MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETING Coastal Education and Visitors Center at Fort Macon State Park, Atlantic Beach, N.C. Nov. 2-4, 2011
N.C.G.S. 138A-15(e) mandates at the beginning of any meeting of a board, the chair shall remind all members of their duty to avoid conflicts of interest under Chapter 138. The chair also shall inquire as to whether there is any known conflict of interest with respect to any matters coming before the board at that time.
N.C.G.S. 143B-289.54.(g)(2) states a member of the Marine Fisheries Commission shall not vote on any issue before the Commission that would have a "significant and predictable effect" on the member's financial interest. For purposes of this subdivision, "significant and predictable effect" means there is or may be a close causal link between the decision of the Commission and an expected disproportionate financial benefit to the member that is shared only by a minority of persons within the same industry sector or gear group. A member of the Commission shall also abstain from voting on any petition submitted by an advocacy group of which the member is an officer or sits as a member of the advocacy group's board of directors. A member of the Commission shall not use the member's official position as a member of the Commission to secure any special privilege or exemption of substantial value for any person. No member of the Commission shall, by the member's conduct, create an appearance that any person could improperly influence the member in the performance of the member's official duties.
Commissioners having questions about a conflict of interest or appearance of conflict should consult with counsel to the Marine Fisheries Commission or the secretary’s ethics liaison. Upon discovering a conflict, the commissioner should inform the chair of the commission in accordance with N.C.G.S. 138A-15(e). Nov. 2 6 p.m. Public Meeting Receive public comment relative to fisheries management issues. Nov. 3 9 a.m. Call to Order* Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation Conflict of Interest Reminder Roll Call Approval of Agenda** and Approval of Meeting Minutes** 9:15 a.m. Public Comment Receive public comment relative to fisheries management issues. 9:45 a.m. Issues from Commissioners 10 a.m. Chairman’s Report Review administrative actions and issues from the chair. Letters 10:15 a.m. Committee Reports Nominating Vote on nominees for the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils. Vote on Slate of Nominees** Sea Turtle Review and discuss committee recommendations on the Division of Marine Fisheries’ Incidental Take Permit application submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service for possible commission comment. Habitat and Water Quality Strategic Habitat Area Review and approve strategic habitat areas selected for Coastal Region 2 for inclusion in the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. Vote on Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas** 11 a.m. Finalize Limited Entry Provisions for Commercial Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Fisheries Vote on Provisions** 12:30 p.m. Lunch Recess 2 p.m. Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan Review advisory committee/public input on options to end overfishing within two years of final adoption of the plan, select preferred management options and approve sending out for departmental and legislative review. Review Advisory Committee and Public Input Select Preferred Management Option** Vote to send to Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations** 3 p.m. Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Amendment 1 Review advisory committee/public input on draft FMP, select preferred management options and approve sending out for departmental and legislative review. Review Advisory Committee and Public Input Select Preferred Management Options** Vote to send to Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations ** 3:30 p.m. Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2 Review plan amendment and vote to send out to advisory committees/public meetings. Vote to send out to public meetings/advisory committee review** 4:30 p.m. Rule Suspensions – David Taylor The commission must vote to continue suspension of any rules the Division of Marine Fisheries Director has suspended by proclamation. Vote on Rule Suspension for Spotted Seatrout** Vote on Rule Suspension for Gill Net Yardage Restrictions** Vote on Rule Suspension for Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Gear Permit Date** 4:45 p.m. Rulemaking Update – Catherine Blum Review public comment and vote on final rules (earliest effective date April 1, 2012). Review of Hearing and Public Comment Vote on Approving Permanent Rules on the Following Subjects:** 1. 15A NCAC 03M .0504 - Repeal rule and continue management of the spotted seatrout fishery via existing proclamation authority 2. 15A NCAC 03M .0519 - Incorporate the current, long-standing proclamation closure of the American shad ocean fishery into rule 3. 15A NCAC 03O .0111 - Streamline the service of process for the surrender of fishing licenses by allowing service to licensees by certified mail 4. 15A NCAC 03O .0114 - Establish requirements for the suspension, revocation and reissuance of licenses 5:30 p.m. Recess Nov. 4 8:30 a.m. Director’s Report Reports and updates on recent Division of Marine Fisheries activities. Legislative Update Oyster Season – Mike Marshall Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Smooth Dogfish Atlantic Menhaden Highly Migratory Species – Randy Gregory For-Hire License Report – Don Hesselman Recreational Discard Mortality Workgroup Report – John Hadley Protected Resources – Red Munden Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council – Red Munden South Atlantic Fishery Management Council – Michelle Duval Recurring Updates Marine Patrol Report Coastal Recreational Fishing License Sales Report Coastal Angler Program Red Drum and Striped Bass Quota Southern Flounder Landings Big Book of Data and Semi-Annual Landings Bulletin 10 a.m. Issues from Commissioners 10:30 a.m. Adjourn
2012 Meeting Schedule: Feb. 22-24 Morehead City area Aug. 22-24 Raleigh area May 9-11 Morehead City area Nov. 7-9 Morehead City area
* Times indicated are merely for guidance. The commission will proceed through the agenda until completed. **Action Items
Minnuutes
THE MFC ADVISER Marine Fisheries Commission Business Meeting The Holiday Inn Brownstone, Raleigh North Carolina Sept. 7-9, 2011
The Marine Fisheries Commission and the Division of Marine Fisheries continue to look for ways to keep committee advisers and the public informed about commission activities. It is our intent to publish the MFC Adviser after each business meeting, summarizing the meeting, and providing a list of motions and rulemaking proceedings. Hopefully this bulletin will keep you better informed about commission activities. Visit http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/marine- fisheries-commission-and-related-links to view this and past issues of the Adviser. Your comments regarding this update are always appreciated – please contact Nancy Fish by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 252-808-8021 or 1-800-682-2632.
The commission held a public meeting on the evening of Sept. 7, followed by a business meeting Sept. 8 and 9 at the Holiday Inn Brownstone in Raleigh, North Carolina. The following commission members were in attendance: Rob Bizzell-Chairman, Anna Beckwith, Mikey Daniels, Chris Elkins, Allyn Powell, Joe Shute, Bradley Styron and Darrell Taylor. Joseph Smith had an excused absence.
The briefing book and presentations from this meeting can be found at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/september-2011-mfc-briefing-book.
The audio of this meeting can be found at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/mfc-meetings-audio.
PUBLIC MEETING – SEPT. 7
The public meeting began at 6 p.m. Chairman Rob Bizzell advised that anyone who wishes to speak to the commission on a fisheries-related matter may do so during this public comment period or at 9:15 a.m. the following day. Bizzell explained that given time constraints individuals may speak only once, either on Sept. 7 or on Sept. 8, but not during both public comment periods. The following individuals spoke:
Chris McCafferty, a commercial fisherman from Morehead City, expressed concerned about regulatory discards. He recommended the commission remove all size limits because size limits result in dead discards. McCafferty said the commission should set annual quotas on all targeted species and have a bycatch allowance on non-targeted species, with 10 percent of quota set aside for trip limit overages. He said all overages should be donated to the poor. He said a cooperative fish house should be established at the N.C. Port in Morehead City instead of toxic sulfur plant that had been considered. McCafferty said portable windmill-powered aerators should be used to mix coastal waters that have low dissolved oxygen to avoid fish kills, that artificial reefs could be the perfect union of aquaculture and commercially wild-caught fish, that the state should develop markets for rays and skates that are eating bay scallops and management should have the goal of a balanced harvest of as many different species as possible.
1
Greg Hurt, the vice chair of the Coastal Conservation Association-NC, asked the commission to consider our state’s sensitive and valuable fisheries resources when making management decisions.
Bill Mandulak, with the Coastal Conservation Association-NC, said that for the commercial ocean striped bass fishery the CCA does not think hook-and-line is an appropriate term to be used as it implies the possibility of long lines, and feels that rod-and-reel is a better term to use. He said the purpose of his organization’s comments is to eliminate waste and not to exceed the quota, while allowing fishermen to fish safely, while catching their quota. Mandulak said the CCA feels: Trawling should be eliminated immediately as a gear type in the commercial ocean striped bass fishery and replaced with a rod-and-reel gear category. The quota allocated to the trawlers should be shifted to the rod-and-reel gear category. Beach seine and gill net fishermen should be allowed to use rod-and-reel gear if they chose as their sole gear. Commercial fishing days should be Monday through Thursday to eliminate conflicts, prolong the season and maintain the market value of the catch. Rods-and-reels and terminal tackle similar to that used by recreational fishermen should be allowed. Electric reels should not be prohibited. No long lines or gaffs are permitted. Daily bag limits should be 20 to 30 fish per vessel. High-grading should be prohibited. All legal fish must be retained and undersized fish returned safely and promptly to the water. The use of gaffs in landing of striped bass in both commercial and recreational sectors should be prohibited.
BUSINESS MEETING - MOTIONS AND ACTIONS – SEPT. 8-9
Chairman Rob Bizzell convened the Marine Fisheries Commission business meeting at 9 a.m. with an invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a reminder to commissioners of their ethics requirements. All members were present.
Motion by Anna Beckwith to approve the Sept. 2011 agenda, seconded by Darrell Taylor - motion carries without objection.
Motion by Darrell Taylor to approve May 2011 minutes, seconded by Anna Beckwith - motion carries without objection.
Public Comment Steve Ammons, Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation Association-NC, welcomed the new commissioners and asked the commission to eliminate the waste in both the commercial and recreational sectors, restore the resource back to the glory days of North Carolina, and follow the letter of the law. He said the commission will get criticism either way, but if the commission follows these three things, it will know it did the job the way it’s supposed to be done. Also, use the Division of Marine Fisheries staff. Ammons said if the commission does not believe the
2 division’s information, then ask them to prove it. He asked the commission to make decisions for resource of North Carolina and everything else will take care of itself.
Sara Winslow, of Merry Hill and a former division staffer, said she had a good bit of experience dealing with the striped bass ocean fishery and the state cannot afford another fiasco like the one that happened this past year. She said the commission should consider tow times as a management option. Winslow said she knew it would be an enforcement nightmare, but that during the striped bass tagging cruises that she worked on, they were able to tow for 15 to 20 minutes and catch 600 fish, tag them and return the fish to the water alive. She said in the past, all the gears in the ocean commercial fishery have exceeded their quota. Winslow said that the division has strived to divide the quota equally among the gear types and that the industry always requested that the seasons be staggered for market purposes. She cautioned that just adding hook-and-line as another gear type will not do any good because anyone with a Standard Commercial Fishing License will be allowed to enter the fishery. She also said a bycatch fishery alone for the trawlers will not work because it is hard to control discards. Winslow then said there would be high-grading with hook-and-line, and less fish would be reported because fishermen may choose not to sell the fish they catch. She closed by saying she does not think the permit system is working and that limited entry is the way to go, and then the commission should develop a hook-and-line fishery. She encouraged the commission to develop something that curtails discards and waste, but protects the traditional fisheries.
Bert Owens, a Coastal Conservation Association-NC member from Beaufort, speaking on behalf of the CCA, told the commission to pass a fishery management plan for spotted seatrout that complies with state law and ends overfishing without regard to the impact on individual sub- groups. He said the CCA also supported only allowing circle hooks with dead or live bait at the Rock Jetty. He also did an analysis of commercial landings for striped mullet, croaker, crabs, southern flounder, and spot since the 1997 Fisheries Reform Act and said that landings had declined overall by 45 percent since that time. Owens said in the private sector people would be fired for producing such poor results. He said the people of North Carolina deserve better management.
Terry Pratt, a commercial fisherman from Merry Hill and the president of the Albemarle Sound Fishermen’s Association, talked about the definition that the National Marine Fisheries Service uses for overfishing and said it was flawed terminology based on opinion and supposition. He said fish respond to environmental factors and not laws. Pratt said laws and definitions do not make a difference, nature does. He said fishermen are catching less fish because there are fewer fishermen. Pratt closed by saying the problem is environmental imbalance.
James Fletcher, president of United National Fishermen’s Association from Manns Harbor, said that North Carolina should inform the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that our state will enforce fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone, not the Coast Guard or the National Marine Fisheries Service. He also said one way to reduce waste was to require barbless hooks statewide. Fletcher said there was an issue about being able to sell striped bass larger than 38 inches in the New York markets and told the commission to create a system for tagging fish that would allow those fish to be sold anywhere. He told the commission to think about weakfish, where that stock decreased significantly, and regulations had no effect. He also asked that the commission consider opening Exclusive Economic Zone from Hatteras Point to the South 3
Carolina line to trawling for croakers. Fletcher closed by saying fishery management plans are written to target the largest female fish, and that is not good.
Lee Parsons, a fishing guide from New Hanover County, encouraged the commission to vote for what’s best for the fishery, not what’s best for the fishermen. He said he would like to see fisheries fixed in a logical manner, not in an extremist manner. Parsons said there were three different water areas in the state – the northern, central and southern areas. In southern area, where he is from, there are narrow strips of water and more boats and people out on the water. Because of these differences he believes the southern area should have different considerations for gigging speckled trout. He said the water becomes very clear in his area in the winter making speckled trout easy to gig and he believes the gigged fish are not being reported accurately and they should be managed by a trip limit or quota. He said 100 pounds a night for commercial fishermen and four fish per day for recreational fishermen would be good. Parsons closed by saying that for the commercial striped bass fishery, that trawls should be eliminated and replaced by hook-and-line gear down the road.
Issues from Commissioners There were no issues from commissioners.
Chairman’s Report N.C. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall administered the oath of office to three new commission members who were appointed by Gov. Bev Perdue in July. They are Chris Elkins, who is in a recreational seat and fills the vacancy left by the resignation of Edward Lee Mann; Allyn Powell is in the scientist seat and replaces B.J. Copeland, whose term had expired; and Joe Shute is in the recreational industry seat and replaces Mac Currin, whose term had expired.
Chairman Bizzell read the evaluation of statements of economic interest by the State Ethics Commission for the new commissioners.
Former Marine Fisheries Commission members B.J. Copeland and Mac Currin were presented with plaques and recognized for their dedication to conserving and protecting our marine resources and for their service to the state of North Carolina.
Chairman Bizzell reviewed letters that had been sent by the commission on various issues.
The 2012 commission meeting schedule was discussed and commissioners were asked to advise staff if they had conflicts with any of the following dates:
Feb. 22-24 in Morehead City area May 9-11 in Morehead City area Aug. 22-24 in Raleigh Nov. 7-9 in Morehead City area
Election of Vice-Chair The MFC elected Anna Beckwith as vice chairman of the commission.
4
Joe Shute nominated Anna Beckwith for vice chair. Mikey Daniels nominated Bradley Styron for vice chair. Voting was by ballot. Anna Beckwith was elected vice chair.
Committee Reports The commission received reports from all committees that met since the May 2011 business meeting.
Sea Turtle Advisory Committee: Chairman Bizzell noted that the Sea Turtle Advisory Committee had expressed a desire to meet at least quarterly and requested to receive guidance on how to have more dialogue with fishermen and how to translate that dialogue and fishermen’s ideas into research projects that look at ways to protect sea turtles while allowing commercial fishing activities. The committee also expressed frustration that it was not allowed to comment on the Division of Marine Fisheries’ Incidental Take Permit application prior to submittal to National Marine Fisheries Service. It was explained that the sea turtle settlement agreement specified that the advisory committee would comment on future ITP applications, but would not review the current application.
Division of Marine Fisheries Director Louis Daniel then asked for a discussion on when to open the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area. While the area could open as early as Sept. 1, there usually are turtles still in the area and low flounder catches. The commission decided to open the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area on Sept. 19 for seven days a week under the same regulations and permit requirements as previous years. However, if there is an interaction with a Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, fishing will be reduced to six days a week. If there is a second interaction with a live Kemp’s ridley, fishing will be reduced to five days a week. The commission also authorized Director Daniel to implement stricter regulations, if needed. The Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area must close to all large-mesh gill nets for the remainder of the fall fishing season if the fishery has interactions with three live or two dead Kemp’s ridley sea turtles.
The commission also decided to open southern Core Sound, Back Sound, The Straits and North River to set large-mesh gill nets on Oct. 1 under regulations established by a sea turtle lawsuit settlement. Since this settlement only allows this fishery on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, the effective opening date will be Oct. 3.
Motion by Bradley Styron to: Keep southern Core Sound (D1 ) closed until Oct. 1 to large mesh gill nets Open the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area to large mesh gill nets under previous Incidental Take Permit conditions on Sept.19 for seven days a week, - In the event of a Kemp’s ridley interaction reduce the fishing week to six days - In the event of a second Kemp’s ridley interaction reduce the fishing week to five days Seconded by Mikey Daniels - motion carries without objection.
Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Commercial Hook-and-Line Issue Michelle Duval, who is one of the division’s Executive Assistants for Councils and Commissions, presented the commission with public and advisory committee input on developing a commercial hook- 5 and-line fishery for ocean-caught striped bass to help avoid waste. The directive came after the commission reviewed incidents of dead discards of striped bass in the ocean trawl fishery this winter.
To view this presentation go to: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=a56913bf-c38a-4abc-8a8e- 0d03c68fada5&groupId=38337 .
After discussion, the commission adopted a proposal for a limited entry system for the commercial Atlantic Ocean striped bass fishery, possibly for the 2012-2013 fishing season. The proposal adds hook-and-line as an allowable commercial gear in the fishery.
Approval of this proposal effectively directs the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries to develop a limited entry system for the fishery. The division will bring specifics of a proposal before commission for final approval in the coming months.
For the interim, the commission approved a short-term strategy to manage the commercial ocean striped bass fishery with seasons and trip limits under the same gear permit system used in previous years.
Commercial fishermen wishing to participate in the ocean striped bass fishery this winter need to purchase an Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Commercial Gear Permit. There will not be a deadline on obtaining this permit this year. The permit costs $10 and is available at any N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries license office. Fisherman can also call the division to request a mail-in application.
At the time of permit application, the person holding the commercial fishing license or license assignment must declare what type of gear he intends to use: gill net, trawl or beach seine. Gear declarations will be binding on the permit holder for three consecutive years or until the limited entry permit system begins.
For the upcoming season, beach seines will open Dec. 1 with a 150-fish-per-day-per-license harvest limit and a four-man-per-license maximum crew limit. The beach seine season will close once the quota is caught.
Gill net season will open Jan. 1 with a 50-fish-per-day-per-vessel harvest limit. The gill net season will stay open until the quota is caught.
Trawl net season will begin immediately after the gill net season closes, but no later than Jan. 15 (whichever comes first). Trawl permit holders will be under a 100-fish-per-vessel-per-day harvest limit. During the open season trawl permit holders may only possess ocean striped bass on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Trawl net permit holders will be allowed a 15-fish-per day-per vessel bycatch from Dec. 1 until the regular trawl net season opens.
In order to avoid waste, fishermen who hold either of the three gear permit will be allowed to transfer fish they catch over the daily harvest limit to other striped bass permit holders. If a trawl 6 vessel needs to return to the dock with more than its daily trip limit for any circumstance, Marine Patrol must be notified before docking. Any overage or transfer at the dock will be overseen by a Marine Patrol officer.
Transferred fish will be counted against the quota.
In the event of a fish spill similar to this past winter, the commission authorized division Director Louis Daniel to deduct any quantifiable waste in the commercial Atlantic Ocean striped bass fishery from the commercial quota.
Motion by Anna Beckwith to adopt the following Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Permit Proposal, seconded by Joe Shute – motion carries 4-2, with 1 abstention.
Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Permit Proposal 1. Management Plan Options a. Limit access to “permitted” fishermen and allow sale of those permits to other Standard Commercial Fishing License holding fishermen, but manage fish through seasons and trip limits.
2. Proposed Program Design a. Eligibility requirements: 1. Period – 2202 through 2005 had most fisheries open with current ASMFC poundage (480,480 lbs). DMF feels 2002-2005 best exemplified the traditional striped bass fishery when all gear sectors were involved. One permit allowed for each eligible Standard Commercial Fishing License holder. (One person may hold multiple permits which can be assigned just like the Standard Commercial Fishing License). 2. Initial allocations will only be for fishermen who have a history in the ocean striped bass fishery will be based on historical catch record from the Trip Ticket Program, from 2002-2005. a. Appeals process described below. 3. Minimum poundage requirements: All Standard Commercial Fishing License holders landing 300-500 pounds in two of the three qualifying years. b. Initial allocation options: 1. Entire pound quota available to all gear sectors and manage gears through season and trip limits (described below). c. Appeals of initial eligibility 1. There will be an appeals process to last no more than 18 months from the time initial permits are allocated. Alternate year combination (to be determined) where Standard Commercial Fishing License holders landing 300 pounds in two of the three qualifying years may be eligible. The eligibility board will consider the appeal on a case by case basis. d. Transfers 7
1. Allow transfers from any gear/permit holder to any additional permit holder any time (at sea or at dock). Trawlers must communicate to Division of Marine Fisheries Marine Patrol their intention to transfer before entering inshore waters. All transfers and overages go against total quota. Limit on the amount of fish that can be transferred will be set at twice the bag limit. e. Transferability of limited permits 1. Allow permit assignments (seasonal) and permanent transfers just like Division of Marine Fisheries allows Standard Commercial Fishing License assignments and transfers. f. Allowable gears 1. Gill net ( description of current gears used provided by Division of Marine Fisheries for our consideration) 2. Beach Seine: Current definition is “For the purpose of this Rule, a beach seine is defined as a swipe net constructed of multi-filament or multi-fiber webbing fished from the ocean beach that is deployed from a vessel launches from the ocean beach where the fishing operation takes place.” 3. Trawlers (description of current gears used provided by Division of Marine Fisheries for our consideration.) 4. The first year of the program will not allow hook-and-line, giving the Division of Marine Fisheries time to maneuver through legislative changes required to current rules. 5. Beginning in the second year, allow participants to utilize hook and line/rod and reel as additional allowable gear. - Allow bandit gear and electric reels unless data become available that shows an increase in discard mortality in undersized fish. - The use of long line gear is prohibited. Artificial lures can have a max of two hooks (either single or treble hook) - The use of circle hooks (either in-line or offset circle hook) will be required with any live or dead natural bait, artificial hooks allowed, and barbless hooks required. g. No sale from Charter Trips 1. Prohibit sale of striped bass from for-hire trips. h. Tracking of landings 1. Trip Ticket Program i. Overages 1. Overages will be deducted from the following year. j. Monitoring and enforcement 1. Will be managed by gear sector season and trip limit. 2. Maintain dealer quota monitoring program for a period of time.
