income for all households in a region. Economic impact analysis is used to quantify the contributions of an industry or activity to a region’s economy, in terms of output (sales revenue), income, and employment (Schaffer, 1999; Mulkey & Hodges, 2000; MIG, 2004, Mak, 2004; Stynes, 2005). Changes in the regional economy are divided into direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Also, impacts may be measured as changes in output (sales revenue) for local businesses or as changes in income for local households. Direct impacts are the immediate effects of tourism spending for the businesses where tourist purchases are made. For example, when a tourist spends $10 at a local restaurant, the direct output impact is the $10 increase in restaurant sales. A portion of the $10, for example $6, accrues to the restaurant’s employees as income. That $6 is the direct income impact of the $10 restaurant purchase. Local indirect impacts of the $10 restaurant purchase are generated when the restaurant purchases supplies from other local businesses in order to produce the $10 meal. For example, if $2 worth of locally produced food went into the $10 restaurant meal, the output of local food producers would increase by $2. Likewise, any local purchases by the food producer would increase sales for other businesses. The indirect output impact refers to all subsequent rounds of local business-to-business sales after the initial $10 purchase by a tourist. The indirect income

5 impact refers to the portion of local business-to-business sales that accrues as income for employees and owners of the local indirectly affected businesses. Local induced impacts of the $10 restaurant purchase are generated when households whose incomes increased because of the $10 restaurant purchase spend money locally. The induced output impact refers to the amount sales at local businesses increase as a result of spending and re-spending by local households from the income generated by the $10 restaurant purchase. The induced income impact refers to the amount incomes rise as a result of spending and re-spending by local households after the initial $6 gain in income from the $10 restaurant purchase. When estimating local economic impacts from an activity like recreational fishing, it is important to define the geographic boundaries of the study and distinguish between spending by local residents and spending by nonresidents. Spending by residents does not inject new money into the local economy, so it is typically excluded from economic impact estimates. Ultimately economic impact analysis is intended to describe the change in the local economy produced by a particular activity. Local residents may spend money on groceries as part of a fishing trip, but they likely would have spent that money locally even if they had not made the fishing trip. Spending by nonresidents, however, represents new money injected into the local economy. That new money is used to represent the change in final demand for a region’s products to which indirect and induced multipliers may be applied to estimate the total local impact of an activity like recreational fishing. Washington County is the geographic region for our analysis, and spending by Washington County residents is separated from spending by nonresidents. Technically, the local direct impact is not the same as the amount spent by anglers in Washington County. The full purchase price of a good should not be counted as a local direct effect if the good was manufactured outside the region. For example, gasoline is not refined in Washington County. Therefore, only the retail margin (and part of the wholesale margin) of a gasoline purchase accrues to Washington County businesses as a direct impact. On the other hand, the full value of a tourist expenditure on a local service, such as a restaurant meal or campground fee, is counted as a local direct impact. IMPLAN® is a popular database and software package used for economic impact analysis. Data on Washington County industries, their linkages to one another, and trade flows within and outside the region are provided by IMPLAN®. A county-level input-output model is

6 created by IMPLAN® to track the circulation of money in the local economy and estimate the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of initial expenditures on various categories of goods and services. A spending profile and angler count data for each angler segment is entered into the IMPLAN® model, which then generates estimates of the local direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

RESULTS

We identified six locations in the Cobscook Bay region where saltwater recreational fishing activity was known to occur. These are the Eastport Breakwater, Seaview Campground (Eastport), Gleason’s Cove (Perry), Lubec Public Landing, Robbinston Public Landing and Calais Public Landing. A brief description of infrastructure, target species and fishing activity at each location follows.

Description of Fishing Locations

The Eastport Breakwater is used as a docking location for commercial fishing boats, pleasure boats, and the U.S. Coast Guard. A boat ramp at the Breakwater is used infrequently by recreational anglers. Although our interviewers spent 36 days observing fishing at the Breakwater in 2007, only one recreational fishing party was observed taking a boat out of the water at the Breakwater boat ramp. One charter fishing boat takes recreational anglers on fishing trips from the Breakwater. The general public is allowed to drive cars on the Breakwater and park there while fishing. Numerous recreational anglers fish from the outer edge of the Breakwater, facing Western Passage and Campobello Island (Canada). When the mackerel are biting in late summer and early fall, the Breakwater often becomes crowded with recreational anglers and their vehicles. More details on anglers fishing from the Breakwater are described later in this report. The Seaview Campground in Eastport has a floating dock and boat ramp. According to anecdotal evidence, both are used occasionally by campers and others for recreational fishing. Mostly people go out in boats to fish for flounder, but also for mackerel, cod, and halibut. No recreational fishing activity was observed during four visits by our interviewers to that location. Gleason’s Cove in Perry has a boat ramp that is popular among recreational anglers. During four visits to the site, several vehicles with boat trailers were observed, and seven

7 interviews were completed with boating anglers. Flounder, mackerel, shark, and striped bass were reported as target species. The Lubec Public Landing has a boat ramp, floating dock, and pier from which people reportedly fish. During seven visits to the site, a few vehicles with boat trailers were observed and two interviews were completed with boating anglers. Mackerel and flounder were the target species of those anglers. No anglers were observed fishing from shore at the Lubec Public Landing on the days and times our interviewers were present. The Robbinston Public Landing has a boat ramp and floating dock. During three visits to the site, a few recreational boaters were observed and approached by our interviewers. None of the boaters approached, however, had been fishing. No shoreside anglers were observed. The Calais Public Landing has a boat ramp, small pier, and a floating dock. During two visits, no shoreside anglers were observed and only one vehicle with a boat trailer was observed in the parking lot. We did not observe anyone fishing on the water. Informants mentioned a few other locations in the Cobscook Bay area where saltwater recreational fishing occurs. Primarily there were anecdotes of striped bass fishing in the lower St. Croix River. We were not able to verify those claims.

Boating Angler Profile

We completed interviews with a small sample of 10 boating angler parties. Seven interviews were conducted at Gleason’s Cove, two at the Lubec Public Landing, and one at the Eastport Breakwater boat ramp. Seventy percent of the boating angler parties were from Washington County, and the primary residences of the other boaters were Aroostook County, another U.S. state, and New Brunswick. The boater from another U.S. state had traveled from an owned summer home in Washington County. All boaters were on day trips from their primary residence or owned summer home, except the one party from Aroostook County. All respondents intended to keep the fish to eat. The primary target species were mackerel (50% of angler parties), flounder (40%), and shark (10%). Secondary target species mentioned were flounder, mackerel, and striped bass. All boaters reported using rod and reel. Of the 8 boaters answering the question fully, 5 boaters used bait and 3 boaters used artificial lures. Bait included worms, clams, and squid. On average there were 2.6 anglers per boat. Only one angler party had a child in the boat with them. Not including overnight accommodations, the average boating party spent $41 in

8 Washington County as part of the fishing trip. Common expenses included gas for vehicle and boat, restaurants, groceries, fishing tackle, bait, and ice. The one overnight party that we interviewed spent $60 for a cabin rental. Because we were unable to obtain an estimate for the total number of boating angler trips, we cannot calculate the economic impact generated from that activity.

Eastport Breakwater Angler Count, Segment Profiles, and Economic Impact

We estimate a total of 2,690 angler fishing days at the Eastport Breakwater between May 26th and September 30th, 2007. The 95 percent confidence interval for our estimate ranges from 1,843 to 3,537 angler fishing days. As mentioned previously, an angler fishing day represents one person fishing on one day. Although we started observing the Breakwater on one weekend day and one weekday each week starting Memorial Day weekend, we did not observe a single angler until June 14th. Anglers started to appear more regularly by the end of June, but did not arrive in large numbers until the middle of July, around the time mackerel started to appear. The average number of anglers observed at the Breakwater per weekday and weekend day by month is shown in Figure 2. August was the most popular fishing month, with an average daily count of 63 anglers on weekends and 43 anglers on weekdays. September was the second most popular month for weekend fishing (40 per day), but July was the second most popular month for weekday fishing (15 per day). We believe that a significant amount of fishing continued after September 30th, so the total count for the entire year is higher than 2,690. We estimate that 1,928 (72%) angler fishing days were day trips, whereas 763 (28%) angler fishing days were part of overnight trips. An overnight trip was defined as spending at least one night away from the primary residence or owned summer home. Day and overnight trips are further broken down into five angler segments (3 day trip segments and 2 overnight segments). We estimate that 1,294 angler fishing days were day trips by Washington County residents (Day-WashRes), 369 were day trips by nonresidents with local summer homes (Day- SrHm), 265 were day trips by nonresidents without local summer homes (Day-NoSrHm), 214 were overnight trips primarily to go fishing (Night-Pmr), and 549 were overnight trips not primarily to go fishing (Night-NotPmr). These trip count results for the Eastport Breakwater are shown in Figure 3 and Table 2.