8
3. Visible permit should be issued to assist Marine Patrol in identify participants.
Motion by Mikey Daniels to adopt the following proposal for the upcoming striped bass season, seconded by Bradley Styron – motion carries without objection.
Upcoming Striped Bass Season 1. Beach Seine Open beach seine Dec. 1st and stay open until quota (160,000) caught. Be able to accept overage from other two user groups, (trawl & gillnet). No wasted fish, 150 fish per license with a four man crew max. 2. Gillnet Open season Jan. 1st and stay open until the quota is caught, 50 fish per vessel. Transfer is legal including vessel to vessel at sea. No wasted fish! 3. Trawl Trawl opens no later than Jan. 15th or if quota for gillnet is reached, open immediately after gillnet closure. Starting Dec. 1st, 15 fish bycatch. 100 fish per vessel during regular open season with a window of Monday through Thursday. Also, legal transfer if overage is caught. If vessel has to return to dock for any circumstance Marine Fisheries is to be notified before docking. Any overage or transfer at dock will be overseen by fisheries officers. Tow time limits will be eliminated as all of the above transferability eliminates the need for two times.
Motion by Darrell Taylor to authorize the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries to deduct any quantifiable waste in the Atlantic Ocean striped bass fishery from the quota, seconded by Chris Elkins - motion carries without objection.
Motion by Chris Elkins to authorize the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries to suspend Nov. 1 deadline for applying for striped bass permit, seconded by Bradley Styron - motion carries without objection.
Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan Division biologist Chip Collier reviewed management options for ending overfishing within two years of adoption of the Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan. The commission voted to send these options out for public input and advisory committee review.
A new law passed last year requires all fishery management plans to end overfishing within two years of final adoption. A draft Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan that was developed prior to passage of the law and tentatively approved in November, does not meet this criteria.
To view this presentation go to: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=098d6358-617d-4cbd-8637- d6b03216b956&groupId=38337 .
Motion by Chris Elkins to close the spotted seatrout fishery in the month of December - motion withdrawn. 9
Motion by Darrell Taylor to send the draft Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan out for public comment on ending overfishing with two years of final adoption of the FMP, seconded by Chris Elkins - motion carries without objection.
Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Amendment 1 Division biologist Charlton Godwin and Central District Manager Katy West presented the commission with the draft Estuarine Striped Bass Fisheries Management Plan, which is a joint plan with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and consists of three management areas. The Albemarle Sound Management Area includes the Albemarle Sound and its tributaries, and Currituck, Roanoke and Croatan Sounds and their tributaries, including Oregon Inlet. Roanoke River Management Area encompasses the Roanoke River and its tributaries including the Middle, Eastmost and Cashie rivers up to the Roanoke Rapids Dam. The Central Southern Management Area includes all other internal coastal waters.
Recommendations from the division in the draft amendment to the Striped Bass plan include:
Keeping current seasons, area restrictions, harvest limits and size limits for the estuarine striped bass fisheries; Instituting an overage payback provision for the Central Southern Management Area commercial harvest total allowable catch; Continuing to stock striped bass in the Tar-Pamlico, Neuse and Cape Fear rivers; Closing the Atlantic Ocean to the recreational harvest of striped bass in the summer.
To view this presentation go to: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=8dc4ff31-df0e-4f08-9519- 0f594772b38b&groupId=38337.
The commission voted to send these options out for public input and advisory committee review.
Motion by Anna Beckwith to send the Amendment 1 to the Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan out for public comment, seconded by Darrell Taylor - motion carries without objection.
Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2 Stock assessment scientist Ray Mroch presented the commission with the latest assessment of the status of blue crab stocks in North Carolina. The division used a new assessment tool called the traffic light method and found the stock is not overfished. In addition, the assessment showed there were some increasing trends in the Albemarle region, while trends were decreasing in the Pamlico and Southern regions. Production of crabs was variable, but more positive in recent years. And, with adult and recruit abundance, higher levels occurred before 2000, with more negative trends in recent years.
To view this presentation go to: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=670776c7-5530-4522-9ffb- 703f4af49b6e&groupId=38337.
10
Stock Status Report Northern District Manager Kathy Rawls updated the commission on the 2011 Stock Status Report of Important Coastal Fisheries outlining changes from the previous year. This annual report is intended to serve as an overview of the overall health of North Carolina’s fisheries resources. The information contained in the stock status report is used to prioritize development of fishery management plans and subsequent plan amendments. The species with status changes for 2011 are outlined below and include summer flounder, striped bass in the central/southern management area, Atlantic menhaden and bay scallop. All other species status’s remained the same.
Summer flounder improved from “recovering” to “viable.” The 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service’s, Northeast Fisheries Science Center stock assessment indicates the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring based on the current biological reference points. Fishing mortality has steadily decreased since the early 1990s and spawning stock biomass has generally increased since that time period.
Striped bass in the Central/Southern Management Area changed from depleted to concern. Stocks lack a quantified stock assessment. The updated 2010 catch curve analysis contained a significant lack of precision which made it unusable for stock status determination. The stock continues to show a truncated size and age distribution, low abundance and an absence of older fish. Improved data collection must be conducted before an accurate stock assessment can be made.
Atlantic menhaden have moved from viable to concern. Based on the corrected version of the 2010 benchmark stock assessment, the Atlantic menhaden stock is found to be experiencing overfishing, but is not considered overfished. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has tasked its Technical Committee to develop alternative reference points for the stock.
Bay Scallop has been moved from recovering to concern. Independent sampling in 2010 showed low abundance in all areas. The main harvest season was not opened in 2011 due to limited availability of scallops. Environmental change and predation can cause significant variability in annual abundance.
Species with N.C. Fishery Management Plans being developed or amended in 2011-2012 include striped bass, speckled trout, striped mullet, blue crab and southern flounder. Additional species to monitor that have upcoming amendments or assessments through Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission or federal councils include Atlantic striped bass, American eel and Atlantic menhaden.
The full stock status report can be found on the division website at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/2011-stock-status-report
Fishery Management Plan Schedule and Timelines Division Fisheries Management Section Chief, David Taylor, reviewed the status of various state and interjurisdictional fishery management plans and presented the commission with a proposed timeline for the development of fishery management plans through 2016.
11
Motion by Anna Beckwith to approve the 2011-2016 Fishery Management Plan Schedule, seconded by Mikey Daniels - motion carries without objection.
Rule Suspension for Spotted Seatrout If the division director suspends any fisheries rules by proclamation, the commission must re- suspend those rules at the next meeting. At its May 2011 meeting, the commission instructed the director to suspend the 12-inch spotted seatrout size limit rule and implement a 14-inch size limit for spotted seatrout by proclamation.
Motion by Mikey Daniels to suspend spotted seatrout size limit rule 15 NCAC 03M .0504 b, seconded by Darrell Taylor - motion carries without objection.
Rule Suspension for Gill Net Yardage Restrictions If the division director suspends any fisheries rules by proclamation, the commission must re- suspend those rules at the next meeting. At its May 2011 meeting, the commission instructed the director to suspend the 3,000 yard maximum yardage rule for large-mesh gill nets and implement a 2,000-yard maximum yardage rule by proclamation.
Motion by Anna Beckwith to suspend to suspend gill net rule 15 NCAC 03J .0103, seconded by Joe Shute - motion carries without objection.
Rulemaking The commission considered both temporary and permanent rule changes in response to the passage of Session Law 2011-398, the Regulatory Reform Act, which become effective July 25, 2011. This law made changes to the timeline process for consideration of declaratory ruling requests. The commission decided to propose both temporary and permanent rules to delegate to the Marine Fisheries Commission chairman the responsibility of determining if a declaratory ruling request was complete and if so to grant a hearing.
Motion by Bradley Styron to initiate rulemaking for temporary and permanent rules to the Office of Administrative Hearings, seconded by Anna Beckwith - motion carries with one objection.
Motion by Chris Elkins to approve Notice of Text for rulemaking for the permanent rules to the Office of Administrative Hearings, seconded by Joe Shute - motion carries with one objection.
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Coordinator, Jimmy Johnson, gave the commission an overview of the bi-annual implementation plan.
To access information about the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan visit: http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/CHPP_Overview.htm
Motion by Anna Beckwith to approve the 2011-2013 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan implementation plan, seconded by Bradley Styron - motion carries without objection.
12
Motion by Anna Beckwith to approve the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan annual report, seconded by Bradley Styron - motion carried without objection.
Standard Commercial Fishing License Eligibility Report The commission voted to keep the cap on the number of standard commercial fishing licenses that can be issued to 8,896, the maximum allowed by law. There are 1,375 of these licenses available through the Eligibility Board for 2011-2012.
Motion by Bradley Styron to approve 1,375 Standard Commercial Fishing Licenses to be available in the eligibility pool, seconded by Mikey Daniels - motion carries without objection.
Director’s Report The commission received an overview of the Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section which was moved from Environmental Health to the Division of Marine fisheries during the past legislative session.
To view this presentation go to: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c0502000-2eb6-4ac2-9eff- 6016fb93e369&groupId=38337.
While reviewing Protected Resources activities, Director Louis Daniel announced that the division had submitted its statewide Incidental Take Permit application to the National Marine Fisheries Service on Aug. 15 to allow limited interactions with sea turtles in the inshore gillnet fishery. After the National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the application, it will be published in the Federal Register with a 60-day comment period.
Also, related to sea turtles, Director Daniel announced fishermen setting large-mesh gill nets in portions of Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke sounds and portions of the Neuse, Pamlico and Bay rivers, will soon be under the same regulations as they were prior to a sea turtle lawsuit settlement agreement.
The changes are the result of an agreement between the division, the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission and the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center to modify the lawsuit settlement based on data from Division of Marine Fisheries gill net observer coverage. Director Daniel pointed out that the division has more than a year’s worth of data from our observer coverage, and there has not been one record of a commercial fishing-related interaction with a sea turtle in these waters.
If sea turtles are observed in these newly exempted areas, then the stricter regulations will go back in place for the remainder of the season.
The newly exempted areas include waters of Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke sounds north of the Virginia Dare Memorial Bridge and the Washington Baum Bridge. Also exempted are waters of the Pamlico River upstream of Currituck Point and Fulford Point, waters of the Bay River upstream of Bay Point and Maw Point, and waters of the Neuse River upstream of a line from Maw Point to the mouth of South River. 13
All other coastal waters of the state not specifically exempted under the settlement agreement remain under regulations adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission in May 2010. Those regulations prohibited fishermen from setting gill nets between 4-inches and 6 ½-inches stretched mesh in the daytime and on weekends in most waters of the state. They also prohibit setting nets of more than 15 meshes in height, along with other gear restrictions.
Director Daniel then reviewed a letter he had sent James Lecky, head of the Protected Resources Section at the National Marine Fisheries Service, regarding the above referenced modification to the sea turtle settlement agreement and also outlining proposed sea turtle handling and resuscitation protocols for commercial and recreational fishermen.
Also modified was the charge of the commission’s Sea Turtle Advisory Committee as follows:
The Sea Turtle Advisory Committee (STAC) The STAC shall be established as an advisory committee of the Marine Fisheries Commission.
The STAC will consist of 12 members appointed by the Marine Fisheries Commission chairman and the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center. The Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center may recommend six of the 12 members of the STAC. The STAC may be dissolved by mutual agreement of the parties at any time.
The STAC shall meet quarterly at locations and times determined by Division of Marine Fisheries staff and co-chairs of the Marine Fisheries Commission, and shall submit reports of its meetings to the Marine Fisheries Commission. These reports shall be submitted to the Division of Marine Fisheries staff as soon as possible after the conclusion of each meeting. Division of Marine Fisheries staff will submit these reports along with information packets and briefing materials sent to Marine Fisheries Commission members in preparation for each meeting.
Division of Marine Fisheries staff shall circulate to STAC members information concerning bycatch, observer reports, written communications with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding regulatory protections for sea turtles, and all other significant information relevant to the purpose of the STAC, as such information becomes publicly available and in advance of each STAC meeting. In addition, Division of Marine Fisheries staff shall circulate to STAC members for their review and comment preliminary drafts of any incidental take permit application for sea turtles prior to submitting such application to National Marine Fisheries Service.
The duties of the STAC include but are not limited to the following:
Review monthly observer reports and fishing effort data prepared and distributed by Division of Marine Fisheries staff; Review weekly stranding reports prepared and distributed by Wildlife Resources Commission staff; Monitor and advise on concerns with Division of Marine Fisheries’ sea turtle observer program; Devise means for fishermen to report turtle interactions;
14
Assist with fishermen education about sea turtle biology, population and threats to survival; Identify and advise on measures to reduce the incidental take of sea turtles, including gear modification and seasonal restrictions as appropriate; Identify and advise on measures to reduce the incidental take of sea turtles in other state- managed fisheries; and Review and provide comment on all incidental take permit provisions and take calculations prior to formal application to National Marine Fisheries Service.
Declaratory Ruling The commission received a letter from James Fletcher of Manns Harbor requesting a declaratory ruling on the mechanical harvest of clams while legally harvesting oysters with a dredge. Commissioner Mikey Daniels recused himself from the discussion and vote. Mr. Fletcher presented his position to the commission, followed by DENR Counsel Jessica Marlise and the division’s Central District Manager Mike Marshall, presenting the division’s position on the request.
Motion by Anna Beckwith to grant a request to render a declaratory ruling regarding James Fletcher’s request on the mechanical harvest of clams, seconded by Bradley Styron - motion carries without objection.
Motion by Anna Beckwith to declare the current rules do not allow the mechanical harvest of clams during mechanical harvest of oysters, seconded by Chris Elkins - motion carries 5- 0, with 1 abstention, and with 1 recusal.
Issues from Commissioners There were no issues from commissioners.
The meeting adjourned.
The briefing book and presentations from this meeting can be found at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/september-2011-mfc-briefing-book.
The audio of this meeting can be found at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/mfc-meetings-audio.
2011 Meeting Schedule: Feb. 10-11 Pine Knoll Shores May 11-13 Atlantic Beach Aug. 10-12 Raleigh Nov. 2-4 Atlantic Beach
2012 Meeting Schedule: Feb. 22-24 in Morehead City area May 9-11 in Morehead City area Aug. 22-24 in Raleigh Nov. 7-9 in Morehead City area
15
16
Chairman's Report
NORTH CAROLINA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSIONERS
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE ANNA BECKWITH EDWARD LEE MANN SR. Governor Morehead City Manteo B.J. COPELAND JOSEPH J. SMITH JR. DEE FREEMAN Pittsboro Hampstead Secretary MAC CURRIN BRADLEY STYRON Raleigh Cedar Island W. ROBERT BIZZELL MIKEY DANIELS DARRELL TAYLOR Chairman Wanchese Jacksonville
August 12, 2011
Mr. James Fletcher United National Fishermen’s Association 123 Apple Road Manns Harbor, N. C. 27953
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
Please find attached the Order granting your request for a declaratory ruling from the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission, which was subsequently heard by the commission on Sept. 9, 2011. The written declaratory ruling will be forthcoming and will be delivered to you at a later date.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Bizzell, Chairman N. C. Marine Fisheries Commission
Enclosure
cc: Dr. Louis Daniel, DMF Director Frank Crawley MFC Office
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557-0769 www.ncfisheries.net
NORTH CAROLINA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSIONERS BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE ANNA BECKWITH JOE SHUTE Governor Morehead City Morehead City MIKEY DANIELS JOSEPH J. SMITH, JR. DEE FREEMAN Wanchese Hampstead Secretary CHRIS ELKINS BRADLEY STYRON Gloucester Cedar Island W. ROBERT BIZZELL ALLYN POWELL DARRELL TAYLOR Chairman Gloucester Jacksonville
October 3, 2011
Dr. Steve Rebach, Associate Director North Carolina Sea Grant North Carolina State University Box 8605 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8605
Dear Dr. Rebach:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Fishery Resource Grant Program’s release of the 2012 request for proposals. I am writing to notify you of my appointments to the N.C. Fisheries Resource Grant Committee:
Allyn Powell – Marine Fisheries Commission Joe Smith – Marine Fisheries Commission Woody Collins - Marine Fisheries Commission’s Northeast Advisory Committee Dick Leach - Marine Fisheries Commission’s Central Advisory Committee Bert Lomax- Marine Fisheries Commission’s Southeast Advisory Committee Tom Smith - Marine Fisheries Commission’s Inland Advisory Committee
Sincerely,
W. Robert Bizzell, Chairman N. C. Marine Fisheries Commission
Cc: Dr. Louis Daniel Allyn Powell Joe Smith Woody Collins Dick Leach Bert Lomax Tom Smith
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557-0769 www.ncfisheries.net
Committee Reports
MEMORANDUM DRAFT To: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission MFC Nominating Committee Dr. Louis B. Daniel III
From: Red Munden Nancy Fish
Re: MFC Nominating Committee Meeting
Date: Oct. 6, 2011
The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Nominating Committee met at 10 a.m. on Oct. 6, 2011, at the Division of Marine Fisheries Headquarters in Morehead City.
The following were present:
Committee Members – Chairman Bradley Styron (via phone), Rob Bizzell and Joe Shute Staff – Division of Marine Fisheries Director Louis Daniel, Red Munden, Nancy Fish, Michelle Duval Public – Gretchen Martin with the Environmental Defense
Chairman Styron called the meeting to order.
MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There was no public comment.
SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION TO THE MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY AND SOUTH ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT COUNCILS The committee met to select candidates to be considered by the MFC for North Carolina’s nominees for at-large seats on the Mid-Atlantic (MAFMC) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (SAFMC). Munden presented the committee with the legal guidelines for selecting nominees to the MAFMC and the SAFMC. The MAFMC area of jurisdiction is from Cape Hatteras north through New York. Species of concern and management of the MAFMC are summer flounder black sea bass, scup blue fish, and spiny dog fish. The SAFMC area of jurisdiction is from Cape Hatteras south through the east coast of Florida. Species of concern and management of the SAFMC are snapper grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, dolphin and wahoo. Munden gave a brief history of theses council seats and the expectations placed on the nominating committee for nominating new members. The at-large seats are traditionally held by recreational fishing interest or members of the scientific or environmental communities and can be held by a representative from any state in the councils’ areas of jurisdiction. Council members serve three-year terms, and can only serve a maximum of three years. Pres Pate currently sits in the at-large MAFMC seat and his term expires August 2012 and he is eligible for reappointment. Pate has expressed interest in being reappointed. Mac Currin currently sits in the at-large SAMFC seat and his term also expires August 2012; however, he is not eligible for reappointment because he has served three consecutive terms. Munden explained the MFC had to vote on a slate of nominees for these seat at its upcoming Nov. 2-4, 2011 meeting in order to forward that list to Governor Bev Perdue’s office for consideration, and leave adequate time for the successful candidates to complete the nomination packages, which include fingerprint cards, fisheries experience, and resumes; and to allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security time to conduct background checks. Complete nomination packages must be received by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce no later than March 15, 2012.
Munden presented the committee with the names, qualifications and backgrounds of four individuals who expressed interest in serving on the SAFMC - Anna Beckwith, Bill Cole, Dew Forbes and Bob Lorenz. Chairman Stryon requested that Jess Hawkins’ name also be added to the list.
Munden presented the committee with the names, qualifications and backgrounds of three individuals who expressed interest in serving on the MAFMC – Linda Harper, Pres Pate and Sara Winslow.
The committee decided by consensus not to prioritize the list of candidates to by submitted to the MFC.
Motion by Rob Bizzell to accept all of the nominees discussed and to forward these names to the Marine Fisheries Commission for consideration, seconded by Joe Shute – motion passed without dissent.
The MFC will vote on a slate of nominees at its upcoming Nov. 2-4, 2011 meeting at Ft. Macon State Park in Atlantic Beach to forward to Governor Bev Perdue for consideration. Meeting adjourned.
N. C. MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION NOMINEES FOR AN AT-LARGE APPOINTMENT TO THE MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL - AUGUST 2012
Following is a brief summary of the experience that qualifies each nominee to serve as a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council:
Mrs. Linda Harper, 2608 S. Compass Lane, Nags Head, NC 27959, Phone 252-256- 1854. Mrs. Harper has been involved with fishing on several levels since she was 20 years old. She has fished in surf fishing tournaments on the Outer Banks of North Carolina since 1970. In 1977, Mrs. Harper opened and operated a retail fishing tackle business with her husband, which they sold in 1987. Mrs. Harper sat on the Board of Directors for the Ocracoke Invitational Surf Fishing Tournament for 10 years. In 2006 she joined the International Women’s Fishing Association, which has 175 members from across the country and some members from other countries. She now sits on that organization’s Board of Directors. The association not only is a fishing club, but it is also very active in fishery conservation efforts, and raising money for approximately ten scholarships annually for graduate students working toward advanced degrees in marine biology or related fields. Mrs. Harper has been appointed four times consecutively to the Northeast Regional Advisory Committee to the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission. Mrs. Harper fishes approximately 75 days a year in the waters of North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Virginia. She enjoys speaking with and learning from fishermen and scientists about fisheries issues and conservation measures and regulations in other states than North Carolina.