9 Several categorical variables are used to describe the different angler segments. All results for categorical variables (shown as percentages) are reported on a per-angler-party basis, not per angler. On average there were 2.8 anglers per angler party. Results that are separated by angler segment showed a statistically significant difference between at least two segments at the 90% confidence level. The five angler segments show considerable variation in the distribution of primary residence by region. Most angler parties in the Day-SrHm segment (83%) are from U.S. states outside of Maine. Two angler parties in this segment (11%) are from Penobscot County and one (6%) is from another Maine county. Most angler parties in the Day-NoSrHm segment come from Aroostook (37%) and Penobscot (26%) counties. Another 26% of that segment traveled from New Brunswick to fish in Eastport, and 11% traveled from a Maine county other than Washington, Aroostook, or Penobscot counties. Most overnight trips made primarily to go fishing (Night-Pmr) originate in Aroostook (33%) or Penobscot (33%) counties. Five percent of the angler parties in that segment come from another Maine county and 29% come from a state outside Maine. The majority of angler parties (58%) in the Night-NotPmr segment come from a U.S. state outside Maine, whereas 34% come from a Maine county other than Washington County. Two percent of the Night-NotPmr segment come from New Brunswick, and 6% come from a foreign location other than New Brunswick. Results are shown in Figure 4. Fishing at the Breakwater is popular activity for families with kids. Thirty-one percent of all angler parties interviewed had kids present at the Breakwater. The greatest variation occurred between the day trip parties traveling from summer homes and overnight parties for whom fishing was not the primary reason for the trip. Forty-four percent of Day-SrHm respondents had kids in the fishing party, whereas only 22% of Night-NotPmr respondents had kids present. Mackerel was by far the most popular target species. Seventy-seven percent of respondents at the Eastport Breakwater said that mackerel was their primary target species. Less than 2% were targeting a particular species other than mackerel, and 22% did not have any particular target species. Harbor pollock, herring, flounder, and shark were other species mentioned. Sculpin were caught frequently, but not mentioned as a target species. The most significant variation in species targeting occurred between the Day-NoSrHm and Night-NotPmr segments. Ninety percent of Day-NoSrHm parties were targeting mackerel primarily, and only 10% did not have a particular target species. Sixty-six percent of Night-NotPmr parties were

10 targeting mackerel primarily, whereas 34% of those anglers did not have a particular target species. Most anglers (77%) intend to keep the fish they catch, whereas (23%) intend to catch and release. The most significant difference in intentions occurred between the Day-SrHm and Day-NoSrHm segments. Thirty-three percent of Day-SrHm and 32% of Night-NotPmr parties intended to catch and release, whereas only 16% of Day-NoSrHm and 17% of Day-WashRes parties intended to catch and release. Results are shown in Figure 5. Anglers were asked to check one of four income categories describing their annual pre-tax household income. Twenty-four percent of respondents earn less than $25,000 per year; 36% of respondents earn between $25,000 and $49,900; 19% earn between $50,000 and $74,900; and 21% earn $75,000 or more. The Day-NoSrHm segment had the largest percentage of respondents in the lowest income category (42%), followed by the Day-WashRes segment (32%). The Day-SrHm segment had the largest percentage of respondents in the highest income category (56%), followed by the Night-NotPmr segment (34%). Results are shown in Figure 6. There is a statistically significant relationship between income and intention for catch. Higher incomes are associated with a greater likelihood to catch and release. Lower income respondents are more likely to keep the fish to eat. The relationship between angler segment, household income, and intention for fish is shown in Table 1. The age of respondents at the Breakwater varied widely. The highest portion of respondents (25%) were in the 40-49 year old age group, followed by 23% in the 50-59 year old age group. A significant relationship between angler segments and age distribution was not observed. The age distribution for all angler segments combined is shown in Figure 7. The vast majority of anglers at the Breakwater use rod and reel with artificial lures. In particular, mackerel trees (four small lures on one line) are the most popular. Some anglers bring their own bait, such as worms and clams, and others purchase bait from local stores. We estimated an average expenditure per angler fishing day of $14.80 for day trips and $89.40 for overnight trips. Separated by angler segment, average expenditures per angler fishing day were $12.20 for Day-WashRes, $21.20 for Day-SrHm, $21.20 for Day-NoSrHm, $52.40 for Night-Pmr, and $103.60 for Night-NotPmr. Spending is broken down into several different categories for each angler segment. Day trip anglers spend most of their trip-related expenses on restaurant or take-out and gasoline. Sometimes they purchase fishing tackle and groceries as part

11 of their fishing trip, and occasionally they purchase gifts or souvenirs. Overnight anglers incur the greatest expenses for lodging and restaurant or take-out, followed by groceries and gas. Overnight anglers sometimes also purchase gifts and souvenirs, fishing tackle, clothing, locally made arts and crafts, and locally produced food (such as seafood and blueberry products). A breakdown of expenditures is shown in Table 4. Results of the economic impact analysis are shown in Table 3. Estimates represent local (Washington County) impacts of fishing at the Eastport Breakwater only. Total spending by all anglers is estimated at $97,300 for the period May 26th through September 30th, 2007. Of that amount, $81,500 is spending by anglers whose primary residence lies outside Washington County. The total local value of output generated by all anglers amounts to $89,800. Of that amount $24,400 accrues to local residents as income. Counting only spending by nonresidents (new money injected into the Washington County economy), the total local value of output generated is $77,500 and the local income generated is $20,700.

Miscellaneous Angler Comments

Anglers offered various miscellaneous comments during, before, or after the interviews. The two most frequent comments pertained to fish abundance and a rumor that the state is considering a saltwater recreational fishing license. Repeatedly we heard that fish, such as mackerel, flounder, harbor pollock, and cod are not as abundant as they had been in years past. Likewise there are not as many people fishing as in prior years. Also, the mackerel seem to be arriving later in the summer. One angler from Connecticut said he remembered catching many mackerel at the Breakwater on Fourth of July weekend several years ago. This year mackerel did not appear at all until mid July, and they did not seem to become plentiful until mid August. Numerous anglers indicated their dislike for the idea of a saltwater recreational fishing license. Some suggested that they would no longer come to the Breakwater to fish if they were required to buy a fishing license. Others commented that a fishing license requirement would especially discourage families with children from fishing. One recreational boater lamented that there were so few docking locations with dockside amenities (such as fuel, food, entertainment, and lodging). He suggested that more dockside amenities, including lodging, restaurants, and shops, would attract more pleasure boaters to the

12 area. At least two other boaters interviewed had put in at a ramp outside Eastport, but docked in Eastport for lunch or shopping. One angler asked if there was a local charter boat that would take people tuna fishing. Another asked where she could buy fresh, local blueberries. Almost all anglers described their reasons for fishing as a combination of enjoying being on the water and enjoying the sport of it. Many also indicated that getting fish to eat was an important reason for fishing. Several also considered it part of a family trip. At least two anglers described fishing as therapy – both physical and psychological.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cobscook Bay region offers abundant opportunity for shoreside recreational fishing, as well as several public boat ramps, and a charter fishing boat based in Eastport. Many anglers fish for mackerel from shore and from boats. Flounder is another popular species targeted primarily by boating anglers. Cod, halibut, harbor pollock, striped bass, and sharks are also targeted by some anglers. The most popular marine recreational fishing location is the Eastport Breakwater. Numerous anglers from all walks of life congregate there in mid- to late-summer and early fall to fish for mackerel. The number of anglers traveling to the Breakwater is heavily dependent on mackerel abundance. We estimate 2,690 angler fishing days at the Breakwater between May 26th and September 30th, 2007. More than 1900 were day trips from the angler’s primary residence or owned summer home. Almost 800 angler fishing days were spent by anglers on an overnight trip away from their primary residence. Nearly half (48%) of the anglers fishing at the Breakwater on an average day are Washington County residents. Most of these Washington County anglers live in Eastport and nearby towns, although some come for day trips from other parts of the county, such as Machias and Danforth. This angler segment is among the most likely to be fishing for mackerel and intending to keep the fish to eat. This angler segment has the second lowest average income. About 10% of Breakwater anglers travel on a day trip from a primary residence outside Washington County and not from a summer home. The most common travel origins for this group are Aroostook County, Penobscot County, and New Brunswick. This angler segment is