Mr. Preston P. Pate, Jr., 1391 Highway 24, Newport, N.C. 28570, Phone 252-726- 4883. Mr. Pate holds BS and MS degrees in fisheries biology from N.C. State University. He began his professional career in 1971 as a marine biologist with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries working on anadromous fishes in the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds. In 1978, Mr. Pate transferred to the newly formed N.C. Division of Coastal Management where he was responsible for management of the coastal development permit program. He served as the assistant director of the Division of Coastal Management from 1985-1997. Mr. Pate returned to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries as director 1997. He served in that capacity for 10 years until retiring in 2007. As fisheries director, Mr. Pate was responsible for the stewardship and management of the marine and estuarine resources of North Carolina. Responsibilities included administration and enforcement of all statutes and rules governing commercial and recreational fishing in coastal waters, development and improvement of cultivation and harvesting of shellfish and submerged land claims in North Carolina. Mr. Pate was also responsible for administration of programs in commercial and recreational fisheries management and enforcement, applied research and monitoring, fisheries statistics, shellfish rehabilitation, bottom leasing, submerged land claims, and information and education. Mr. Pate retired in February 2007 with 36 years of service with the State of North Carolina. Since 2007, Mr. Pate has served as a subcontractor with Oak Management providing support to the National Marine Fisheries Service in developing the Marine Recreational Information Program. Mr. Pate was appointed as an at-large member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in 2009 and is eligible for reappointment. He currently serves on the following Mid-Atlantic Council species committees: Demersal and Coastal Migratory, Spiny Dogfish, Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish. In addition, Mr. Pate serves on the Research Set-Aside, Visioning and Executive committees.
Ms. Sara Elliott Winslow, 442 Sutton Road, Merry Hill, NC, 27957. Ms. Winslow graduated from Perquimans County High School in Hertford, NC in 1973. She received a BS Degree in Marine Biology from UNC-Wilmington in 1978. Ms. Winslow began her career with the NC Division of Marine Fisheries in January 1979 as a Marine Fisheries Technician II in the Northern District Office in Elizabeth City. She worked on anadromous species projects until May 1982 when she was promoted to Biologist I where she served as the Project leader for a Shad and River Herring Federal Aid Project until June 1986 when she was promoted to Biologist II. In 1988, Ms. Winslow was promoted to the Northern District Biologist Supervisor position. In that capacity, she was responsible for overseeing biological staff and projects in DMF offices located in Elizabeth City, Manteo and Columbia. In December 2000, Ms. Winslow was promoted to Northern District Manager position where she was responsible for DMF projects and serving as staff for the Northeast Advisory Committee. She also served on the DMF Rules Advisory Team, the Management Review Team and participated in numerous DMF and MFC meetings and activities until her retirement in February 2011. Ms. Winslow served as Project Leader for Phase II Striped Bass stocking and tag returns from 1980 to 2009. She served as Project Leader on NC Shad and River Herring projects where she was responsible for field sampling, data analysis and preparing project reports. She was responsible for reviewing and commenting on habitat alteration permits/documents (CAMA, DWQ, USACOE, EIS, SEPA, etc) for 23 years. During her career, she was involved with the development of DMF Fishery Management Plans and served as the lead on the River Herring FMP, as a member of the Plan Development Team for the NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP, as Co-Lead for the Estuarine Striped Bass FMP and as Mentor for the Estuarine Striped Bass FMP. Additionally, Ms. Winslow served on ASMFC Technical Committees for Shad and River Herring, Striped Bass and the Striped Bass Tagging Committee. For 21 of 23 years, Ms. Winslow participated in the Cooperative Winter Tagging Cruise which involved USFWS, NMFS, NCDMF other East Coast states. As a cruise participant, she was responsible for data collection and tagging striped bass, flounder, red drum, Atlantic sturgeon, and spiny dogfish. Ms. Winslow’s hobbies are salt and freshwater fishing, hunting and gardening.
N. C. MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION NOMINEES FOR AN AT-LARGE APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL - AUGUST 2012
Following is a brief summary of the experience that qualifies each nominee to serve as a member of the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council:
Mrs. Anna Beckwith, 1907 Paulette Road, Morehead City, NC 28557, Phone 252-671- 3474. Mrs. Beckwith holds a BS degree in Environmental Science and Policy from Florida International University in Miami, FL and a MS degree in Biological Oceanography with a Minor in Geographic Information Science from NC State University in Raleigh, NC. Mrs. Beckwith currently serves as the NC Marine Fisheries Commission Vice-Chair in addition to serving on the Habitat and Water Quality, Coastal Habitat Protection Plan and joint DMF/NCWRC Coastal Recreational Fishing License Committees. Since 2007, Mrs. Beckwith has served as the Manager of Down East Guide Service in Morehead City, NC. In that capacity she is responsible for assuring smooth operation of NC and Costa Rica operations. From 2007 – 2009, she managed expansion of the business in NC and Costa Rica. She manages schedules, budgets, designs and manages two websites, provides customer service and is responsible for customer communications including daily communications and quarterly newsletters. From 2005 through 2007, Mrs. Beckwith taught Environmental Science and Biology at the high school level and sixth, seventh and eighth grade science in Eastern, NC. Mrs. Beckwith was a self-employed Research Consultant from 2004 through 2006 conducting research that involved monitoring red drum spawning habitat in the Neuse River Estuary, Pamlico River, Pamlico Sound and Ocracoke Inlet. In this position, she was responsible for budget management, field sampling, and supervision of field staff, data analysis, manuscript preparation and dissemination of data through public media including the filming of fishing shows on red drum, tarpon, flounder, and striped bass. She served as a Research Assistant/Teaching Assistant at NCSU from 2001 through 2004. During that time she identified red drum spawning habitat in the Neuse River Estuary using passive acoustics, water quality, and egg/larval monitoring. In that position, she was also responsible for Instructing laboratory-based classes in Oceanography, Earth System Science, and Biology. Mrs. Beckwith was employed as Program Manager for the American Farmland Trust in Washington, DC from1999 through 2001. Her responsibilities included managing multiple policy initiatives, advocating for increased federal funding of conservation programs, organizing a grass roots policy network, assisting regional offices with state campaigns, and coordinating initiatives with partner organizations.
Mr. Willard W. Cole, Jr., 406 Penrose Court, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410, Phone 336-294-3919. Mr. Cole received a BS degree in Fisheries Biology from NC State University in 1965. He currently serves as the North Carolina Governor’s appointee to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), a position he has held since 2009. Prior to retirement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Mr. Cole served as the South Atlantic Fisheries Coordinator. His responsibility in that position entailed serving as the FWS designated representative to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), ASFMC for the Southeast Regional Director, and as the Regional Director’s designee for several ASMFC fishery Management Boards. Mr. Cole served as the SAFMC Vice-Chairman and as Chairman of several SAFMC committees through 2004. At that time he accepted an Interagency Personnel Appointment (IPA) to the National Marine Fisheries Service and served as a Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Dr. W.T. Hogarth. Mr. Cole has been and continues to be an avid recreational angler holding lifetime North Carolina Hunting and Fishing License. His lengthy professional service as a Fishery Biologist with the FWS, coupled with his past and present service on the ASMFC and past service on SAFMC, in addition to his recreational fishing experience, qualifies him as a nominee for an SAFMC appointment.
Mr. Wiley Dew Forbes, Jr. Mr. Forbes graduated from Dunn High School, Dunn, NC in 1969 and received a BA degree from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, NC in 1973. Mr. Forbes began his boating and fishing career in 1974 working on a private boat out of Wrightsville Beach, NC from spring through fall months and relocating to Long Island, NY and the Eastern Shore of Maryland during winters. Mr. Forbes began traveling the east coast and the Bahamas in 1977 operating a 40 ft. Rybovich vessel and participating in fishing tournaments. In 1980, he received a 100 ton USCG captain’s license which is still current. Mr. Forbes assumed additional responsibility in 1980 managing numerous boats owned by a single individual while continuing to fish tournaments along the east coast and in the Bahamas. In this position, Mr. Forbes was responsible for the upkeep and operation of vessels manufactured by Hatteras, Bertram, Rybovich, Whiticar, Smith in addition to a 70 ft. Stephens motor yacht. In 1986, Mr. Forbes traveled to New England to operate a tow vessel for an America’s Cup sailing team and he also began running fishing charters in NC and Florida. Mr. Forbes became a partner in a charter boat, the Calcutta, in 1987 and began fishing from Atlantic Beach, NC. In 1989, Mr. Forbes began a mackerel tagging program working with the late Dale Ward and NCDMF. In1990, Mr. Forbes bought out his partner in the Calcutta Fishing business. In addition to running charters, Mr. Forbes commercial fished during the winter months. In 1994, Mr. Forbes built a new charter boat, Jarrett Bay hull #15, and sold it and continued to operate Calcutta Fishing on other vessels. He built and sold a second Jarrett Bay boat, hull #18, in 1996 while continuing to operate Calcutta Fishing running charter trips and fishing for blue fin tuna and commercial fishing for other species. Mr. Forbes became involved with Jarrett Bay Boatworks in 1998 in buying and developing Jarrett Bay Marine Industrial Park in 1998. In1999, he purchased stock in JBBW, became a partner and Vice-President, a position he currently holds.
Mr. Jess H. Hawkins III, 112 Hodges Street, Morehead City, N.C. 28557, Phone 252- 808-3354. Mr. Hawkins retired from the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) October 1, 2005 with 28 years of service. Mr. Hawkins began his career with the NCDMF in 1978 as a marine biologist, advancing to District Manager, and then Section Chief, of the DMF Fisheries Management Section. He completed his DMF career the liaison to the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) and Special Assistant to the Fisheries Director. Mr. Hawkins was appointed to the MFC on November 19, 2007 and served as Co-chair of the Habitat and Water Quality Committee. Mr. Hawkins is familiar with the fisheries of the South Atlantic area of jurisdiction. He has fished recreationally for summer flounder, bluefish, black sea bass and spiny dogfish. While with the DMF, he was involved with sampling programs of commercial fisheries for summer flounder, monkfish and bluefish and was involved in management issues involving fisheries for red drum, spotted seatrout, summer and southern flounders, black sea bass, Atlantic menhaden, sharks, tunas, billfish and striped bass. Mr. Hawkins had considerable contact with recreational, commercial and environmental sectors in all positions he held with the division. He was actively involved with the development of fishery management plans for adoption by the MFC for all commercially or recreationally significant species or fisheries that comprise state marine or estuarine resources as mandated by the N.C. Fisheries Reform Act of 1997.
Mr. Robert J. Lorenz, 1509 Meridian Terrace, Wilmington, NC 28411 Phone: (910) 686-2536. Mr. Lorenz received a BS degree in Biological Science-Marine Biology from the Florida Institute of Technology in 1975. He completed a 29 year career in pharmaceutical research and development and manufacturing in 2005. From 1998 until 2005, he maintained a consulting practice in technical operations, quality and manufacturing controls. After retirement, Mr. Lorenz pursued his interest in personal investing, and engaged in volunteer work and activism for quality management of the marine environment, particularly marine fisheries. Mr. Lorenz’s career expertise was developing and improving manufacturing and business processes. He was responsible for assuring that all work complied with federal regulations, particularly those enforced by FDA, DEA, and EPA. His specialty was aiding companies and operations under regulatory and business stress, often under consent decrees and Justice Department actions, brought about from incomplete compliance with regulations, and processes that were substandard. Mr. Lorenz has had a lifelong interest and knowledge in environmental sciences, conservation, and fisheries. He is an avid recreational angler, focused on the ocean of the east coast of the USA from Maine to south Texas. Mr. Lorena’s angling, technical, and environmental knowledge is the Mid-Atlantic Bight area and subtropics down through the Florida Keys. He has worked as a volunteer on fisheries projects such as SAV surveys, water/seine sampling, and at the NC Aquarium at Fort Fisher (3 years) and worked on a shrimp boat during summers while in college in Florida. Mr. Lorenz recently completed 3 years of service on the Board of Governors of the Wilmington Investors Roundtable (250 investors) and currently serves on the board of an environmental group (Cape Fear River Watch, Striper Foundation) and is a member of the Sea Turtle Advisory Committee for the NCMFC.
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Habitat and Water Quality Advisory Committee Louis Daniel
FROM: Anne Deaton
DATE: October 17, 2011
SUBJECT: Habitat and Water Quality Advisory Committee Meeting
The MFC Habitat and Water Quality (HWQ) Advisory Committee (AC) met on Monday, September 12, at 1:00 pm at the Washington Regional Office located at 943 Washington Square Mall. The following attended:
MFC: Allyn Powell, Chris Elkin
Advisors: Tom Ellis, Terry Pratt, Pete Schumann
Staff: Anne Deaton, Jimmy Johnson, Katy West, Kathy Rawls, Kevin Hart, Charlton Godwin, Chip Collier
Public: Thomas Coltrain, James Buch, Lonnie Griffin
Chris Elkin called the meeting to order. There was not a quorum but the AC members did vote on action items as an indication of support.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA AND INTRODUCTIONS
It was suggested that public comment be moved below the striped bass and spotted seatrout presentations. Also Wayne Mathis, who couldn’t make the meeting, asked for the HWQ AC to review a draft review of the National Park Service’s Off Road Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan. Anne Deaton introduced the new members of the HWQ AC and briefly explained duties of the HWQ AC. Chris Elkin and Allyn Powell, both newly appointed to MFC have replaced Anna Beckwith and BJ Copeland on the HWQ AC. Anna was reassigned to a different committee and BJ is no longer on the commission.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The committee reviewed the March 28 2011 minutes. Minutes were approved unanimously.
REVIEW OF THE STRIPED BASS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP)
Charlton Godwin went over the Striped Bass FMP, including the management and research recommendations. There was some discussion of discard mortality that might be associated with the summer recreational fishery up the Neuse River, as well as getting additional information on recreational fishing activities through adding on to some existing surveys. After reviewing the environmental research and management recommendations, there was discussion that a recommendation was needed regarding optimal flows for successful spawning. Tom Ellis made a motion to approve of the research and management recommendations in the Environmental Factors section of the FMP, and to add the following research recommendation:
Identify minimum flow requirements in the Tar/Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear rivers necessary for successful spawning, egg development, and larval transport to nursery grounds.
Pete Schuhmann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
SPOTTED SEATROUT SUSTAINABLE HARVEST MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Chip Collier went over the sustainable harvest issue for spotted seatrout and management options. There was consensus that the recommendations seemed appropriate, and deferred to the staff and spotted seatrout Advisory Committee since there were no habitat related issues.
CHPP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE
Anne Deaton reviewed the 2011-2013 biennial CHPP Implementation Plan, focusing on the actions related to the division.
SHA REGION 2 REPORT
Anne Deaton gave a presentation on the draft Strategic Habitat Area nominations. This presentation was also given to the CHPP Steering Committee to receive input. A public meeting is scheduled for October for additional input. Tom Ellis said that the presentation regarding SHA analyses has improved and was supportive of the process and results. Pete Schuhmann made a motion to approve of the SHA nominations for Region 2. Tom Ellis seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
HABITAT PERMIT TRACKING SHEET
Anne Deaton handed out the latest habitat permit tracking sheet for review. Allyn Powell said that he would like to continue to see this type of information in the future.
CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE ORV Management Plan
Wayne Mathis emailed comments on the Cape Hatteras Off Road Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan to Anne Deaton on Monday to hand out and discuss at the HWQ AC meeting. Anne explained that the division and MFC commented on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that preceded the draft plan, but that we had not been sent the plan to review. She had not reviewed the latest plan. DMF and MFC’s comments on the EIS supported most of Alternative F, emphasized the importance of maintaining historical traditional access to the beach, were concerned about seasonal closures, and asked them to be flexible and provide adequate corridors with buffers. There was also discussion on whether the HWQ AC could send a letter to the National Seashore on behalf of the MFC, since there would not be an MFC meeting before the due date for comments. While staff felt they did have the authority to send comments if the MFC members on the HWQ AC signed the letter, Chris Elkin thought that since the committee had not reviewed the plan, Wayne wasn’t present to fully explain, there was no quorum, and he and Allyn were new, he was not comfortable voting on whether to send the comments to the MFC. He recommended that the HWQ AC members review and comment on the plan on their own.
[Note: DMF sent comments to the park service on September 16, 2011 reiterating DMFs concerns and incorporating Wayne’s comments. See attached letter.]
The meeting adjourned at 4:30
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Strategic Habitat Area Region 2 Advisory Committee Louis Daniel
FROM: Anne Deaton
DATE: October 17, 2011
SUBJECT: Public Meeting – input on Strategic Habitat Area (SHA) Region 2
A public meeting was held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 6:00 pm at the Washington Regional Office located at 943 Washington Square Mall. The following staff attended:
Staff: Anne Deaton, Kevin Hart, Christine Jensen, Jimmy Johnson
Eight people, in addition to staff, attended the meeting.
The meeting began with Anne Deaton reviewing the process/method used and showed the areas selected for Strategic Habitat Area (SHA) nomination. I summarized what habitats and alterations were considered in the assessment and the prominent features within the selected SHAs. Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) staff emphasized that the Strategic Habitat Area assessment was an ecological evaluation that was not considering management needs at this point, but was simply identifying a network of priority high quality habitat areas - the best of the best habitats. The evaluation was conducted following a process established by the DMF and an advisory committee. A separate advisory committee, with local research knowledge was used to review the methods, input data, and results of this assessment. Field groundtruthing will be conducted following this to confirm condition within the SHAs and consider if any conservation measures are needed. Once North Carolina’s entire coast has been evaluated (approximately half remains to be done), management measures may be considered but will involve extensive public stakeholder involvement. The driving reason for conducting SHA analyses is because scientific literature indicates that protecting a network of priority habitat areas is an effective means of enhancing sustainable fisheries.
The habitats in the SHAs along the Outer Banks contain large beds of seagrass, intertidal flats, oyster beds, and wetlands. The areas on the mainland consist primarily of embayments identified designated as Primary Nursery Areas, and also containing some oyster beds, wetlands, shallow soft bottom, and some low elevation uplands. Some areas were also designated as Anadromous Fish Spawning Area and provide a connection to Lake Mattamuskeet. Some subtidal shell bottom at the mouth of the rivers were included. Selections on the rivers were concentrated in the lower estuarine waters and in the headwaters. Some mid river tributaries on the rivers due to habitats and known anadromous fish use.
It was pointed out that many of the areas selected were within an existing federal or state property and already protected from land use activities, or contained fisheries designations, such as Primary Nursery Areas, where rules are already in place to provide protection from bottom disturbance. There was discussion on what could be done to benefit such areas. It was pointed out that some may only need the existing protectionsto remain in place. Water quality affecting habitat condition was mentioned as the primary concern for the region.
Some of the comments were positive, while some had concern. Some of the poinst raised:
• There was a concern that such a large area of Hyde County was selected and that it might result in fishing restrictions. Did not like being a “target” and did not want further fishing restrictions. • Others mentioned that the selection of a large amount of area in Hyde County was a recognition of the significance and uniqueness of the area. • One person said he was glad that a lot of wetland areas in Hyde County seemed to have been included because they are so important to many resources. • The SHA areas should be used to protect and maintain these high quality habitats, to sustain fisheries, and not restrict fisheries. • The SHAs represent aquatic assets that the area needs to support the fishing and tourism industries. • SHA areas along the northeast side of Trent River include some developed areas and should consider removing. • Low elevation uplands adjacent to wetlands should be considered for protection to allow migration of wetlands as sea level rises.
The SHA Advisory Committee will consider all the comments and make adjustments if found necessary before finalizing.
Draft Region 2 Strategic Habitat Area Report
Strategic Habitat Area Nominations for Pamlico Sound System, North Carolina (Region 2)
DRAFT
Written by staff of Division of Marine Fisheries Habitat Section Analysis conducted by Jen Weaver, NCSU fellow Reviewed and endorsed by Strategic Habitat Area Regional Advisory Committee Final presented to the Marine Fisheries Commission 11/4/11
Draft Region 2 Strategic Habitat Area Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... II DEDICATION...... II REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ...... III LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... V INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Geographic Scope of Region 2...... 1 METHODOLOGY ...... 4 IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY SPECIES ...... 4 Natural resource targets ...... 4 Hard bottom ...... 7 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) ...... 7 Shell bottom ...... 7 Uplands ...... 8 Wetlands ...... 8 Creek/rivers and soft bottom habitats ...... 9 Streams ...... 11 Habitat complexes/functional areas ...... 11 Alteration factors ...... 11 Hydrology alterations ...... 14 Water Quality and land use alterations ...... 15 Physical disturbance ...... 17 Total alteration/cumulative impacts ...... 17 MARXAN ANALYSIS ...... 18 MARXAN RESULTS ...... 19 CORROBORATION AND FINALIZING SHA SELECTIONS ...... 19 Other corroborating information ...... 21 Post-corroboration Results ...... 21 FINALIZING STRATEGIC HABITAT AREA POLYGONS ...... 22 PROPOSED SHAS ...... 39 LITERATURE CITED – ...... 57 APPENDIX A: DATA/INFORMATION DIRECTORY ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. GIS FIELD TRANSLATOR ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. R2_corroboration_Dec2010 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX B: CALCULATING TOTAL ALTERATION .. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDIX C: FISH ABUNDANCE DATA AND ANALYSIS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDIX D: PREPARING THE MARXAN FILES ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDIX E: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
i
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
APPENDIX F: PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several DMF and NCSU staff played an important role in developing the process documented in this report. Jen Weaver (NCSU-Sea Grant fellow) performed the analysis and writing, with assistance from Scott Chappell (DMF), Anne Deaton (DMF), Katy West (DMF), Kevin Hart (DMF), and Jeff Buckel (NCSU). Scott, Anne, and Jen were also involved in fine-tuning the application of methods and presentation of information to the advisory committee. Ballingham Chepuri, from the DENR IT section, assisted with the creation of various map products for the analysis. Katy West, Kevin Hart, and Sean McKenna from the DMF Washington Regional Office, and Beth Burns and Lee Paramore from the DMF Wanchese office contributed additional information on fisheries species and habitat conditions due to their extensive experience in the region. Other contributions came from Maria Dunn and Bob Barwick (WRC staff), Tim Ellis (NCSU), Mike Marshall (DMF) and DMF staff on the Management Review Team. Jimmy Johnson (CHPP coordinator) was also present to ensure coordination of SHA work with other DENR activities. Finally, we thank the regional advisory committee members for laboring through the highly technical meetings needed to fully address the issue of Strategic Habitat Areas in Pamlico Sound region of North Carolina, and Pres Pate, for filling in for Mark Brinson, after his passing.