13 most similar to the Washington County resident segment in that it is most likely to keep the fish to eat and has the lowest average income. Overnight trip anglers who make the trip primarily to go fishing (about 8% of anglers) are similar to the day trip anglers who travel from outside Washington County (no summer home) in that the majority comes from Aroostook and Penobscot counties. No respondents in this group came from New Brunswick, but one quarter came from a U.S. state outside of Maine. This segment is the middle income group, compared to the other four segments. Nonresident day trip anglers who make the trip from an owned summer home represent about 14% of anglers at the Breakwater and are similar in some ways to overnight anglers who do not make the trip primarily to go fishing. These two angler segments are the most likely to catch and release and have the highest and second-highest average incomes, respectively. The majority of anglers in both these segments come from U.S. states outside of Maine. Although overnight anglers who come not primarily to fish represent 20% of anglers at the Breakwater, they account for 58% of local spending by anglers. The most common age range for adult anglers at the Eastport Breakwater is 40-59. About 31% of all angler parties have kids present. Fishing from the Breakwater is a popular activity for families, as well as for singles and people of all ages. We hope that local businesses can identify opportunities to profitably expand services to Breakwater anglers with the help of our angler profiles. The anglers on overnight trips not primarily to go fishing are the biggest spenders and most interested in buying local products. An estimated $77,500 local economic impact is generated from nonresident angler trips to the Eastport Breakwater. About $20,700 of that output value accrues to local residents as income. The impact is not large, but it is significant for a town of about 1,600 and a county with about 33,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008b). Also, that impact is created from a single fishing location. The economic impact of boating anglers in the region could not be estimated, but surely adds to the total impact of saltwater recreational fishing in the region. The local economic impact is related to the number of nonresident angler trips, the average spending per trip, and linkages in the local economy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that fishing activity has declined in recent years, primarily because the mackerel have arrived later in the season and in lower numbers. Likewise flounder and other groundfish are reportedly less abundant. Also, many of the anglers are day trippers who do not spend much money on their

14 fishing trips. Most goods purchased in Washington County are imported from outside the county. A significant portion of household income is spent outside the county. Therefore, money injected into the local economy by nonresident travelers leaks out quickly. For these reasons, the local economic impact of saltwater recreational fishing in the Cobscook Bay region is relatively small. Many of the anglers are from lower income brackets and take advantage of the breakwater and mackerel runs as a low cost source of recreation, food, and often a family outing. Partly for that reason, fishing from the Breakwater does not generate a very large economic impact. Not quantified for this study, however, are the less tangible benefits that this activity provides numerous families from Maine and beyond. Likewise, the economic effect of providing a healthful activity, wholesome food source, and possibly less dependence on imported food is not included in our analysis. Fishing sites and infrastructure at locations outside Eastport appear underutilized. Floating docks and boat ramps can be found at several locations in the Cobscook Bay region. Even when the mackerel are running, anglers at these locations are few and far between. There is potential for greater promotion of fishing opportunities in the region. The Cobscook Bay region has good infrastructure for saltwater fishing, and fish abundance appears to be adequate. Together with excellent freshwater fishing in eastern Washington County, the region could do more to promote itself as a prime fishing destination. Additional promotion of recreational fishing opportunities in the area could increase visits by nonresidents and enhance the economic impact of recreational fishing for the Cobscook Bay region.

15 REFERENCES

Flanagan, D. “Report on an Economic Development Strategy for Washington County.” Report commissioned by Governor John E. Baldacci. November 2005.

Mak, J. 2004. Tourism and the Economy: Understanding the Economics of Tourism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

MIG, Inc. 2004. IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0 User Guide, Analysis Guide, and Data Guide. Stillwater, MN.

Mulkey, D. and A.W. Hodges. 2000. Using IMPLAN to Assess Local Economic Impacts. University of Florida Extension Document FE 168. Gainesville, FL. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE168

Schaffer, W.A. 1999. “Regional Impact Models” The Web Book of Regional Science. Regional Research Institute. Available at http://www.rri.wvu.edu/regscweb.htm

Stynes, D.J. 2005. “Economic Impacts of Tourism.” Available at http://www.msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact. Accessed April 2005.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. “Estimates for Maine Counties, 2005.” Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/county.html. Accessed May 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. American FactFinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed May 2008.

Vacationland Resources Committee (VRC) of the Down East Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council. “DESTINY 2010 Strategic Plan.” 2004.

16 APPENDIX

Figure 1. Map of Cobscook Bay region1

1 Map provided by the Cobscook Bay Resource Center.

17

70 63 60

50 43 40 40 Weekday 28 30 Weekend

20 15 11 10 1 2 0 June July August September

Figure 2. Average number of anglers per day at the Eastport Breakwater by month

Night-NotPmr, 20%

Day-WashRes, Night-Pmr, 8% 48% Day-NoSrHm, 10% Day-SrHm, 14%

Figure 3. Percent of angler fishing days in each angler segment

18 100% 90% 80% OtherForeign 70% NewBrwk 60% OtherUS 50% OtherME 40% 30% Penob 20% Aroos 10% 0% Day-SrHm Day- Night-Pmr Night- NoSrHm NotPmr

Figure 4. Location of primary residence for nonlocal angler segments

100% 90% 80% 70% 67% 71% 68% 60% 83% 84% Keep 50% Release 40% 30% 20% 33% 29% 32% 10% 17% 16% 0% Day- Day-SrHm Day- Night-Pmr Night- WashRes NoSrHm NotPmr

Figure 5. Percent keeping vs. releasing fish for different angler segments

19

100% 90% 80% 70% 75K + 60% 50-74K 50% 25-49K 40% 30% > 25K 20% 10% 0% Day- Day-SrHm Day- Night-Pmr Night- WashRes NoSrHm NotPmr

Figure 6. Household income categories for different angler segments

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

Figure 7. Percent of adult respondents in different age categories

20 Table 1. Relationship between angler segment, income, and intention for fish Household Income Intention to Segment Below $50,000 Keep Fish (% of angler parties) (% of angler parties) Day – No Summer Home 79% 84% Day – Washington County Resident 72% 83% Night – Primarily to Fish 60% 71% Night – Not Primarily to Fish 51% 68% Day – With Summer Home 16% 67%

Table 2. Total angler fishing days & local spending at the Eastport Breakwater Local Fishing Total Local Segment Spending % % Days Spending per Day

DAY TRIPS Washington County resident $12.20 1,294 48% $15,800 16% Nonresident with summer home $21.20 369 14% $7,800 8% Nonresident without summer home $21.20 265 10% $5,600 6% Total Day 1,928 72% $29,200 30%

OVERNIGHT TRIPS Trip primarily to go fishing $52.40 214 8% $11,200 12% Trip not primarily to go fishing $103.60 549 20% $56,900 58% Total Overnight 763 28% $68,100 70%

TOTAL 2,690 $97,300

21 Table 3. Local economic impact of fishing at the Eastport Breakwater Total spending Local Impacts

in WashCo Direct Indirect Induced Total

All anglers $97,300 Output $67,200 $12,800 $9,900 $89,800 Labor Income $18,300 $3,200 $2,900 $24,400

Nonresident $81,500 anglers only Output $57,800 $11,300 $8,300 $77,500 Labor Income $15,400 $2,800 $2,500 $20,700

Table 4. Local spending profiles per angler fishing day at the Breakwater Day Trip – Day Trip – Day Trip – Overnight – Overnight – WashCo Nonres with Nonres no Primarily to Not primarily resident sumr home sumr home go fishing to go fishing Hotel or motel ------$4.80 $4.80 Other lodging ------$13.40 $27.20 Restaurant & $4.90 $8.20 $9.60 $12.40 $28.20 take-out Groceries $0.70 $1.90 $1.20 $7.20 $19.80 Gasoline $3.70 $5.90 $6.90 $7.60 $12.20 Fishing tackle $2.80 $2.10 $2.00 $1.00 $1.20 Clothing -- $0.80 $1.30 $1.40 $1.20 Locally produced ------$0.40 $0.70 food Locally made ------$1.90 $0.80 arts & crafts Other gifts & -- $2.20 -- $1.30 $5.00 souvenirs Other expenses $0.10 $0.10 $0.20 $1.00 $2.50 Total $12.20 $21.20 $21.20 $52.40 $103.60

22