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated to Dr. Mark Brinson, who passed away suddenly while a member of the Region 2 Advisory Committee. He was also on the original SHA Process Advisory Committee and a long-standing member of the MFC‟s Habitat and Water Quality AC. His ideas and thoughts on identification of Strategic Habitat Areas greatly influenced the SHA Identification process. A thoughtful and engaged wetland ecologist, Mark was also cheerful, kind, professional, and a pleasure to work with. We‟ll miss him.
ii
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ben Peierls Mark M. Brinson University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Distinguished Research Professor Institute of Marine Sciences Howell Science S-408 3431 Arendell Street Department of Biology Morehead City , NC 28557 East Carolina University Phone: 252-726-6841 ext.135 Greenville, NC 27858 Fax: 252-726-2426 Tel: (252) 328-6307 [email protected] Fax: (252) 328-4718 [email protected] Chuck Wilson Al Hodge Ecosystem Restoration Coordinator North Carolina Division of Water Quality USACOE-Wilmington Washington Regional Office 69 Darlington Ave, Wilmington NC (252) 948-3844 Phone:(910) 251-4746 [email protected] Fax: (910) 251-4744 [email protected] Thomas R. Allen D. Reide Corbett Associate Professor Professor East Carolina University East Carolina University Department of Geography Department of Geological Sciences A-238 Brewster Bldg. Institute of Coastal Science & Policy Greenville, NC 27858 Greenville, NC 27858-4353 Phone: (252) 328-6624 Phone: 252-328-1367 Fax: (252) 328-6054 Fax: 252-328-4391 [email protected] [email protected] Roger A. Rulifson David B. Eggleston Senior Scientist/Professor Director, Center for Marine Sciences and East Carolina University Technology North Carolina State University Department of Biology 303 College Circle Institute of Coastal Science & Policy Morehead City, NC 28557 252-916-1599 (252) 222-6301 (o) [email protected] (252) 222-6303 (FAX) [email protected] Bennett Wynne North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Anadromous Fisheries Coordinator 252-522-9736 [email protected]
iii
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
NAME Abbreviation CGIA North Carolina Center for Geographic Information CHPP NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan COE United States Army Corps of Engineers DCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management DEH- North Carolina Division of Environmental Health – Shellfish SS&RWQ Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality section DMF North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources FWJ North Carolina Fishing Water Jurisdictions GIS Geographical Information System HU Hydrologic unit MARXAN Site selection program MFC North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission NHD National Hydrologic Dataset NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NRT Natural resource targets NWI National Wetlands Inventory NCSU North Carolina State University PCS Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. SAV Submerged aquatic vegetation SHA Strategic Habitat Area USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission WTP Water treatment plant WWTP Waste water treatment plant
iv
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Strategic Habitat Areas (SHA) represent priority habitat areas for protection due to their exceptional condition or imminent threat to their ecological functions supporting estuarine and coastal fish and shellfish species. Identification and designation of SHAs is a CHPP implementation action. The identification of SHAs was conducted in a two step process: 1) using GIS-based habitat and alteration data in a computerized site-selection analysis, and 2) verifying and modifying information based on input from a scientific advisory committee. Staff and the advisory committee specified representation levels for 31 unique habitat types, or natural resource targets. There were also 24 alteration factors that were represented geospatially (i.e., hydrologic alterations, water quality degradation, etc.). The site selection program MARXAN was used to select areas that met representation levels while limiting selection of highly altered sites. The scientific advisory committee then modified the computer results based on their unique knowledge and experience. The resulting SHA nominations for 67 discrete areas encompassed 11% of Region 2 and 26% of the focus area (open waters and riparian targets within 500 m of the shoreline). Approximately 11% of the selected SHAs are state or federally owned lands, managed for conservation, or are protected through PNA designations. The SHAs were corroborated with biological data, ecological designations, and specific knowledge of the area. The SHA nominations will be incorporated into conservation and restoration planning efforts.
Map 1. Region 2 SHA nominations.
v
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
INTRODUCTION The identification and designation of Strategic Habitat Areas (SHAs) for marine and coastal fishery species is a critical component in the implementation of North Carolina‟s approved Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP). Strategic Habitat Areas were defined in the CHPP as, “specific locations of individual fish habitat or systems of habitats that have been identified to provide exceptional habitat functions or that are particularly at risk due to imminent threats, vulnerability, or rarity” (Street et al. 2005). Criteria for identifying SHAs were developed by an advisory committee of the Marine Fisheries Commission established in summer 2005. The committee developed a scientifically based process for identifying candidate areas for designation using biological data and the consensus of a regional expert panel (regional advisory committee). Their generic process is described in the MFC-approved guiding document entitled, “Process for Identification of Strategic Habitat Areas” (DMF 2006).” This document is often referred to as the SHA report or guiding document.
SHA designations will be based on regional analyses that identify optimally placed habitat areas of various ecological condition (exceptional or at risk). SHAs may include areas that have already been protected by other designations, as well as areas not currently recognized in any way. Thus, areas designated as SHA will require various site-specific regulatory and/or non-regulatory management actions that best address the threats affecting that site. A network of designated SHAs providing habitat connections throughout North Carolina‟s coastal waters should ensure that the complex life history needs of all species are met. Once SHAs are designated, resource managers may address priority fish habitat issues and take steps to prevent further alteration of the system as a whole. Thus, the necessary protections for some areas may go above and beyond current measures designed to protect habitat. In addition to regulatory changes, the nomination of SHAs can provide guidance for other conservation projects focused on conservation/acquisition, enhancement or restoration projects.
The identification of SHAs addresses the continuing degradation and loss of important habitats referenced in the CHPPs (Street et al. 2005, Deaton et al. 2010). The current rules and policies of the resource management agencies fail to adequately address the individually small but cumulatively large conversions and alterations of fish habitat for development and associated human activities (Street et al. 2005, Deaton et al. 2010). Eventually, resource management and conservation agencies must address the issue of cumulative impacts in terms of fisheries ecosystem integrity and threshold alteration levels (Deaton et al. 2010). The 2010 CHPP update included a recommendation to develop the tools for addressing cumulative impacts (Deaton et al. 2010). On a regional scale, the concept of managing ecosystems to avoid cumulative impacts is partially addressed by assessing the condition of natural resource targets based on the presence, extent, and influence of multiple alteration factors. Maintaining a healthy ecosystem, through focus on Strategic Habitat Areas, is based on the interdependent relationship between alteration factors, natural resource targets, and the spatial landscape. Averting threshold levels of cumulative alteration to SHAs could be accomplished with both regulatory and non-regulatory tools.
This report documents the selection of SHA candidates in Region 2, encompassing Pamlico Sound and its tributaries in eastern North Carolina, and follows the nomination report format specified in the guiding document (DMF 2006).
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF REGION 2 Region 2 includes the waters and adjacent wetlands draining into and out of Pamlico Sound through both Oregon and Ocracoke Inlets to the adjoining coastal ocean (Map 2). It includes the sounds and tributaries of Pamlico Sound and the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse rivers up to the fall line separating Coastal Plains and Piedmont physiographic regions. The boundaries of the study area were based on the CHPP subregions of Pamlico Sound, Tar-Pamlico River, Neuse River, adjacent coastal ocean, Oregon Inlet and Ocracoke Inlet. (Deaton et al. 2010). Region 2 (the Pamlico Sound system) and Region 1 (the Albemarle
1
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report Sound system) are interconnected by Oregon Inlet and Croatan and Roanoke Sounds. Because Oregon Inlet influences both systems, it was included in both Region 1 and 2. Together, the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound system comprises the second largest estuary in the United States.
Map 2. Regional boundaries for Strategic Habitat Area nominations.
Region 2 includes the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins and subbasin 03-01-55 of the Pasquotank river basin (northern Pamlico Sound) . The Neuse and Tar-Pamlico comprise the third and fourth largest river basins in the state and both drain to Pamlico Sound. The Neuse river basin is more developed, with the towns of Raleigh, Goldsboro, Kinston, New Bern and Havelock within its watershed. Growth in the Neuse river basin is projected to increase 44% from 2000 to 2020. Major communities in the Tar- Pamlico include Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Washington. Closer to the coastline, extensive lowlands have limited land use to rural fishing and farming communities, such as Stumpy Point, Engelhard, Bellhaven, Swanquarter, and Merimon. On the Outer Banks, fishing and tourism are the primary businesses. Both the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins are classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). The primary stressor is excess nutrient loading derived primarily from nonpoint runoff associated with agriculture and development, as well as point source discharges. There are a few large industries in Region 2 that may also contribute to water quality degradation, such as Domtar, PCS, and Cherry Point Marine Corps. Fortunately, Region 2 is rich in protected conservation lands, primarily in the lower estuarine and marine portion, which help offset impacts from other land uses. These include Alligator River NWR, Mattamuskeet NWR, Swanquarter NWR, Cedar Island NWR, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and other conservation lands.
Region 2 is 5,942,938 total acres in size. However analysis was limited to a „focus area‟, consisting of surface waters and a 500 m wide margin of shoreline. This area is 2,405,413 acres in size. Within the 2
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report Region 2 focus area, all six habitat types identified in the CHPP are present, including water column, soft bottom, shell bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands and hard bottom (Street et al. 2005, Deaton et al. 2010). The Pamlico Sound area was chosen as the second regional assessment site due to the importance of the sound and rivers to North Carolina‟s fisheries, prominent fishery stocks with a concern or depleted status (i.e., oysters, blue crabs, southern flounder, spotted seatrout), and growing concerns regarding accelerated development in western Pamlico Sound and tributary shorelines, sometimes referred to as “Inner Banks” development.
In Pamlico Sound proper, the salinities generally range from 15-25 ppt and the shoreline is characterized by eroding salt/brackish marsh (Deaton et al. 2010). The flushing rate in the Pamlico Sound system is relatively low (over 200 days) compared to more riverine-dominated estuaries in North Carolina (Basta et al. 1990). The flushing rate is influenced by the relative areas of water to land (Region 2 over 20% water) in conjunction with lunar and wind tides. At locations relatively isolated from inlets, the flushing effects of lunar tides are small (a few inches at most) whereas those of wind tides are much greater (Reed et al. 2004, 2008). Salinity and circulation patterns are the key physical conditions affecting the species composition occurring in juvenile nursery habitat in Pamlico Sound (Ross and Epperly 1985, Noble and Monroe 1991).
The Pamlico Sound system is well known as a major contributor of fish and shellfish in North Carolina, and an extremely important area for commercial and recreational fishing. While comprising approximately 56% of the state‟s total coastal waters, landings in Pamlico Sound contribute 32% of the total commercial landings in state waters, and approximately 7% of the reported recreational landings in 2009 (DMF 2010). Of these, blue crab, brown and white shrimp, southern flounder, and striped mullet are among the top species landed commercially. Atlantic croaker, spot, bluefish, and spotted sea trout are common recreational species caught. Seasonal occurrence of sea turtles adds to the diversity of life that utilizes Pamlico Sound. The disproportionately high productivity of the Pamlico System may be attributed to the extensive riverine and estuarine wetland communities, shallow nursery areas, diversity of habitats and salinity regimes, and relatively low development. Pamlico Sound has long been regarded as the fishing gem of the North Carolina coast. The Division of Marine Fisheries considers the traditionally important priority fishery species of Region 2 to include American oysters, blue crab, Penaeid shrimp, southern flounder, red drum, and spotted seatrout (DMF Management Review Team, pers. com, 2011). Shad and striped bass are important anadromous fishery species in the upper rivers. Listed species, such as sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon are also priorities for the region.
Habitat features that contribute to the integrity and exceptional productivity of the Pamlico Sound system include extensive SAV beds behind the Outer Banks and along the rivers, intertidal and subtidal oyster rocks, and Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs), (DMF Management Review Team, pers. com., 2011). Maintaining conditions to sustain and enhance these habitats is critical for management of the priority species of the region. The most pressing threat to water quality in Region 2 appears to be non-point source pollution from “Inner Banks” development and agricultural drainage. Loss of wetland shoreline edge from erosion and shoreline stabilization is a concern, particularly considering that the rate of sea level rise is predicted to increase to a point that may exceed the ability of wetlands to migrate landward and upward. The Region 2 SHA assessment focused on identifying areas that support the DMF identified priority fishery species and sites that incorporate the aforementioned habitats in their most unaltered state.
3
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
METHODOLOGY A guidance document was developed to direct the methods for identifying SHAs (DMF 2006). The SHA identification process consists of three main phases, each of which requires input from a regional expert panel. The first phase in the SHA process is to identify priority species and/or habitats, and build a GIS database of existing biological and anthropogenic use data layers for Pamlico Sound. Once data is assembled by DMF staff, the regional expert panel for Region 2 reviews the data layers to ensure that they have sufficient spatial coverage and are current enough to be included in the SHA selection process. In the second phase, the panel examines the priority fish species for the region and sets the amounts of each biological feature that the final SHA network should include. The second phase of the process is running the site selection software MARXAN (Ball et al. 2009) to determine an initial configuration of SHA networks. Once the MARXAN modeling is complete, the third phase consists of an expert committee reviewing the MARXAN selections and using corroborating information and their own ecological knowledge to modify the boundaries of the SHA network and derive a final network of SHA nominations.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY SPECIES Pamlico Sound is a focal point for the oyster, crab, and shrimp fisheries, and is an important area for southern flounder, red drum, and spotted seatrout. The 2010 CHPP states “The areas that contribute most to the integrity of the system are a category of habitat termed Strategic Habitat Area.” In a general sense, the abundance and diversity of habitat such as shallow nursery areas, SAV and oyster beds is what sustains Pamlico Sound productivity (Katy West/DMF, pers. com., 2011). The Region 2 SHA assessment focused on identifying areas that support the fisheries and habitats identified as priorities by DMF and the AC and those sites that incorporate the aforementioned habitats in their most unaltered state.
NATURAL RESOURCE TARGETS In this analysis, “Natural resource targets (NRTs)” are defined as the habitats or ecological functions that represent essential or unique components of the fisheries ecosystem. NRT‟s vary by region and should be chosen to differentiate between habitats that are used differently by fish species. To do this, priority species were grouped into anadromous species, shellfish, winter spawning estuarine fish and summer spawning estuarine fish based on common life history strategies (Table 1). Each habitat target was evaluated based on its value to these species‟ groups to determine representation levels for the analysis. Once identified, the use of habitat by each group of priority species is documented and used to set representation levels (the amount of a habitat to be included in the SHA network). In addition to the importance to priority species, the contribution of a habitat as a buffer to improve water quality was also considered when setting representation levels. After an initial value was set, representation levels were also adjusted based on the regional importance of a habitat type, quality of habitat data, and overall amount of habitat in a region. A comprehensive list of NRT‟s and the chosen representation level are listed in Table 1.
4
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
Table 1. List of natural resource targets and representation levels used in the analysis.
Importance to Priority Species Total CHPP Representation Natural Resource Target Acres in Winter Summer Contribution habitat type level (%) Region 2 Anadromous fish Shellfish spawning spawning est. to water est. fish fish quality Polygon habitat types Hard Riverine hard bottom 1,135 100 X bottom High salinity SAV 89,854 70 X X X X SAV Low salinity SAV 1,751 100 X X X
Intertidal shell bottom 66 100 X X X X Shell bottom Subtidal shell bottom 3,717 100 X X X X
Riverine - lowest 1,456 60 X
Riverine Riverine - lower 10,408 0 soft bottom Riverine - middle 1,048 0
Riverine - upper 121 0
Estuarine (>6ft) 983,218 0 X Deep Soft Bottom Marine (>6ft) 189,231 0 X
Estuarine (0-3ft) 82,883 30 X X X
Estuarine (3-6ft) 78,259 20 X X X
Estuarine (ND) 2,457 10 X
Shallow Marine (0-3ft) 16,438 20 X X Soft Marine (3-6ft) 15,386 20 X X Bottom Intertidal marine 451 20 X X
Lacustrine (ND) 46,642 10 X X
Palustrine (ND) 1,755 0
Wetland Non-riparian 121,173 0 X
Emergent (est and 104,333 0 X riparian)
5
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
Forested (est and riparian) 138,788 10 X X
Wetland Estuarine shrub/scrub 12,175 0 X
Headwater 5,735 50 X
Upland Low elevation upland 47,944 20
Ecological Primary Nursery Area 12,163 100 X X Designation TOTAL AREA 1,968,587
Line habitat types (all distance values are in miles) Hard Ocean Hard Bottom 30 0 bottom Streams (high elevation) 46 0 Water Streams (low elevation) 1,061 20 X column Streams (mid elevation) 266 20 X
Non-wetland shoreline 1,296 20 X X Shoreline Wetland edge 2,921 50 X X X X
River Fish Group 54,520 X X Fish groups Sound Fish Group 32,403 X X
6
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report Hard bottom Two types of hard bottom habitats occur in Region 2: riverine hard bottom and ocean hard bottom. Ocean hard bottom was delineated based on the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program‟s reef-dependent fish collections from 1990 to present (SEAMAP 2001) and Moser and Taylor (1995). Presence of hard bottom habitat was inferred based on the presence reef fish species in trawl samples. The survey coverage and design prevented the creation of polygon features representing hard bottom habitat; therefore, ocean hard bottom is represented as line features. Because of the scarcity of the data, the inferential nature of the data collected, and lack of use of these habitats by priority species, the representation level for ocean hard bottom was set to zero; though it was assumed some would be chosen incidentally.
Riverine hard bottom (i.e., rocky outcroppings) was present in middle and upper elevation sections of the Neuse and Tar Rivers. The general boundaries of the rocky outcrops were described by WRC staff (B. Wynne, R. Barwick, V. Stancil, and C. Waters) and delineated by DMF staff for inclusion in the assessment. These areas are important spawning substrate for anadromous fishes of the region and are relatively rare, so the representation level was set to 100% for this habitat type.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Submerged aquatic vegetation beds were mapped using aerial photography interpretation and transect data interpolation. Source data range in date of acquisition from the early 1980‟s to the very recent (Carroway and Priddy 1983; Ferguson and Wood 1994; ECSU 2002-2003-2006; DWQ 1998; DWQ 2005-2006-2007; DMF 1988-August 2009). With data up to 25 years old, significant changes in the distribution of SAV beds are likely to have occurred. Furthermore, the distribution of SAV habitat is likely more extensive than aerial observations suggest. For example, the growth of narrow fringing SAV beds and beds growing in organic stained water is difficult to discern from aerial photography (S. Chappell/DMF and J. Greene/DWQ, personal observation). Because of this, the extent of SAV habitat is likely underrepresented by the mapping data.
Mapped SAV was further differentiated into low (0-15 ppt) and high salinity (>15 ppt) beds, based on NOAA salinity classifications. Although SAV provides similar ecological services regardless of its location, salinity determines the fish species that are likely to be encountered in an SAV bed. Summertime measurements (which are considered the high salinity period) were used; therefore, the boundary helps capture the fluctuating boundary of both low and high salinity areas.
Large beds of high salinity SAV occur on the sound side of the outer banks. Such extensive beds of SAV are unique to region 2 and are important habitat for priority species. In addition, the presence of SAV indicates that water quality in an area is sufficient to support life, providing an implicit way to differentiate between qualities of areas in soft bottom habitats. In the context of other MARXAN inputs, a sensitive habitat such as SAV can help distinguish between otherwise similar habitats such as shallow estuarine soft bottom. Because of its regional importance and uniqueness, high salinity SAV targets were set relatively high (70%). Low salinity SAV is also important juvenile habitat for priority species, occupies less area, and is likely underrepresented in the data coverage since it is less visible in aerial photographs; therefore, the representation level was set to 100%.
Shell bottom Shell bottom habitat in Region 2 was based on interpolated transect data collected by the DMF Bottom Mapping Program (DMF 1988-August 2009). The source data ranges from 1988 to August 2009, depending on the geographic area. The shell bottom target is defined as areas with at least 30% coverage of shell material (typically oysters) in water generally less than 12 feet deep. Shell bottom is subdivided into intertidal and subtidal by the Bottom Mapping Program.
7
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report Other sources of data were incorporated into the shell bottom target, including included cultch planting sites (DMF unpublished data, 1981-2008), historic Winslow-Ballance oyster reef footprints (Winslow 1889; Ballance 2004), oyster sanctuary boundaries (DMF unpublished data, 2010), and deep oyster reef profiles (USACE unpublished data, 2006-2007). The point data for cultch planting sites was converted to an area representing shell bottom based on the amount of cultch deployed (acres = bushels/8500). The additional shell bottom data was classified as subtidal shell bottom. Representation levels were set at 100% for both types of shell bottom habitat because they are regionally important as a resource and for maintaining water quality in Pamlico Sound.
Uplands These areas were included because they are potential sites for marsh migration with sea level rise (Deaton et al. 2010). LIDAR elevation data (http://www.ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/ContourElevationData/, 2007) was used to delineate areas greater than 5 meters across adjacent to mapped NRT habitats less than 2ft above mean sea level. Non-wetland shorelines are also included in the category of uplands in the calculation of alteration scores. This linear target was created from the inverse of wetland shorelines selected by intersection the fishing water jurisdictions shoreline with the wetlands data. Both upland targets received a representation level of 20%. Non-wetland shoreline was assigned a representation level of 20% because these shorelines can be important habitat for some priority species.
Wetlands Wetland targets were extracted from the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) wetland dataset (Sutter 1999). This dataset is a combination of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service digital soil surveys, satellite imagery (1994) and hydrographic maps. Only contiguous wetlands within 90 meters of a stream or shoreline were included as a target for assessment. Wetlands of the following types are included in the region 2 analysis.
Estuarine/coastal wetlands These wetlands are generally found along the margins of estuaries and sounds and sometimes exhibit tidal regimes. This group contains estuarine emergent wetland (salt/brackish marsh), estuarine shrub/scrub, and estuarine forest wetlands (including maritime swamp forests). Salt-brackish marsh occupy wetland areas at salinities from 0.5 to >35 ppt in North Carolina (Wiegert and Freeman 1990).
Riparian/riverine wetland These wetlands are those in which hydrology is determined or heavily influenced by proximity to a perennial stream of any size or order. Overbank flow from the stream exerts considerable influence on their hydrology. The riverine or riparian wetlands (USACE mitigation type) include riparian emergent wetland (freshwater marsh) and riparian forested wetland (swamp forest and bottomland hardwood forests).
Non-riparian/flat-depressional wetland These wetlands are generally not in direct proximity to surface water. While they may be either isolated from or hydrologically connected to surface water, the hydrology of depressional wetlands is primarily determined by groundwater discharge, overland runoff, and precipitation. The flat-depressional or non- riparian wetlands (USACE mitigation type) include non-riparian emergent wetland (freshwater marsh), non-riparian forested wetland (hardwood flat, pine flat, managed pineland), and non-riparian shrub/scrub wetland (pocosin).
Headwater wetland These wetlands exist in the uppermost reaches of local watersheds upstream of perennial streams. Headwater systems may contain channels with intermittent flow, but the primary sources of water input are precipitation, overland runoff, and groundwater discharge rather than overbank flow from a stream.
8
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report Wetland edge This target consists of the linear boundary of wetlands and open waters indicated on the fishing water jurisdiction coverage. The wetland edge target does not distinguish between marsh and forested edges. The inclusion of wetland edges was meant to minimize the selection of large areas of interior wetland (regardless of type), as well as capture an important ecotone within aquatic systems. Wetland shorelines are important habitats for juveniles of some priority species. Representation levels were set relatively high for the wetland edge target and lower for some wetland types under the assumption that those other riparian wetland habitat types would be captured with this target.
Wetlands were grouped into the following categories for the Region 2 analysis because they correspond to areas with similar usage by priority species: emergent wetland, forested wetland, headwater wetland, non-riparian wetland, and estuarine shrub scrub wetland. Headwater and forested wetlands were assigned representation levels of 50 and 10 percent because of their function as spawning and nursery grounds for anadromous fish. Representation levels were not set for other wetland types, though it was assumed that adjacent wetlands would be captured as a function of wetland edge and other targets being met.
Creek/rivers and soft bottom habitats Areas where there was no SAV, shell bottom, or other structured habitat were categorized as soft bottom or water column habitats. These targets were developed from a combination of DMF jurisdictional waters, NOAA bathymetric contour data, and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) open water classifications. Creeks and rivers are grouped under this heading because the process described here delineates riverine, estuarine, and marine systems for multiple targets. Creeks and rivers are considered a water column habitat for the purpose of alteration ratings because they have relatively high flushing rates compared to other soft bottom habitats.
The water column and soft bottom categories were further classified by system and depth category. The depth categories were 0-3ft, 3-6ft, >6 ft and no depth. These distinctions are important because they correspond to major differences in ecological function (i.e., shallow water nurseries). Depth data was derived from NOAA bathymetric charts (http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/Raster/Index.htm). The “no depth” category was assigned to channel-like hydrographic features adjoining more open waters, or where the bathymetric charts indicated no data. The delineation is valid where channel-like features are actually >3 ft deep. Unfortunately, these delineations may not have been consistently or completely applied. Soft bottom habitats are classified into riverine, lacustrine (lakes), estuarine, and marine systems.
Riverine systems were separated from low salinity estuarine systems based on a linear or meandering morphology and a substantial (unditched) drainage network upstream. The marine system includes subtidal and intertidal waters of the coastal ocean and Oregon, Ocracoke and Hatteras Inlets hydrologic units. The estuarine system includes all open waters and intertidal flats between riverine and marine systems. The estuarine system also includes pond-like features surrounded by estuarine wetlands. Large tidal creeks, isolated marsh pools, and some estuarine open waters are currently lumped together. The no depth estuarine soft bottom NRT represented tidal creeks. The boundary of estuarine wetlands was also used to differentiating the estuarine and riverine systems. Lacustrine systems (lakes) were classified as such by NWI and larger than 15 acres. Only lakes connected to riverine or estuarine systems by linear water features were included. A 30 meter threshold was applied to determine connectedness of lakes to adjacent water features.
Estuarine and marine intertidal flats were defined as areas below the mean high water line indicated on the fishing water jurisdiction coverage (DMF, unpub. data 2004). Marine intertidal flats were classified by NWI as unconsolidated shores within the marine system. A narrow band of intertidal habitat along the Atlantic Ocean was assumed.
9
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report Marine systems were data poor regions for this analysis. Therefore, representation levels for marine systems were all set at 20% to capture a baseline amount of the ocean. Inlets were considered important because of their function in allowing migration in and out of the estuary, and were marked for inclusion in the final solution. Estuarine soft bottom is the most abundant target in the region. The shallower, nearshore areas were considered more important for fish species; therefore, representation levels were assigned proportional to depth group. Deep estuarine soft bottom was not assigned a representation level; the inclusion of a fish target provided the basis for selection of these areas. Riverine soft bottom habitat was further differentiated by position along the river (determined by elevation). The lowest category of riverine soft bottom habitat received a relatively high representation level because the corresponding areas are known overwintering grounds for important anadromous species. Other categories of riverine soft bottom were not considered especially important to any of the priority species groups and were therefore not targeted for consideration specifically in the SHA network; though a certain representation is assumed to be obtained incidentally in choosing adjacent targets.
Fish data
The inclusion of fish abundance data as a target was not possible in Region 1 due to the lack of adequate coverage by a survey with a stratified random survey design. In Region 2, trawl data (Program 195) from the deep waters of Pamlico Sound and the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers were used to identify a subset of areas within the deep soft bottom habitat of Pamlico Sound that might be of particular importance for fish abundance/productivity. Data from 1990- 2009 was used. Cluster analysis was used to divide resource species into two groups: one with higher abundance in the sound and one with higher abundance in the rivers (Figure 3a-b). Group abundance was summed for all species in a group at each survey point and averaged if more than one sample occurred in one geographic location. Kriging interpolation was used to create a surface of fish abundance for each group. Interpolated log of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for each species group was assigned to hexagons that covered the main area of Pamlico Sound and the mouths of the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers. Details can be found in Appendix C (fish methods). Fish group representation levels were set at 20% for both fish groups, because they encompassed both summer and winter spawning estuarine fish groups.
Map 3a. Summed CPUE of fish in the ‘River group’ (included in back of document)
Map 3b. Summed CPUE of fish in the ‘Sound group’ (included in back of document)
10
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
Streams Small creeks and streams were represented using 1:100,000 scale data from the National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD), which represents a connected network of stream channels. The streams were clipped out of the open water features to leave a continuum from linear to polygon water features. Finer scale NHD data was not available for the entire region and the coarser scale data represented larger streams that fish more frequently use.
There are three basic linear water features based on elevation (1 arc second National Elevation Dataset). Stream order was not used because it was not readily available and much of region 2 has flat topography and highly ditched hydrology. Three elevation zones were set based on natural breaks occurring from sea level up to the fall line of riverine channels . We also considered differentiating swamp waters from other linear water features, but the classifications from DWQ were incomplete. In future analysis, it may be helpful to include stream orders for linear water features in the middle and upper zones, and a swamp water classification for streams in the lower zone.
Habitat complexes/functional areas Primary Nursery Area designations were included in the analysis as a NRT. PNAs are specific areas designated based on juvenile abundance surveys of five different species (spot, croaker, southern flounder, brown shrimp and blue crab). The designation represents areas with relatively high juvenile fish abundance and represents a subset of highly productive nursery areas. All PNAs in Region 2 were identified as Strategic Habitat Areas for inclusion in the SHA network.
Rare or listed species
Rare or listed species are not included in the MARXAN analysis as targets, but are taken into account indirectly through targeting of associated habitats, and during the second phase of the analysis using expert modification. Rare or listed species in this region include Atlantic sturgeon and sea turtles. Sturgeon habitat will be indirectly targeted through selection of riverine wetlands, streams, and soft and hard bottom. Green and loggerhead sea turtles are the most common listed species in Region 2. They tend to enter the sounds in the spring as they migrate north for the summer, and leave the sounds in the fall to migrate south for winter. Sea turtles are highly mobile, moving around as they feed opportunistically. Within Region 2, sea turtles are thought to be most abundant in eastern Pamlico Sound in water 10-20 ft deep, but can be found throughout the sound and lower rivers. Their habitat will be targeted indirectly through deep soft bottom and fish targets.
ALTERATION FACTORS Alteration factors are human activities that impact the marine environment. The alteration factors used in the analysis are described in Table 2 and listed below. Factors included were evaluated for duplication with other factors. The advisory committee evaluated the data available on alteration factors and added some data that was not available in Region 1.
The natural resource targets of Region 2 were grouped into general habitat categories for the purpose of applying alteration factor ratings. For example, all wetland types are affected similarly by ditching and drainage; therefore, they form one habitat type for alteration. However, there were linear wetland features and polygon wetland features. In order to apply the equations presented in the SHA report (Appendix B), the linear features were converted into narrow polygon features. This conversion was also done for linear water features, unless noted below. The NRT groupings are listed and described below:
Creeks/rivers – Polygon water column features for riverine soft bottom NRTs. This category represents soft bottom under flowing water conditions. 11
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
SAV – All categories of SAV Shell bottom – All categories of shell bottom Soft bottom, deep – All categories of estuarine and marine soft bottom >6ft deep. This category represents soft bottom under standing water conditions. Soft bottom, shallow – All categories of estuarine and marine soft bottom <6ft deep. This category represents soft bottom under standing water conditions. Uplands – Line features that were converted to polygons using a buffer 15 meters landward from non-wetland shorelines. The polygon target for low-elevation uplands was included in this basic habitat type for alteration. Wetland – Wetland edge were converted to polygons using a buffer 15 meters landward from wetland shorelines. Interior wetlands are polygon features >15 meters from wetland edge. Streams – Linear water column features converted to polygons using a 2.5 meter buffer. The size was based on the thinnest polygon water features, usually upper end of creeks or rivers.
Many other factors were considered, but were not included for various reasons. Among them were 2010 DWQ use support ratings, 2006 land cover data, stormwater outfalls, surface water intakes, silviculture operations, and beach nourishment. Their use was excluded for the following reasons:
DWQ use support ratings were not used because we primarily needed aquatic life use support, which wasn‟t available in all locations. Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) 2006 land cover data was not available until after the total alteration layer was completed. Stormwater outfall maps from DWQ and DEH-SS&RWQ were incomplete for the region; the DWQ data covers only municipalities and the DEH data covers only SA water shorelines. The GIS data for water intakes was extremely outdated, excludes certain areas and intakes under large minimum thresholds, and the NPDES sites covered major surface water intakes.
Silviculture/forestry discharge not included because literature review in the CHPP indicated minor effect on habitat and water quality, the Advisory Committee felt the alterations to aquatic habitat were minor relative to other threats, and the activity was difficult to represent spatially (Deaton et al. 2010; Uphoff 2010). Dredge material disposal on beaches has occurred in the region (Deaton et al. 2010), but was not included in the alteration factors, since it was episodic and less frequent than beaches with long term storm protection projects.
12
DRAFT Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Report
Table 2. Alteration factor ratings used in the current MARXAN analysis. Note: X means no overlap or does not apply.
Hydrology (water-based) Water quality (land-based) Physical (conversions)
5
6
use
-
use
-
todevelopment
CHPP habitat
(NRT groupings)
Culvert obstructed Culvert structures Watercontrol Impounded streams Channelized stabilization shoreline Vertical channels Dredged Ditched/drained basin boat & Canals pond waste Industrial NPDES Major aquaculture & NPDES Minor slips) (>10 Marinas (major) operation Animal (minor) operations Animal discharge Mining targets/ordinance Military land Developed land Agricultural harvest shellfish Prohibited gear fishing disturbing Bottom lost Wetlands agriculture to lost Wetlands development upland Riparian agriculture upland Riparian Creeks, rivers X 1 2 1 X X X 1 X 2 1 1 1 0.5 1 X 2 2 1 X X X X X SAV 0.5 1 2 X X 3 X 2 X 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 X X X X Shell bottom X X X X X 3 X 1 X 1 1 2 1 0.5 1 1 2 1 1 2 X X X X Soft bottom, deep 0.5 1 2 X X 1 X 1 3 2 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 X X X X Soft bottom, shallow 0.5 1 2 1 X 2 X 1 3 2 1 2 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 X X X X X Non-wetland shoreline3 0.5 1 2 1 2 X X X X X X X X X 0 X 1 1 0 X X X 2 1 Wetland, riparian1 0.5 1 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X 0 X 0 0 0 X 3 2 X X Wetland, interior2 0.5 1 2 X X X 2 X X X X X X X 0 X 0 0 0 X 2 1 X X Streams4 0.5 1 2 1 X X 2 X X 3 2 X 2 1 1 X 2 2 0 X X X X X
1 15 meter landward buffer from wetland edge
2 Wetlands >15 meters from wetland edge
3 15 meter landward buffer from non-wetland shoreline + low-elevation uplands
4 2.5 meter buffer around stream
5 Includes land use classes low, medium, high, and open space development
6 Includes land use classes cropland, pastureland, and barren
13
Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Alteration factors are loosely categorized as affecting hydrology, physical structure of habitat or water quality in an area. The effect of alteration factors on natural resource targets is represented in various ways:
1. Overlap of habitat area and alteration footprint – This was done for alteration features whose effect could be accurately represented by a discrete area. Altered areas for these features were represented as the area of the intersection between the habitats present and alteration. This was done for channelized streams, dredged channels, ditched/drained, canals/boat basins, industrial waste pond, prohibited shellfish harvest, bottom disturbing fishing gear, habitats lost to development or agriculture, culverts and impoundments. 2. Relative impact the alteration factor to a hydrologic unit – This was done for alteration factors that were theorized to have watershed-level impacts, or if the data collection prevented a discrete area of impact from being delineated. To calculate this, the extent of an alteration factor (whether it be total area or the sum of point counts) is summed across a hydrologic unit and amount is relativized to the maximum value occurring in any hydrologic unit in the region. This includes vertical shoreline stabilization, NPDES, animal operations, aquaculture impacts, marinas, developed and agricultural land use, mining operations.
Hydrology alterations Culverts This factor identifies the watershed area (streams and wetlands) upstream from both documented and possible culvert location as altered. Altered areas were intersected with habitat present to identify altered areas. The culvert data was assembled from various sources, including Collier and Odum (1989), Moser and Terra (1999), and Department of Transportation (2003 data). In addition, possible culverts were located by creating a point where streams intersected roads with no bridge indicated on the DOT data.
Water control structures This was applied to the stormwater gates around Lake Mattamuskeet (USFWS 2010). The designation was also applied to the dam on the Little River west of Goldsboro, which had breached, because the impacts were rated as similar by the advisory committee.
Impoundments Impounded waters include all natural resource targets upstream from documented dam locations. The data sources for dam locations were Collier and Odum (1989), Moser and Terra (1999), Department of Transportation (2003 data), Division of Water Resources (2003 data), and USACE obstructions inventory (2009 data). The location of fish passage devices should be included and reviewed by appropriate committee members. Fish passage devices could make previously inaccessible waters partially accessible.
Channelized streams Channelized streams are natural streambeds that were artificially straightened to enhance drainage and/or navigation. They differ from canals, which lack an original streambed and therefore, have little or no natural drainage. The specific location of channelization projects visually estimated using the NHD for Region 2. Local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff was contacted, but no data was available (B. Chepuri/DMF, pers. com., 2010).
Vertical shoreline stabilization Shoreline type data was extracted from the 1996 Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps produced by NOAA. Alteration was rated as the ratio of the linear distance of stabilized structures to the linear distance of shorelines in a watershed, scaled to the maximum in the region. Stabilized structures were defined as seawalls, corresponding to the ESI shoreline types of „exposed rocky shores‟ and „sheltered artificial structures‟. Riprap was not included as a stabilization structure because it functions as fish habitat (Waters and Thomas 2001).
14 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Dredged channels This factor includes areas dredged by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) on a regular basis. The source data originated from 2003. The map does not include channels dredged by the DWR or private channels dredged for deep-water access, though these areas may be included as canals and boat basins.
Ditched/Drained Partially drained wetland areas were taken from the DCM wetland modifiers (applied to wetlands) and NHD ditched classification (applied to streams). The ditched classification was based on obvious linear and angular morphology. These data sources originated from the early 1990‟s. While this coverage has not been updated since the early 1990s, drainage projects in riparian wetlands have generally not been allowed since then so the data is likely pretty accurate.
Canals and boat basins This alteration factor included obvious canals for navigation (very long and straight polygon features) or relatively short and straight, elongate polygons with no upstream hydrology (short, water access canals or boat basins). These features were digitized based on 1998 imagery and shoreline morphology. Some of the delineated boat basins could also overlap with marinas.
Water Quality and land use alterations Industrial waste ponds This alteration factor was added to cover industrial waste pond located very close (<60 m) to other natural resource targets. The waste ponds were shown on the 1997 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer (Delorme 1997).
NPDES and aquaculture discharge This factor was derived from NPDES sites locations provided by NCDWQ (2006 data). The impact of NPDES sites is difficult to quantify because the environmental impact of NPDES sites is variable and it is difficult to determine the area of influence for a point source without a detailed hydrologic model. We therefore decided to summarize NPDES sites by hydrologic unit to approximate the measure of alteration. NPDES sites are classified as major or minor based on the amount of discharge allowed per day. Sites discharging more than one million gallons per day were considered major. The number of major or minor NPDES within hydrologic units was then scaled by the maximum number occurring in the region, and the relative amount was used to calculate the relative severity of alteration. Note that major and minor NPDES were given different impact severities relative to habitat types (Table 2).
Current location and discharge data on large aquaculture operation was received from Division of Water Quality (Al Hodge, pers comm.). Large aquaculture discharges were included with the minor NPDES factor because discharges from aquaculture facilities ranged from 54,236-435,363 gallons per day. However, aquaculture discharge is an untreated nutrient addition, and thus more concentrated than other minor NPDES.
Marinas Wildlife Resources Commission and Shellfish Sanitation data on marine locations and slip numbers were combined to make one shapefile of all facilities with > 10 slips. The total number of slips at these facilities were aggregated per hydrologic unit and divided by the amount of shoreline (defined by the NRT wetland and non-wetland shoreline) in each hydrologic unit to create a slips/shoreline metric. This metric was scaled to the maximum value occurring in region 2, which was in Oriental (1021 slips; 0.012778 slips per meter of shoreline).
15 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Animal operations Locations and size of animal operations were obtained for poultry, swine and cattle operations. Swine and cattle operation information came from NC DENR‟s animal operations permits (NC DENR Div. of Water Quality, Non-Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Section, 20031204, onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.aop: NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Raleigh, North Carolina). Poultry data was downloaded from American Environmental Geographic Information System (AEGIS; available at http://www-geography.jsu.edu/ , downloaded 10/2009), which contains point locations of animal feeding operations identified through aerial photography. Each point location has an identifier giving the number of chicken houses at a site.
Animal operations were divided into major and minor based on the amount of nitrogen runoff generated by the operation. To do this, the amount of nitrogen production for each animal operation per year was calculated based on accepted values of nitrogen excreted per animal for each type of operation (McNaught et al 2010). There are 554 swine operations, 3 cattle operations and 493 poultry operations in the study area. Values of nitrogen production per operation ranged from 0 to 470274 lbs N per year. The mean was 47091; the distribution was heavily negatively skewed. The log-transformed distribution of N production is bimodal, with the mean of 9.5. This value was used to split animal operations into major (N production > 9.5) and minor (N production less than 9.5). All values greater than the mean were swine farms with the exception of one of the three cattle operations. Only one poultry farm is considered major, the rest are cattle and swine operations. The numbers of major and minor animal operations per hydrologic unit were calculated and the score for each hydrologic unit was scaled relative to the maximum number of each type of animal operation in region 2.
Mining discharge Mining was included as an alteration factor because mining operations discharge fresh water into adjacent waterways. Freshwater discharge from mining operations was considered to have a low impact on soft bottom, shell bottom, SAV and water column habitats and received a rating of 1. Current data on mining discharge was acquired from the Division of Land Resources in August 2009. Location data was furnished with a column giving total acres in the mining operation. The impact of mine effluent on receiving hydrologic units was quantified using the acreage of the mining operation, under the assumption that the amount of water discharged was proportional to the size of the mining operation. To quantify the impact of mining discharge to adjacent habitats, the total acreage of mining operations in a hydrologic unit were summed. These values were then log transformed and scaled to the regional maximum (log value of 9.86) to get the relative extent for each hydrologic unit.
Military targets/ordnance The military uses several areas in region 2 for training exercises, resulting in the accumulation of inactive ordnance at the site. Military designations in the area were considered an alteration because of anecdotal information regarding heavy metal contamination (pers. Comm.. A. Hodge, DWQ, 2010). The alteration factor was rated low due to the mitigating effect of military areas as a refuge from trawling and a study finding no violations of EPA water quality standards in the areas (US Navy 2009). Several types of regulations exist in region 2, but only areas designated as prohibited and danger (no human entry allowed) were included in the alteration factor.
Developed land use This factor was extracted from the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset using the low, medium and high intensity developed classifications. The total area of developed land-use within each 12-digit USGS hydrologic unit (HU) was calculated and scaled to the maximum proportion of developed land found in an HU in the region. A greater proportion of development within a HU suggests higher nutrient and chemical loadings from non-point development sources.
Agricultural land use This factor was extracted from the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset using the cropland and pasture
16 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas classifications. The total area of cropland within each 12-digit USGS hydrologic unit was calculated and scaled to the maximum proportion of developed land found in an HU in the region. A greater proportion of cropland within an HU suggests higher nutrient and chemical loadings from non-point agricultural sources.
Prohibited shellfish harvest Areas prohibited to shellfish harvest due to high pathogenic microbe counts or automatic closures around wastewater treatment outfalls and marinas were included to represent non-point source alterations at spatial scales smaller than hydrologic units. The benefit of representing localized impacts was considered more important than minimizing the redundancy of similar alterations (i.e., NPDES, marinas, and developed land-use). In addition, the prohibited areas are documented alterations and not reliant upon inferred data. Only waters that fall under the category of prohibited harvest are included; conditionally approved harvesting waters were not included because they are considered restorable by NC Department of Environmental Health - Shellfish Sanitation.
Physical disturbance Trawling/dredging The no trawling/no dredge coverage was created by DMF in accordance with 2004 MFC rules and provisions of the Shrimp Fisheries Management Plan (DMF 2006). Areas open to trawling or dredging and located in areas greater than 3ft deep were included in this alteration factor. Crab dredging areas were not included as „no trawl‟ areas for the SHA process because dredging does not happen frequently or over a wide extent. The bottom disturbing gear factor was rated low in alteration because it represents only potential alteration within a very large area. Data on the frequency of trawling at specific locations is not available. Converted wetlands The area of wetland converted to other uses was incorporated as a metric of development in a region. This alteration factor was created by comparing wetland areas from the early 1990‟s (DCM data) to land use classifications from the NLCD 2001 (30m resolution). The resulting maps show wetland areas that are now in some form of upland development, cropland, pastureland, or barren classification. The classifications for upland development included low, medium, high, and open space. The classifications for agriculture included cropland, pastureland, and barren. Cropland was only compared to forested wetlands because the classification accuracy differentiating salt marsh and cropland was low. Converted wetlands accurately reflect large shoreline developments where the shoreline has not greatly receded.
Converted uplands This factor is specifically related to land uses within riparian upland areas. The land uses compared to converted wetlands were also used for converted upland shoreline. Similar to converted wetlands, converted upland shorelines accurately reflect large shoreline developments where the shoreline has not greatly receded. The land uses overlapping low elevation uplands were drawn from the CCAP 2006 dataset. The land use classifications for development included developed open space and various intensities of development. The land use classifications for agriculture include cultivated, pasture/hay, and bare land.
Total alteration/cumulative impacts Each alteration factor was assigned a rating ranging from 0 (no impact) to 3 (high impact) for each habitat type it coincides with (Table 2). Habitat types were condensed to match the major CHPP habitat types. The factor ratings were guided by a modified version of a similar table in the CHPP (Street et al. 2005), which is based on literature reviews and expert opinion. Because multiple factors can contribute to the alteration within a region, we combined the alteration factors into a total alteration rating which quantitatively measure the amount of alteration to each hexagon in the region. Briefly, the alteration score weights the alteration severity by the amount of habitat impacted and combines the severity and impact scores into a total score by weighting the proportion of each habitat present in the hexagon. The
17 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas alteration score for region 2 was created using a combination of ArcGIS models and R scripts and is described in detail in APPENDIX B). The resulting alteration layer is shown in Map 4.
Map 4. Total alteration layer for SHA Region 2. (included in back of document)
MARXAN ANALYSIS The site selection software MARXAN (Ball and Possingham 2000) was used to identify an initial network of areas to be considered for SHA nomination. The use of MARXAN was recommended by a Duke University master‟s project (Smith 2005) and sequentially adopted as SHA methodology. The site- selection tool makes it possible to systematically consider multiple natural resource targets and various socio-economic factors represented as alterations. The computer program provides a way to select a network of areas (classified by hexagon units) with the least amount of alteration, which is helpful because specific information is not available on maximum tolerable alteration levels and specific minimum habitat sizes needed to maintain functional ecosystems (Stewart et al. 2003). Often, the results of site selection tools are used as a starting point from which to determine boundaries and are not considered a final output (e.g. Geselbracht et al 2009). Final SHA nominations incorporate expert scientific knowledge to consider additional biological information and socio-economic factors that may not have been included in the MARXAN inputs.
The selection algorithm considers several sources of data and uses an iterative approach to consider multiple network configurations until it finds one that minimizes the area and cost of the network. MARXAN allows the user to input data on the distribution of conservation features (NRTs in the SHA process) and to define the desired amount of each conservation feature desired in the final reserve configuration. In addition, MARXAN allows the user to input a cost for each planning unit, which can vary based on the process objectives. The SHA process uses the alteration score of a hexagon as the cost under the assumption that alteration is equal to habitat degradation. This framework was designed so that MARXAN would select a network of habitat areas that have the least amount of habitat degradation. In addition to the habitat and alteration inputs, MARXAN allows the user to input a boundary length modifier (BLM), which controls the length of border allowed by the solution. Raising the BLM increases the cost of spatially disparate solutions, forcing the program to select hexagons that are closer together.
A MARXAN analysis consists of a series of runs, each of which represents a solution found by the computer program. A grid of hexagons is laid over GIS habitat and alteration layers. The hexagons in this analysis were 124 acres in area, 880 m in diameter, and 440 in side length. Each run consists of a specified number of iterations. Each iteration considers a new reserve configuration of hexagons by calculating a cost that is based on the success of the program at meeting its targets, the reserve boundary length and the cost of the area considered. Iterations proceed until the change between iterations is minimal or a maximum amount is reached. The number of runs, iterations and BLM can all be specified in the MARXAN settings, and should be adjusted to attain an appropriate solution for each analysis. An informal sensitivity analysis was conducted for Region 2 (Appendix E), and it was decided to run each scenario for Region 2 500 times with 1,000,000 iterations per run. The BLM was adjusted to 0.001 in order to produce a solution which was driven by the difference in cost between runs. Lowering the BLM produced a solution that was relatively spatially aggregated in the rivers and along the shores of the sound, but resulted in many areas with three or fewer hexagons in Pamlico Sound. Areas composed of less than 3 adjacent hexagons were considered too small for management and removed from the solution considered in the corroboration stage. It was assumed that the advisory committee would add areas during the corroboration stage to make up for the area lost by eliminating these clusters.
Once preliminary areas are identified by MARXAN, SHA selections are modified and refined by a regional expert panel using other known sources of quantitative or qualitative ecological or fishery information and professional knowledge (referred to as corroborating data). Public input was required to finalize identification and nomination of areas for eventual SHA designation.
18 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
MARXAN RESULTS After the natural resource targets and total alteration layer were assembled, MARXAN was run at the specified representation levels for targets representing priority fisheries habitats (Table 1). Map 5 depicts the MARXAN selections. This resulted in a lot of small random selections within the sound being selected. These areas appear to have been selected at low frequencies to meet the deep soft bottom and fish categories (Map 6). High selection frequencies are an indication that an area was not erroneously chosen. In looking at the selection frequencies, it is important to note that the inlets, riverine hard bottom, shell bottom, MFC designated PNAs, and overlapping selections from Region 1 were tagged for 100% selection. The amount of each target captured in the MARXAN solution is shown in Table 4. The initial MARXAN solution met the representation goals for SAV, riverine hard bottom, shell bottom, wetland edge, PNAs, and fish numbers. However it overselected forested wetlands, estuarine and marine soft bottom, low elevation streams, low elevation uplands, and non-wetland shoreline. A large amount of non-riparian, emergent, and estuarine shrub/scrub wetland were also included with the solution, although they were set for a 0% representation level. These wetlands were set to 0% purposely, knowing that they would be represented through the selections of wetland edge and additional capture due to occurrence within a 124 acre hexagon. Overall, the MARXAN solution resulted in 213, 888 acres (275%) of polygon targets being selected, and 1,949 mi (113%) of line targets being selected. Selections appear to be strongly influenced by proximity to the tagged targets.
Map 5. Initial MARXAN solution. (included in back of document)
Map 6. MARXAN selection overlaid with selection frequency (included in back of document)
CORROBORATION AND FINALIZING SHA SELECTIONS The committee spent two meetings reviewing the intial MARXAN selections and making expert modifications, as needed. The SHA committee grouped individual selected hexagons into manageable polygons for the corroboration and identification process. Modifications to the MARXAN selected SHAs were made using an overlay of selected hexagon polygons on digital imagery. The SHA committee examined maps of both the selection frequency and alteration ratings for guidance during the manual selection phase. For each polygon or group of contiguous hexagons, the SHA committee reviewed data included within each polygon or group to confirm inclusion/exclusion as a SHA in a consistent and data based manner. This included examination of the alteration scores, selection frequencies, amount and type of targets present, habitat diversity and rarity, supporting biological data, existing ecological designations that were not included as NRTs (i.e. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Significant Natural Heritage Areas) and connectivity with adjacent selections and protected areas. Known studies or information from committee members regarding habitat condition and fish utilization of specific areas were also included. Tables 4-7 and maps were used to review that information. The tables summarize information within the polygon, whereas the maps show spatially what is within and between the SHA selections.
Any modifications made were to be based on the following criteria:
Habitats present – rare, vulnerable, diverse Occurrence of ecological designations Alteration factors and ratings Selection frequency Fish data/information available from DMF sampling or other research Fish abundance rank
19 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Water quality impairment status (5 categories) Regional importance of a functional area Size/isolation/connectivity/shape
The designations and biological data used in this phase of the analysis are listed in Table 3. These data are meant to support computer-selected areas and identify important areas omitted by the MARXAN analysis. Examples of omitted areas would be a bay that was rated as altered but still supports fish production or an oyster rock that consistently produces high catches relative to other areas. Ideally the regional expert panel would have local qualitative knowledge that further supported the area as having high fishery or habitat value. Areas with existing habitat designations that were not selected by MARXAN could also indicate areas that should be considered for manual addition to the list of proposed SHAs.
The committee used the data presented in Tables 4-7 and the supporting appendix maps to cut, extend, and/or consolidate MARXAN clusters within the focus area. Selected hexagons with fewer than three contiguous hexagons were excluded. The majority of these were in Pamlico Sound and selected due to slightly higher fish abundance data. Consolidations were based on avoiding what the group considered over-represented habitats (i.e., soft bottom >6 ft) and connecting similar contiguous areas or under- represented habitats. Some natural resource targets were also clipped out of MARXAN polygons. For example, deep soft bottom areas were removed in some areas of the Neuse and Tar rivers and coastal ocean waters lacking hard bottom resources. The primary reason for excluding much of the riverine or estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) was to prevent over-representation of this resilient habitat. However, riverine soft bottom (>6ft) was included in historically important areas for anadromous fish.
Where MARXAN selections only included a portion of a habitat area (such as half of an SAV bed), the group assessed whether that cutoff point made ecological sense, and if not, extended the SHA boundary to include whole habitat units. MARXAN selections that included developed low elevation uplands were removed. The AC also expanded polygons into some unselected areas that were known to be highly productive for priority species or habitats. The visual assessment was conducted systematically around the region, starting in eastern Pamlico Sound, followed by western Pamlico Sound, Pamlico River, and Neuse River. Additional information and changes made to the selections were documented in Table 8.
Table 3. Ecological designations and biological data from DENR sampling programs that could be used as an indicator of aquatic habitat condition in Region 2.
Data type Description Data source/availability
Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas MFC designation Blue crab spawning sanctuaries MFC designation Oyster sanctuaries MFC designation Estuarine PNAs MFC designation Inland PNAs WRC designation Open shellfish harvesting waters DEH-SS classification Significant Natural Heritage Areas (aquatic and Natural Heritage Program terrestrial) designation
Ecological designations Ecological Lands managed for conservation One NC Naturally (DENR)
Use support and biotic indices for fish and DWQ program invertebrates (freshwater streams only) – index values Juvenile anadromous and freshwater fish DMF program 100, 135
Juvenile estuarine fish DMF program 120, 915 Species/ Species/ Adult estuarine fish DMF program 195 productivity data productivity Shellfish densities DMF program 635
20 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
OTHER CORROBORATING INFORMATION
Below is a partial list of written information that was provided by AC members and considered during corroboration. Complete citations are available in Literature Cited section. Additional information in GIS format was also utilized.
Oyster larval dispersal: Haase, A.T. 2009
Blue crab dispersal: Eggleston D.B., N.B. Reyns, L.L. Etherington, G.R. Plaia, L. Xie. 2010. Reyns, N.B., D.B. Eggleston, R.A. Luettich Jr. 2007.
Fish habitat utilization: Spidel, M.R. 2009. Smith, M.C. 2006.
Sciaenid spawning activity: Luczkovich, J.J., Pullinger, R.C.; S.E. Johnson, M.W. Sprague. 2008.
Sea turtle distribution: Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musik, and D.E. Barnard. 1996. NC DMF. 2010.
Military bombing ranges: US Navy. 2009.
Sapp, Work, Haas, and Warren. 2010.
Effect of development and agriculture on organisms: Uphoff. 2008. Meyer, Luczkovich, Brinson, and West. 2010.
Water quality: NC DWQ. 2010 Tar-Pamlico Basinwide plan. NCDWQ . 2008. Neuse River Basinwide plan.
POST-CORROBORATION RESULTS Corroboration led to an overall increase in the area selected as SHA, with selected target polygon acres increasing from 213,888 acres to 322,843 acres. Targets that increased substantially included high salinity SAV, forested wetland, and estuarine soft bottom of all depths. Targets that decreased included intertidal shell bottom, non-riparian wetland, lacustrine soft bottom, and low elevation uplands. After the AC completed the modifications, there were 67 discrete areas selected for nomination, totaling 631,820 acres of hexagons. This comprises 26% of the focus area or 10% of the total area within Region 2. Of that selected acreage, 308,545 acres and 1,924 miles consist of habitat targets. (Note that the acreage of PNAs was subtracted from the subtotal since PNA acreage is also accounted for the individual habitat targets). Acreage of selected targets is included in Table 4. Of the 308,545 acres selected for SHA nomination, 82% consist of submerged non-shoreline targets, and 18% consist of wetland or upland targets that may be adjacent to privately owned land (18% of 308,545 acres = 55,538 acres). Map 7 and
21 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas 8 show the selection frequency and alteration scores of the post-corroboration SHAs. The majority of the areas that were not initially selected by MARXAN but were added by the AC had low selection frequency but low to medium alteration scores.
The final SHA selections form a network of priority areas for protection and enhancement ranging from the upstream watersheds of the Pamlico system to the grass beds and ebb tide deltas of the Outer Banks. Selections were concentrated along the eastern Pamlico Sound shoreline, lower estuary and upper headwaters of the Neuse and Pamlico rivers. Almost all of the high salinity SAV along the Outer Banks and low salinity SAV along the river tributaries was selected. The AC considered this appropriate since it is a critical habitat for the majority of the priority species, is a unique habitat feature of North Carolina that is known to contribute significantly to the diversity of fish life in the region, and is a habitat easily lost from physical disturbance (dredging) or water quality degradation. Along the Outer Banks, input from DMF staff indicated that fish and invertebrates were fairly uniformly distributed within the SAV, with no one area being more productive or higher quality than another, except possibly the grass beds in closest proximity to the inlets, since they can be the first structured habitat larval and juvenile fish encounter as they move in from the ocean. All mapped riverine hard bottom and some other upper areas of the Neuse and Tar were selected due to their importance as spawning areas for anadromous fish species. A few areas along the rivers were also selected. One area that was added through corroboration was Core, Village and Kidney creeks. WRC had documented that this area was one of the only areas on the Neuse or Tar-Pamlico that blueback herring were utilizing on a fairly consistent basis for spawning. Setting the representation level of PNAs at 100% encouraged MARXAN selection of other nearby targets, many of which were emergent or forested wetlands, and also soft bottom and shell bottom. The PNAs are located in small bays and tidal creeks of the lower Neuse and Pamlico rivers and western Pamlico Sound shoreline. Concentrating SHAs around existing PNAs provides a buffer of protection and connectivity for juvenile fish movement to other estuarine habitats. Shell bottom was also set with high representation levels due to their ecological and fishery importance in the area, and current low abundance due to historical losses. Almost all mapped subtidal shell bottom was selected (95%), and approximately 75% of the intertidal oysters. SHAs selected over open water were due to occurrence of subtidal shell bottom, high fish abundance of river and sound groups, or a combination of both shell and fish. The mouths of the Neuse and Pamlico rivers appear particularly important for this.
Region 2 is rich in state and federally protected lands (Table 7, Maps 9a-b). Of the 631,820 acres of selected hexagons, 9% (58,701 a) occur on lands managed for conservation (state, federal, local), and 2% (14,298 a) are located in MFC designated PNAs. Some of the larger conservation lands on the western side of Pamlico Sound include Alligator River NWR, Swanquarter NWR, Cedar Island NWR, and Goose Creek Game Land, which together provide protection of low lying wetlands and water quality, particularly along the lower Neuse, Pamlico, and western Pamlico Sound shorelines. Much of the eastern side of Pamlico Sound is within Cape Hatteras National Seashore or Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. SHAs within protected conservation lands are basically already protected from degradation associated with development. The remaining 88% (558,821 a) represent SHA nominations of various condition that are currently vulnerable to land and/or water based threats.
FINALIZING STRATEGIC HABITAT AREA POLYGONS The SHA committee grouped individual selected hexagons into manageable polygons for the corroboration and identification process. The SHA committee also examined maps of both the selection frequency and alteration ratings for guidance during the manual selection phase. For each polygon or cluster of contiguous polygons, the SHA committee reviewed data included within each polygon or cluster to confirm inclusion/exclusion as a SHA in a consistent and data based manner. This included examination of the alteration scores, selection frequencies, habitat diversity and rarity, supporting biological data, and connectivity with adjacent selections and protected area. Tables 5-7 and maps were used to review that information. The tables summarize information within the cluster, whereas the maps show spatially what is within and between the clusters.
22 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 4. Representation levels, target acres, and resulting amounts of natural resource targets. *
area Representation Level Target Acres Amount captured MARXAN by % target of met Amount selected after corroboration % target of met Natural Resource Target Type Acres study in Hard Bottom Riverine hard bottom 1,135 100 1,135 1,135 100 1,135 100 High salinity SAV 89,854 70 62,898 61,987 99 86,161 137 SAV Low salinity SAV 1,751 100 1,751 1,721 98 1,670 95 Intertidal shell bottom 66 100 66 64 97 49 74 Shell Bottom Subtidal shell bottom 3,717 100 3,717 3,593 97 3,540 95 Non-riparian wetland 121,173 0 0 44,301 38,998 Emergent wetland 104,333 0 0 65,395 65,710 Wetland Forested wetland 138,788 10 13,879 25,688 185 27,109 195 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 12,175 0 0 6,489 6,953 Headwater wetland 5,735 50 2,867 2,754 96 2,318 81 Riverine soft bottom - lowest elev. 1,456 60 874 872 100 783 90 Riverine soft Riverine soft bottom - lower elev. 10,408 0 0 2,300 2,406 bottom Riverine soft bottom - middle elev. 1,048 0 0 7 7 Riverine soft bottom - upper elev. 121 0 0 0 0 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 82,883 30 24,865 44,993 181 48,304 194 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 78,259 20 15,652 37,786 241 43,430 277 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 2,457 10 246 1,589 647 1,725 702 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 16,438 20 3,288 12,232 372 12,588 383 Shallow Soft Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 15,386 20 3,077 12,678 412 12,693 412 Bottom Intertidal marine soft bottom 451 20 90 451 500 451 500 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 46,642 10 4,664 3,548 76 1,646 35 Inlets 100 earmarked Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 1,755 0 0 383 347 Deep Soft Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 983,218 0 0 13,904 118,556 Bottom Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 189,231 0 0 50,428 50,530 Eco-desig PNA 15,426 100 15,426 15,384 100 14,298 93 Upland Low elevation upland 47,944 20 9,589 17,333 181 15,079 157 POLYGON TOTALS (acres) 1,493,124 77,770 213,888 275 322,843 415 Wetland edge 2,921 50 1,461 1,428 98 1,467 100 Non-wetland shoreline 1,296 20 259 521 201 457 176 Ocean Hard Bottom 30 0 0 9 9 Line targets Streams (high elevation) 46 0 0 5 5 Streams (low elevation) 1,061 10 106 173 163 171 161 Streams (middle elevation) 266 20 53 40 75 40 75 LINE TOTALS (miles) 4,217 1,720 1,949 113 1,924 112 Fish River Fish Group 54,520 20 10,904 9,893 91 8,954 82 (numbers) Sound Fish Group 32,403 20 6,481 5,371 83 4,798 74 *Gray boxes are target selections that exceeded the representation levels
23 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 5a. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons. Polygon number Parameter 1 2 4 7 14 15 17 19 20 21 Polygon Area 870 621 10,191 60,403 15,163 4,847 2,610 1,367 5,344 1,367 Mean alteration 1.52 0.63 1.17 0.63 0.45 0.67 0.46 1.94 1.30 0.36 Mean selection frequency 82 38 485 424 417 407 43 490 406 483 Emergent wetland 0 0 0 1,749 3,099 1,045 1,084 250 1,080 532 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 0 0 0 606 901 139 39 69 93 26 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 13,348 2,976 258 248 146 1,028 0 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 5,027 2,994 329 122 38 268 19 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 0 0 0 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 4,381 2,387 412 283 182 1,008 541 Forested wetland 329 165 1,470 46 0 268 163 0 44 0 Headwater wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High salinity SAV 0 0 0 18,744 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 451 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 21 748 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low elevation upland 0 0 0 412 29 455 171 524 667 0 Low salinity SAV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 4,054 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 3,872 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 4,280 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 13 3 41 91 2,660 1,556 61 152 1,058 185 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 1 20 26 2 0 7 0 2 0 PNA 0 0 0 0 304 0 0 87 697 66 Riparian human impacted wetland 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine hard bottom 0 0 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 0 18 2 0 0 88 0 0 11 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 0 0 0 428 111 117 0 0 1 63
24 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 5b. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons. Polygon number Parameter 27 38 40 41 42 43 44 47 49 51 Polygon Area 870 4,971 1,491 621 4,723 2,486 3,977 13,796 10,813 21,626 Mean alteration 1.00 0.81 0.96 0.80 0.32 0.89 0.87 0.53 0.71 0.97 Mean selection frequency 52 377 473 500 482 414 490 485 445 457 Emergent wetland 0 405 64 93 169 52 36 32 2,596 3,298 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 0 52 4 0 353 0 16 10 294 378 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 870 2,656 0 52 92 1 347 2,197 3,452 2,248 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 649 110 81 232 0 258 881 2,211 1,520 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 915 66 159 399 0 329 500 1,122 2,180 Forested wetland 0 0 55 3 666 1,225 394 1,101 0 211 Headwater wetland 0 0 0 0 132 0 10 9 0 156 High salinity SAV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 368 Low elevation upland 0 0 110 135 356 47 72 267 553 683 Low salinity SAV 0 0 0 0 22 1 4 489 0 142 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 0 106 39 15 385 0 72 88 359 2,510 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 8 21 29 PNA 0 0 0 47 42 0 882 0 642 583 Riparian human impacted wetland 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 3 0 302 Riverine hard bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 0 0 53 0 0 190 28 65 37 2 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 0 0 0 0 0 628 0 45 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 0 176 23 9 0 0 0 0 103 0
25 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 5c. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons. Polygon number Parameter 52 54 57 59 60 61 65 68 69 70 Polygon Area 60,900 870 497 1,119 17,276 4,101 4,474 39,274 5,096 18,891 Mean alteration 0.49 1.88 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.30 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.87 Mean selection frequency 410 500 61 57 495 500 46 194 424 425 Emergent wetland 17,629 83 0 0 2,500 159 0 576 1,876 5,547 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 335 34 0 0 196 51 0 144 90 250 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 19,299 34 497 1,119 2,542 127 4,474 7,377 444 4,354 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 6,555 90 0 0 1,068 412 0 6,144 786 3,323 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 286 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 210 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 6,729 165 0 0 2,432 339 0 2,001 596 2,877 Forested wetland 50 22 0 0 117 413 0 0 1 0 Headwater wetland 24 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 High salinity SAV 23 0 0 0 11 0 0 22,292 394 100 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 132 89 Low elevation upland 1,520 39 0 0 2,400 127 0 127 0 0 Low salinity SAV 0 0 0 0 170 23 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 6,293 215 0 0 5,005 500 0 15 347 1,412 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 79 0 0 0 6 3 0 1 0 8 PNA 2,511 126 0 0 941 69 0 0 367 900 Riparian human impacted wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 174 Riverine hard bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 34 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 1,386 0 0 0 167 0 0 84 1 326
26 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 5d. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons. Polygon number Parameter 71 74 78 81 82 83 86 91 93 96 Polygon Area 7,582 12,304 20,383 1,243 621 4,474 11,683 1,740 7,581 7,333 Mean alteration 0.26 0.83 1.31 0.93 0.65 1.01 1.01 1.12 0.69 Mean selection frequency 450 471 500 471 400 281 313 468 78 Emergent wetland 0 81 3,905 131 44 264 0 0 259 637 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 0 75 346 25 0 0 0 0 0 73 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 1,865 4,472 70 0 0 11,614 1,725 237 3,273 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 99 1,467 50 2 0 0 0 139 1,342 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 382 3,268 141 36 0 0 0 110 1,538 Forested wetland 2,946 0 80 9 25 2,114 0 0 1,445 0 Headwater wetland 0 0 40 0 0 53 0 0 11 0 High salinity SAV 0 3,555 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 449 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 170 0 0 58 0 0 13 0 Low elevation upland 6 4 954 115 74 374 0 0 237 3 Low salinity SAV 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 342 0 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 1,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 1,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 2,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 17 13 2,355 4 70 114 0 0 90 1 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 2 PNA 0 1,574 98 30 0 0 0 0 0 Riparian human impacted wetland 2 0 58 1 0 2 0 0 12 0 Riverine hard bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 213 0 0 0 0 639 0 0 767 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 35 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 0 0 100 0 0 0 69 15 0 0
27 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 5e. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons. Polygon number Parameter 97 98 99 100 102 104 105 106 107 109 Polygon Area 20,756 2,610 1,491 5,966 621 1,864 1,616 746 5,220 3,853 Mean alteration 0.31 0.50 1.30 0.95 1.01 0.64 1.01 0.21 0.08 0.73 Mean selection frequency 408 500 500 499 431 293 386 362 358 492 Emergent wetland 7,140 151 0 403 0 168 0 48 2,504 505 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 761 0 0 23 0 9 0 5 115 70 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 2,739 0 568 6 617 19 1,592 0 162 71 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 1,544 129 89 234 0 186 0 0 208 299 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 2,469 121 30 701 0 164 0 51 305 324 Forested wetland 180 115 1 264 0 105 0 75 7 144 Headwater wetland 1,126 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 23 163 High salinity SAV 49 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 235 2 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low elevation upland 512 87 5 271 0 64 0 19 46 528 Low salinity SAV 0 32 190 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 2,709 101 0 367 0 56 0 44 1,384 990 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 PNA 489 8 0 620 0 4 0 25 117 334 Riparian human impacted wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine hard bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 0 9 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 41 0 0 0 4 0 24 0 0 0
Table 5f. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons.
28 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Polygon number Parameter 110 112 113 115 123 128 130 134 136 Polygon Area 2,983 4,971 5,841 56,550 36,167 2,113 8,451 7,954 8,079 Mean alteration 0.84 0.66 0.59 0.40 0.96 0.46 0.83 0.23 0.77 Mean selection frequency 491 500 488 391 490 471 490 454 452 Emergent wetland 214 153 217 1,016 35 70 552 588 1,217 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 0 14 3 347 46 16 125 19 122 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 199 0 75 10,237 0 367 273 39 694 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 182 150 250 1,931 0 96 356 78 315 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 0 110 4 0 0 0 0 44 140 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 361 304 315 2,902 0 309 893 44 1,455 Forested wetland 93 294 302 0 0 21 307 1,577 144 Headwater wetland 34 67 69 0 0 32 215 82 11 High salinity SAV 1 0 0 12,859 0 0 0 0 39 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 Low elevation upland 214 194 147 85 104 273 704 167 728 Low salinity SAV 0 29 1 0 0 1 165 37 0 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 12,168 32,490 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 6,718 343 0 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 5,099 466 0 0 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 153 174 489 4 15 643 3,025 1,279 963 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 8 1 PNA 183 534 297 0 0 166 576 0 913 Riparian human impacted wetland 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 74 163 Riverine hard bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 2 0 0 151 0 23 0 0 1
29 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 5g. Alteration scores, selection frequencies, and amounts of targets within selected SHA polygons. Polygon number Parameter 137 140 144 145 147 148 149 150 Polygon Area 6,339 22,371 497 31,941 373 249 124 2,859 Mean alteration 1.02 0.73 0.87 0.60 0.56 0.91 1.51 0.65 Mean selection frequency 330 477 500 354 500 500 500 89 Emergent wetland 0 129 26 949 43 148 26 131 Estuarine shrub/scrub wetland 0 0 0 432 0 41 0 204 Estuarine soft bottom (>6ft) 6,226 0 51 498 78 0 14 584 Estuarine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 14 681 23 6 38 403 Estuarine soft bottom (ND) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Estuarine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 50 679 62 46 20 1,219 Forested wetland 0 10,110 7 0 3 0 0 Headwater wetland 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 High salinity SAV 0 0 8 26,812 0 0 0 Intertidal marine soft bottom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal shell bottom 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Lacustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 Low elevation upland 0 0 20 380 60 0 12 Low salinity SAV 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Marine soft bottom (>6ft) 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (3-6ft) 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 Marine soft bottom (0-3ft) 0 0 0 171 0 0 0 Non-riparian wetland 0 197 96 55 91 6 0 317 Palustrine soft bottom (ND) 0 62 0 9 0 0 0 PNA 0 0 27 0 12 14 13 Riparian human impacted wetland 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine hard bottom 0 769 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lower 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - lowest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - middle 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 Riverine soft bottom (ND) - upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal shell bottom 113 0 0 1 0 0 0
30 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 6a. Proportion of ecological designations contained within selected SHA polygons.
Polygon ID Area Inland PNA Primary Nursery Area Secondary Nursery Area Anadromous fish spawning area Crab spawning sanctuary Oyster Sanctuary Artificial Reef Outstanding Resource Waters Significant Natural Heritage Area _A Significant Natural Heritage Area _B Significant Natural Heritage Area _C 1 870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.86 0.00 2 621 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.80 4 10,191 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.61 7 60,403 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 14 15,163 0.00 0.25 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.61 15 4,847 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 17 2,610 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.38 19 1,367 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 20 5,344 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 21 1,367 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 27 870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38 4,971 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 40 1,491 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41 621 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42 4,723 0.13 0.00 0.24 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 43 2,486 0.80 0.00 0.20 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.75 44 3,977 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47 13,796 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 49 10,813 0.00 0.40 0.51 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 51 21,626 0.14 0.17 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 52 60,900 0.00 0.37 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.00 54 870 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57 497 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 1,119 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 17,276 0.00 0.60 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 4,101 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 65 4,474 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 68 39,274 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69 5,096 0.00 0.66 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 70 18,891 0.00 0.38 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 71 7,582 0.38 0.39 74 12,304 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 78 20,383 0.00 0.60 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 81 1,243 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 621 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 6b. Proportion of ecological designations contained within selected SHA polygons.
Polygon ID Area Inland PNA Primary Nursery Area Secondary Nursery Area Anadromous fish spawning area Crab spawning sanctuary Oyster Sanctuary Artificial Reef Outstanding Resource Waters Significant Natural Heritage Area _A Significant Natural Heritage Area _B Significant Natural Heritage Area _C 83 4,474 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.83 0.00 86 11,683 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 1,740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 7,581 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.13 96 7,333 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.07 97 20,756 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 98 2,610 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99 1,491 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 5,966 0.00 0.88 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 102 621 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 104 1,864 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105 1,616 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106 746 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107 5,220 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.31 0.00 109 3,853 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110 2,983 0.00 0.75 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 4,971 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 113 5,841 0.00 0.60 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115 56,550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.00 123 36,167 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 128 2,113 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130 8,451 0.07 0.66 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 134 7,954 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 136 8,079 0.00 0.77 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 137 6,339 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 140 22,371 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.34 0.05 144 497 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145 31,941 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 147 373 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148 249 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 149 124 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150 2,859 0.52
32 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 7a. Acres of state and federal conservation lands within selected SHA polygons. Acres of Polygon ID overlap 4 36 Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (State) 36 7 4,495 Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Federal) 885 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 3,553 WRC Island C 05-06 (State) 56 14 6,431 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 5,258 Dare County Air Force Range (Federal) 23 Gull Rock Game Land (State) 1,150 17 81 Pungo River Game Land (State) 81 21 732 Gull Rock Game Land (State) 732 38 613 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 613 42 1,526 Goose Creek (State) 1,526 43 5 North Carolina Estuarium (Local) 5 44 8 Historic Bath State Historic Site (State) 8 47 630 NEVILLS CREEK (LAND TRUST) 516 Nevil's Creek (CLT) Preserve (Private) 115 49 574 Gull Rock Game Land (State) 574 51 3,382 Goose Creek Game Land (State) 3,382 52 18,205 Gull Rock Game Land (State) 595 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 3 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge - Swanquarter Wilderness (Federal) 4,696 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 12,911 68 350 Buxton Woods Coastal Reserve (State) 0 Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Federal) 350 69 390 Goose Creek Game Land (State) 390
Table 7b. Acres of state and federal conservation lands within selected SHA polygons.
33 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Polygon ID Acres of overlap 70 2278.90 (LAND TRUST) 8.75 Goose Creek Game Land (State) 784.06 Hobucken Marshes (CLT) Preserve (Private) 12.51 Prohibited - near Brant Island (Federal - Navy) 1473.58 74 629.90 Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Federal) 629.90 78 556.15 (LAND TRUST) 69.90 Hobucken Marshes (CLT) Preserve (Private) 53.91 LAMPE-WOODARD TRACT (LAND TRUST) 432.34 83 111.60 Bellair Plantation (CLT) Preserve (Private) 13.94 BELLAIR PLANTATION (LAND TRUST) 16.49 Neuse River Game Land (State) 81.17 87 3.17 Neuse River Game Land (State) 3.17 93 75.38 BRICES CREEK (LAND TRUST) 61.31 Croatan National Forest (Federal) 9.45 Sawmill (NCDOT) Wetland Mitigation Site (State) 4.62 96 704.99 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 160.72 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point - Piney Island (Federal) 444.71 Prohibited - vicinity of Piney Island (Federal - Navy) 99.56 97 5218.38 Carteret County Game Land (State) 1420.35 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point - Piney Island (Federal) 3372.81 Prohibited - vicinity of Piney Island (Federal - Navy) 309.47 Turnagain Bay (CLT) Preserve (Private) 115.75 107 1341.55 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 1341.55 112 3475.31 Croatan National Forest (Federal) 1379.52 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point - Main Air Station (Federal) 1542.26 Restricted - vicinity of Cherry Point (Federal - Navy) 553.53 113 224.03 Croatan National Forest (Federal) 224.03
34 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 7c. Acres of state and federal conservation lands within selected SHA polygons. Polygon ID Acres of overlap 115 2637.02 Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Federal) 2572.17 Cape Lookout National Seashore (Federal) 64.85 123 456.77 Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Federal) 40.83 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 415.94 134 27.63 Neuse River Game Land (State) 27.63 136 750.70 (CONSERVATION GROUP) 750.70 140 420.77 (LAND TRUST) 35.13 HOWELL WOODS (OTHER PUBLIC) 189.97 Howell Woods Environmental Learning Center (State) 189.95 Montgomery Laurel Bluffs (TLC) Preserve (Private) 2.86 POPLAR CREEK BLUFFS (LAND TRUST) 2.86 145 1620.24 Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Federal) 1620.24 148 203.88 Gull Rock Game Land (State) 203.88 (blank) (blank) 71 143.08 CORE CREEK (LAND TRUST) 143.08 150 364.08 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Federal) 364.08 Grand Total 58701.16
35 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 8a. Documentation of expert modifications to MARXAN clusters within focus area.
Nom. ID Change Ecological Reason All add any PNAs not selected by MARXAN selected 100% remove hexagons with developed low elevation uplands with no All targets 3-Jan keep as is 4 combine with 5 - now 4 5-7 keep as is 8 extend to include all SAV 9 delete 10 keep, add to 38 11 join to 122 productive shell bottom Stumpy Bay - not as productive as other 12 delete areas to the south 13 join to 122 productive shell bottom- oyster sanc 14 keep Long Shoal River 15 eliminate Bellhaven (1 hex) developed 16 combine with 140 17 add up river to campground and tribs unique brackish marsh 18 delete Mattamuskeet, not good for blue crab 19 keep Middleton Anchorage 20 add 3 hex to include Charles Rock? Far Creek and productive oyster bottom 21-22 keep natural rock 23-26 delete 27 change to fit shoal 28-37 delete 38 combine with 10 39 keep Jacks -bad habitat, no shellfish. Pungo 40 eliminate Jack's Creek Creek good 41 keep 42 eliminate 4 hex of ag, expand west to get east side of Broad Creek Chocowinity, includes downtown 43 eliminate hex over Washington Washngton, good striper fishing Bath Creek, muddy, detrital, developed, low 44 exclude Back Creek, trim developed hex DO 45 combine with 140 46 delete developed shoreline 47-48 keep as is 47-48 - AFSA 49 keep, connect to Mattemuskeet - up to flapgates 50 make part of 140 remove mitigation ponds, add Little creek and main part of South 51 Creek 51-57 - productive PNAs, NCPC tract? 52 extend to include areas of high fish abundance 53 keep 54 trim to IPNA, eliminate Bayview 55 keep as is 56 keep as is lots of SAV 57 keep as is boaters guide shows wreck 58 reduced in size (cut fingers) and combined with Ocracoke 59 remove 2 hex, clip to fit shoal
36
Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 8b. Documentation of expert modifications to MARXAN clusters within focus area. Nom. ID Change Ecological Reason 58 reduced in size (cut fingers) and combined with Ocracoke 59 remove 2 hex, clip to fit shoal 60 keep as is 61 eliminate PCS, trimmed SE corner 62 combine with 140 add 13 hex S to oyster reef. Rose Bay to almost Brandt Island record level of oysters 2010-11. Last 2 63 Shoal seasons - Dermo, not this year 64 delete 65 join with 77, label as 65 Upper Middle Ground 66 add snowed creek & remove 3 polygons of impoundment 67 keep as is hammock island - diverse- Reid 68 removed Buxton, keep rest diverse 69 remove impoundment hexs without stream edges 70 - 71 keep as is 72 delete 73 remove impoundment on west side, fix hole in feature 74 include Hatteras point (NPS) 75 delete 76 combine with 86 & label as 86 77 join with 65- label 65 Upper Middle Ground 78 trim XS Vandemere, heavily fished 79 combine with 90 80 delete 81 keep as is 82 remove 5 hex on west side, clip to creek, split into 2 & rename E 83 keep as is 84-85 delete fish only 86 add 76 to 86 87 keep as is 88 add adjacent creek from 82, cut significantly, remove inland hex 89 combine with Ocracoke 90 combine with 79 91 keep good drum fishing & oysters 92 delete 93 remove 3 hex - no targets; add 1 hex to get entire river 94 keep 95 delete not priority habitat pristine, Raccoon Island - cultch oysters, 96 add point to the west (tip of land) to wetland edge better than West Bay little development, canal into Turnagain - 97 keep good fishing 98 keep Beard's Creek, SAV, eels
37 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 8c. Documentation of expert modifications to MARXAN clusters within focus area. Nom. ID Change Ecological Reason 99 remove 8 hex, New Bern, ponds, interchange hi altered, but SAV present 100 exclude Oriental, trim to remove excess hex, split into 2 101 remove hex with airport 102 keep 103 delete no PNA, altered, ferry route Dawson's Creek, no hardened shoreline, 104 trim west and extend main branch to Neuse R better than adj creeks 105 keep oysters, tarpon, drum 106 keep exclude ditches, remove SE portion to exclude canal, keep creek 107 next to it - good for Flounder quality marshes, drains Open Grounds 108-109 keep 2 polys out, cut in half (no way to cut out water without excluding 110 shore Adams Creek, SNA sediment contamination, no benthos, 111 delete - Slocum Creek mullet, stripers Hancock Creek - keep, eliminate 1 hex that‟s not hydrologically 112 connected speckled trout, red drum, IPNA 113 keep good shrimping 114 keep, re-examine with Region 3 intertidal oysters 115 extend to shoreline, add SAV and wetlands 116 delete everything north of ferry 117 combine with 74 - Hatteras Inlet 118 combine with 74 - Hatteras Inlet 119 delete - combine with OBX SAV also artificial reef connected both parts, cut boundary b/t 120 & 68 at Avon channel - 120 combine with 8. all SAV, excluding channels to exclude navigation channel 121 delete productive, Crab Hole, shell bottom ~ 12 ft 122 add 11 & 13 to 122 deep, crab trawling/dredging allowed 123 keep - R1 selection 124 delete - Stumpy Bay silty 125 cut off 2 hex add 2 hex on E side & 8 on W side of island, add marsh on W side - 126 Straits b/t 126 & Great Island & bay W of Great Island good oyster habitat open water no different than surrounding 127 remove open water, cut farms areas; includes artificial reef 128 trim small polys Jordan Creek 129 remove open water 130 keep good system - North Creek 131 cut deep water river crossing Blounts Bay 132 remove 1 open water hex 133 keep 134 keep Goose Creek
38 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Table 8d. Documentation of expert modifications to MARXAN clusters within focus area. Nom. ID Change Ecological Reason add 1 hex to river, remove from mouth, remove NW creek, west 135 part, exclude area w/ houses and ramp ramp, shrimp trawling eliminate developed/farm areas; split into smaller by length, keep 136 impoundments, add shoreline were mapped as wetlands but weren't 137 trim to oyster bed 136 &137 red drum hot spot 138 add shoreline around mouth SAV and good fish habitat 139 keep 140 add 16, 50, 45, 62 includes Neuse River hard bottom 141 included adj creek hex no wetlands upstream 142 combine with 4 143-145 no change 146 Duck Creek - added then removed 147 added - Flax Pond PNA Eggleston - important blue crab settlement 150 added shoreline north of Stumpy Pt Bay area under certain weather conditions
PROPOSED SHAS
Maps 10-1 – 10-20. Final SHA nominations, grouped in polygons.
Outer Banks
SHA #115: Ocracoke Inlet system
Description – Ocracoke Inlet, flats, banks, and channels behind the inlet - Ocracoke Island Acres - 56,550 Prominent habitats – High salinity SAV, inlet, shallow and deep estuarine and marine soft bottom, emergent wetlands, intertidal shell bottom, subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations – CSS, SNHA, ORW Conservation Lands - Cape Hatteras National Seashore Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – some residential/seasonal development (Ocracoke), multi-slip docking, trawling Avg. total alteration score – 0.63 Avg. selection frequency - 424 Notes –
SHA #74: Hatteras Inlet system
Description - Hatteras Inlet, flats, banks, and channels behind the inlet – Hatteras area, Hatteras village excluded Acres - 12,304 Prominent habitats – High salinity SAV, inlet, intertidal flats, shallow and deep estuarine soft bottom Ecological designations – CSS, SNHA Conservation Lands - Cape Hatteras National Seashore
39 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – some multi-slip docking, trawling, residential development (Hatteras), trawling Avg. total alteration score – 0.26 Avg. selection frequency - 450 Notes –
SHA #59: Pamlico Sound Fish Area 2
Description –good fish data, inside of Hatteras Inlet Acres - 1,119 Prominent habitats – marine soft bottom, good fish data Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – trawling Avg. total alteration score – 1.00 Avg. selection frequency - 57 Notes –
SHA #68: Eastern Pamlico Sound , S
Description – grass flats, shallow bottom behind the Outer Banks, Buxton – Frisco area Acres - 39,274 Prominent habitats – High salinity SAV, soft bottom < 6 ft, emergent wetlands, intertidal shell bottom, subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations - Conservation Lands - Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Buxton Woods Coastal Reserve Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – minimal, some marinas, residential development (Buxton and Frisco), trawling Avg. total alteration score – 0.09 Avg. selection frequency - 194 Notes –
SHA #145: Eastern Pamlico Sound, N
Description – high salinity SAV, shallow bottom behind the Outer Banks, Rodanthe, Waves, Salvo, Avon area Acres – 31,941 Prominent habitats – High salinity SAV, shallow soft bottom < 6ft, emergent wetlands Ecological designations – SNHA, CSS Conservation Lands - Cape Hatteras National Seashore Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present - residential and seasonal development (Salvo, Avon), trawling Avg. total alteration score –0.60 Avg. selection frequency - 354 Notes –
SHA #7: Oregon Inlet system
Description - Oregon Inlet, flats, banks, and channels behind the inlet (Oldhouse and Davis channels) Acres - 60,403
40 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Prominent habitats – High salinity SAV, subtidal shell bottom, intertidal flats, intertidal shell bottom, soft bottom > 6 ft, inlet, tidal marsh Ecological designations – Crab Spawning Sanctuary (CSS), Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA), Conservation Lands - Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Cape Hatteras National Seashore (NS), WRC Island C 05-06 Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – minimal, trawling and dredging allowed in portions of area Avg. total alteration score – 0.63 Avg. selection frequency - 424 Notes –
SHA #123: Ocean, Platt Shoals
Description – nearshore ocean adjacent to Oregon Inlet, Pea Island NWR Acres - 36,137 Prominent habitats – marine soft bottom Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Pea Island NWR Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – Avg. total alteration score – 0.96 Avg. selection frequency - 490 Notes –
Mainland shoreline
SHA #150 : Northwest Pamlico Shoreline
Description – western Pamlico Sound, north of Stumpy Point Acres - 2,859 Prominent habitats – soft bottom 0-3 ft, > 6 ft, emergent and non-riparian wetlands Ecological designations – SNHA Conservation Lands - Alligator River NWR Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present - Avg. total alteration score – 0.65 Avg. selection frequency - 89 Notes – recruitment area for blue crab larvae under certain weather conditions (Eggleston)
SHA #38 : Parched Corn Bay
Description – western Pamlico Sound bay, just south of Stumpy Point Acres - 4,971 Prominent habitats – soft bottom > 6 ft, soft bottom 0-3 ft, subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations – SNHA Conservation Lands - Alligator River NWR Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – trawling, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 0.81 Avg. selection frequency - 377 Notes –
SHA # 14: Long Shoal River
41 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Description – Long Shoal River, Pains Bay, Pamlico Sound Acres - 15,163 Prominent habitats - emergent wetland, subtidal shell bottom, shallow – deep soft bottom Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Alligator River NWR, Gull Rock Game Land, Dare County Air Force Range Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – canals, wetlands lost to development, some bottom trawling, minor developed and agriculture land use Avg. total alteration score – 0.45 Avg. selection frequency - 417 Notes –
SHA # 21: Otter Creek
Description – bay and creek north of Engelhard, south of Long Shoal River, Juniper Swamp Point Acres - 1,367 Prominent habitats – emergent wetlands, subtidal shell bottom, and shallow soft bottom 0-3 ft Ecological designations – PNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Gull Rock Game Land Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 0.36 Avg. selection frequency - 483 Notes –
SHA #20 : Far Creek
Description – embayment and creek near Engelhard, Gibbs Point, connected to Mattamuskeet draining canal Acres - 5,344 Prominent habitats - emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 ft, soft bottom > 6 ft, non-riparian wetlands, subtidal shell Ecological designations – PNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, canals and ditching, bottom disturbing gear, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 1.3 Avg. selection frequency - 406 Notes –
SHA # 19: Middleton Creek
Description – embayment and creek near Middleton Acres - 1,367 Prominent habitats – low elevation uplands, emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 ft, non-riparian wetlands Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, canal and culverts, bottom disturbing gear, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 1.94 Avg. selection frequency - 490 Notes –
42 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
SHA #49 : Wysocking Bay
Description – large embayment southeast of Lake Mattamuskeet Acres - 10,813 Prominent habitats - emergent wetlands, estuarine soft bottom, shallow to deep, low elevation uplands, subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations – PNA, SPNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Gull Rock Game Land Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – culvert, bottom disturbing gear, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 0.71 Avg. selection frequency - 445 Notes –
SHA #148 : East Bluff Bay
Description – Embayment south of Wysocking Bay and near Outfall Canal Acres - 249 Prominent habitats – emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 ft. Ecological designations – PNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Gull rock Game Land Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – minimal, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.91 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #27 : Pamlico Sound Fish Area 3
Description – soft bottom with good fish data Acres - 870 Prominent habitats – soft bottom > 6 ft. Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.0 Avg. selection frequency - 52 Notes –
Pamlico River mouth
SHA # 52 : Swanquarter Bays
Description – Swanquarter, Rose, Juniper Bays, near Swanquarter, hydrologically connects with Lake Mattamuskeet via Rose Bay Canal Acres - 60,900 Prominent habitats – estuarine soft bottom, emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0- 6 ft., non-riparian wetland, subtidal shell bottom, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, ORW, SNHA Conservation Lands - Gull Rock Gameland, Mattamuskeet NWR, Swanquarter NWR Fish data – yes
43 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Prominent alterations present – agriculture, ditching, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.49 Avg. selection frequency - 410 Notes –good fish data in river
SHA #60 : southeast Pungo River
Description – Slade and Fortescue creeks and Abel Bay Acres - 17,276 Prominent habitats –Non-riparian wetlands, emergent wetlands, shallow to deep soft bottom, low elevation uplands, subtidal shell bottom, low salinity SAV, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, wetlands lost to development, ditched, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.3 Avg. selection frequency - 495 Notes –
SHA #69: Goose Creek Game Land 1
Description – creeks and bays at south tip of Pamlico River, including Oyster Creek, Middle Prong, and some impoundments Acres - 5,096 Prominent habitats – emergent wetlands, wetland edge, soft bottom 0-3 and 3-6 ft, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Goose Creek Game Land Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – drained, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.9 Avg. selection frequency - 424 Notes –
SHA #70: Goose Creek Game Land 2
Description - Big Porpoise, Middle and Jones bays south of Pamlico River mouth; near Hobucken Acres - 18,891 Prominent habitats – emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0 - > 6 ft, subtidal shell bottom, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, oyster sanctuary, SNHA Conservation Lands - Goose Creek Game Land, Hobucken Marshes Preserve, military prohibited Brandt Island Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – drained, military activities, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.87 Avg. selection frequency - 425 Notes –
SHA #65: Upper Middle Ground
Description – Subtidal oyster reefs with good fishing off Pamlico River Acres - 4,474 Prominent habitats - soft bottom, subtidal shell bottom
44 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Ecological designations – ORW Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.0 Avg. selection frequency - 46 Notes – ck notes – oyster reefs and large red drum (per M. Marshall)
SHA #57: Pamlico Sound Fish Area 1
Description – good fish data, inside of Ocracoke Inlet Acres - 497 Prominent habitats – estuarine soft bottom > 6 ft, good fish data Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – Avg. total alteration score – 1.0 Avg. selection frequency - 61 Notes –
Pamlico River
SHA #130 : southwest Pungo River
Description – creeks along lower and west of Pungo River and Pamlico River, includes North Creek, Wades Point and Pamlico Beach Acres - 8,451 Prominent habitats – non-riparian wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 ft. , low elevation uplands, emergent wetland, low salinity SAV. Ecological designations – IPNA, PNA, SNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – Avg. total alteration score –0.83 Avg. selection frequency - 490 Notes – healthy system
SHA #128 : Jordan Creek
Description – Jordan Creek off Pungo River Acres - 2,113 Prominent habitats – Non-riparian wetlands, soft bottom 0- >6, subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations – IPNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, culvert, wetlands lost to development and agriculture, bottom disturbing gear, minor animal operations Avg. total alteration score – 0.46 Avg. selection frequency - 471 Notes –
SHA #40 : Pungo Creek
45 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Description – mid- Pungo Creek, west of Hwy. 99 Acres - 1,491 Prominent habitats – soft bottom, subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, bottom disturbing fishing gear, wetlands lost to development Avg. total alteration score –0.96 Avg. selection frequency - 473 Notes –
SHA #15 : Pantego Creek
Description – Pantego Creek off Pungo River Acres - 4,847 Prominent habitats – non-riparian wetlands, emergent wetlands Ecological designations – SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, minor NPDES, major animal operation, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.67 Avg. selection frequency - 407 Notes –
SHA #41 : Tooley‟s Point
Description – bay and lower Dowry Creek by Tooley‟s Point near Bellhaven Acres - 621 Prominent habitats – soft bottom 0-3 ft. , low elevation upland Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear, minor NPDES, multi-slip docks Avg. total alteration score –0.8 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #147 : Haystack Point
Description – Flax Pond by Haystack Point, west of Upper Dowry Creek off Pungo River Acres - 373 Prominent habitats – non-riparian wetland, soft bottom > 6 ft. , soft bottom 0-3 ft. , low elevation upland Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear, shoreline stabilization, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score –0.56 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA # 17: Upper Pungo River
46 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Description – Upper Pungo to Hwy. 264 and 45 Acres - 2,610 Prominent habitats – emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0-3, soft bottom > 6, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – SNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Pungo River Game Land Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.46 Avg. selection frequency - 43 Notes –
SHA #51: South and Goose Creeks
Description – South, Bond, Goose, Eastham and Campbell creeks, south side of Pamlico River, southeast of PCS, near Aurora Acres - 21,626 Prominent habitats – wetland edge, emergent wetland, non-riparian wetland, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – IPNA, PNA, SNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Goose Creek Game Land Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – drained, minor NPDES, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.97 Avg. selection frequency - 457 Notes –
SHA #61: Durham Creek
Description – Durham Creek, south side of Pamlico River, west of PCS Acres - 4,101 Prominent habitats - non-riparian wetlands, forested wetlands, soft bottom 3-6 ft Ecological designations – PNA, IPNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – major NPDES, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.30 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #44 : Bath Creek
Description – Bath Creek Acres - 3,977 Prominent habitats - forested wetlands, soft bottom >6 ft, soft bottom 0-3 ft Ecological designations – IPNA Conservation Lands - Bath State Historic Site Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, residential development along shoreline, wetlands lost to development, bottom disturbing fishing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.87 Avg. selection frequency - 490 Notes –
47 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas SHA # 54: Mixon Creek
Description – Mixon Creek west of Gum Point near Bayview Acres - 870 Prominent habitats – non-riparian wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 Ecological designations – IPNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – major NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 1.88 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #42 : Goose Creek State Park
Description – Duck, Little Goose, and Broad creeks along Pamlico River shoreline, west of Bath Acres - 4,723 Prominent habitats - forested wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 ft, low elevation upland, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – IPNA, SNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Goose Creek State Park Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – relatively minor, some agriculture, bottom disturbing fishing gear Avg. total alteration score –0.32 Avg. selection frequency - 482 Notes –
SHA #47: Blount‟s Bay
Description – Blount‟s Bay and Blount‟s Creek off Pamlico River, just south of Chocowinity. Acres - 13,796 Prominent habitats – soft bottom > 6ft, forested wetland, low salinity SAV, soft bottom 0-3ft Ecological designations – SNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Nevil‟s Creek Land Trust and Preserve Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture and residential development, obstruction, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.53 Avg. selection frequency - 485 Notes –
SHA # 43: Upper Pamlico River, Washington
Description – Upper Pamlico River north of Chocowinity Bay, up to Tranters Creek Acres - 2,486 Prominent habitats – forested wetlands Ecological designations – IPNA, SNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – developed north shore, minor NPDES, bridges Avg. total alteration score – 0.89 Avg. selection frequency - 414 Notes – good striper fishing, especially around bridge pilings
48 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas SHA # 2: Lower Fishing Creek
Description – Fishing Creek – upper Tar River, just above Tarboro Acres - 621 Prominent habitats - forested wetland, riverine soft bottom Ecological designations – AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, culvert (road bisects), wetlands lost to agriculture Avg. total alteration score – 0.63 Avg. selection frequency - 38 Notes – Check on why – fairly close to Tarboro or major highways, low selection freq
SHA #4 : Tar River, Rocky Mount
Description – Tar River just below Rocky Mills Dam Acres - 10,191 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, riverine rocky bottom, wetland edge Ecological designations – IPNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – possibly from WRCProminent alterations present – agriculture and developed (Rocky Mount), dam, impoundment, major NPDES, hog lagoon, Avg. total alteration score – 1.17 Avg. selection frequency - 485 Notes –
SHA # 1: Upper Fishing Creek
Description – Fishing Creek – upper Tar River, above Tarboro, on Halifax/Edgecombe county line Acres - 870 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, riverine stream, mid elevation Ecological designations – AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture (forestry), minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 1.52 Avg. selection frequency - 82 Notes – American shad use for spawning per B.Wynne
Pamlico-Neuse Bays
SHA #78: Bay River
Description – Bay River and adjacent bays and creeks including Bear, Gale, Vandemere creeks and Bonner Bay; Near Vandemere Acres - 20383 Prominent habitats – soft bottom 0-3 and >6 ft, emergent wetland, non-riparian wetland, subtidal shell bottom, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Hobucken Marshes Preserve, Lampe-Woodard tract land trust Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, drained, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.83
49 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Avg. selection frequency - 471 Notes –
SHA #81: Chapel Creek
Description – Chapel Creek in upper Bay River Acres - 1,243 Prominent habitats – soft bottom, emergent wetland Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, drained, obstructions, animal operations Avg. total alteration score – 1.31 Avg. selection frequency - 100 Notes –
SHA #144: Moore Bay
Description – creek feeding into Moore Bay on upper south side of Bay River Acres - 497 Prominent habitats - non-riparian wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 and >6 ft Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, drained, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.87 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #149: Upper Bay River
Description – single hex in upper Bay River – PNA Acres - 124 Prominent habitats - non-riparian wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 and >6 ft Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, drained, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.51 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #82: Mason Bay
Description – creek feeding into Mason Bay on upper south side of Bay River Acres - 621 Prominent habitats – low elevation upland, non-riparian wetland, emergent wetland Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, drained, major animal operation Avg. total alteration score – 0.93 Avg. selection frequency - 471
50 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Notes –
Neuse River
SHA # 137: Neuse Mouth 1
Description – subtidal oyster reefs in mouth of Neuse River Acres - 6,339 Prominent habitats – subtidal shell bottom, soft bottom > 6 ft Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.02 Avg. selection frequency – 330 Notes -
SHA # 86: Neuse Mouth 2
Description – just outside Neuse mouth Acres - 11,683 Prominent habitats – good fish data, shell bottom, soft bottom >6 ft Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score –1.01 Avg. selection frequency - 281 Notes –
SHA #91 : Neuse Oyster Rock 3
Description – subtidal oyster reef, center of Neuse, west of Rattan Bay Acres - 1,725 Prominent habitats – subtidal oyster reefs, soft bottom > 6ft Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – Avg. total alteration score – 1.01 Avg. selection frequency - 313 Notes – good drum fishing and oysters
SHA # 96: West Bay
Description – mouth of West Bay Acres - 7,333 Prominent habitats – shallow to deep soft bottom, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – SNHA Conservation Lands - Cedar Island NWR, Piney Island, military prohibited area (BT-11) Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.69
51 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Avg. selection frequency – 78 Notes -
SHA #97 : Turnagain Bay area
Description – Turnagain Bay, upper South River, west side of Long Bay Acres - 20,756 Prominent habitats – emergent wetland, soft bottom >6ft, non-riparian wetland, headwater wetland, some high salinity SAV and subtidal shell bottom Ecological designations – PNA, oyster sanctuary, SNHA Conservation Lands - Carteret County Game Land, Turnagain Bay Preserve, Piney Island Marine Corps land, military prohibited area (BT-11) Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score –0.31 Avg. selection frequency - 408 Notes –
SHA # 107: West Thorofare Bay
Description – West Thorofare, upper Long Bay, Cedar Island Acres - 5,220 Prominent habitats – Emergent wetlands, non-riparian wetlands, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Cedar Island NWR Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, drained Avg. total alteration score – 0.08 Avg. selection frequency – 358 Notes – connects to Thorofare Bay, good shrimping area
SHA #106 : Sandy Point
Description – Neuse shoal between Adams and South River Acres - 746 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, emergent wetland Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, wetlands lost to agriculture and development Avg. total alteration score – 0.21 Avg. selection frequency – 362 Notes -
SHA #109 : Back Creek
Description – Back Creek, tributary of Adams Creek, headwaters in Open Grounds Farm Acres - 3,853 Prominent habitats – non-riparian wetland, low elevation upland, emergent wetland Ecological designations – PNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – agriculture, bottom disturbing gear, drained
52 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Avg. total alteration score – 0.73 Avg. selection frequency – 492 Notes –
SHA # 110 : Adams Creek
Description – Adams Creek mouth and side tributary near Merimon Acres - 2,983 Prominent habitats – soft bottom 0-3 ft, emergent wetlands, low elevation upland Ecological designations – PNA, SNA Conservation Lands - Fish data – Prominent alterations present – agriculture, bottom disturbing gear, wetlands lost to development Avg. total alteration score – 0.84 Avg. selection frequency - 491 Notes –
SHA #136: Broad Creek
Description – Broad Creek, north mouth of Neuse River Acres - 8,079 Prominent habitats – soft bottom 0-3 ft, emergent wetland, high salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA Conservation Lands - NGO owned tract Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – drained, obstruction, bottom disturbing gear, multi-slip docking, minor NPDES Avg. total alteration score – 0.77 Avg. selection frequency - 452 Notes –
SHA #100 : Green Creek
Description – Green, Whittaker, Pierce, and Orchard creeks at Oriental Acres - 5,966 Prominent habitats - soft bottom 0-3 ft, emergent wetlands Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, AFSA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, multi-slip docking, drained Avg. total alteration score – 0.95 Avg. selection frequency - 499 Notes –
SHA # 105 : Neuse Oyster Rock 1
Description – subtidal oyster reef, center of Neuse opposite Adams Creek Acres - 1,616 Prominent habitats – subtidal shell bottom, soft bottom > 6ft Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear
53 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Avg. total alteration score –1.01 Avg. selection frequency - 386 Notes –
SHA #102 : Neuse Oyster Rock 2
Description – subtidal oyster reef, center of Neuse near South Creek
Acres - 621 Prominent habitats - subtidal shell bottom, soft bottom > 6ft Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.01 Avg. selection frequency – 431 Notes -
SHA #104 : Dawson Creek
Description – Dawson Creek, between Minnesott Beach and Oriental Acres - 1,864 Prominent habitats – soft bottom > 6 ft, emergent wetlands, soft bottom 0-3 ft Ecological designations – PNA, SNA, AFSA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.64 Avg. selection frequency - 293 Notes –
SHA # 98 : Beard‟s Creek
Description – Beards Creek near Arapahoe Acres - 2,610 Prominent habitats – emergent wetlands, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, AFSA Conservation Lands - Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, development along shore, multi-slip docking facilities, minor NPDES, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.50 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes –
SHA #113 : Clubfoot Creek
Description – Clubfoot Creek, connected to Harlowe Creek (trib of Newport River) via canal Acres - 5,841 Prominent habitats – non-riparian wetland, soft bottom 0- ft, forested wetland, some low salinity SAV Ecological designations – PNA, SNA Conservation Lands - Croatan National Forest Fish data – no
54 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Prominent alterations present – agriculture and development, obstruction, wetlands lost to agriculture Avg. total alteration score – 0.59 Avg. selection frequency - 488 Notes –
SHA #112 : Hancock Creek
Description – Hancock Creek, south side of Neuse, near Cherry Point Acres - 4,971 Prominent habitats – soft bottom 0-3 ft, forested wetland, low elevation upland, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – IPNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Croatan National Forest Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – development, obstructions, wetlands lost to development Avg. total alteration score – 0.66 Avg. selection frequency – 500 Notes – metal contamination but not as bad as Slocum; lot of recreational fishing for speckled trout, red drum, striped bass
SHA # 134 : Goose Creek
Description – Goose and Upper Broad creeks just east of Fairfield Harbour Acres - 7,954 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, non-riparian wetland, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – SNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Neuse River Game Land Fish data – yes Prominent alterations present – agriculture, development, wetlands lost to agriculture and development, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 0.23 Avg. selection frequency - 454 Notes –
SHA # 99 : Neuse shoreline, James City
Description – 1,491 Acres - 1,491 Prominent habitats – soft bottom >6 ft, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – Conservation Lands - Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – development, bottom disturbing gear Avg. total alteration score – 1.3 Avg. selection frequency - 500 Notes – high bluff shoreline
SHA #93 : Trent River
Description – Trent River Acres - 7,581 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, riverine soft bottom, low salinity SAV Ecological designations – SNHA Conservation Lands - Brice‟s Creek Land Trust, Croatan National Forest, Sawmill Wetland Mitigation
55 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas Site Fish data – no Prominent alterations present – development, multi-slip docking, minor NPDES, bottom disturbing gear, wetlands lost to development Avg. total alteration score – 1.12 Avg. selection frequency - 468 Notes –
SHA # 83: Upper Neuse 1
Description – Upper Neuse just upstream of New Bern, adjacent to Weyerhauser and including Hog Island, Hwy. 43 crosses it Acres - 4,474 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, riverine soft bottom Ecological designations – SNA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Bellair Plantation Preserve and Land Trust, Neuse River Game Land Fish data – possibly from WRC Prominent alterations present – development, major NPDES, wetlands lost to development Avg. total alteration score – 0.65 Avg. selection frequency - 400 Notes –
SHA #71 : Riverine Upper Neuse 2
Description – Pitch Kettle, Village, Core, Kidney creeks, further upstream than #83 Acres - 7,582 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, riverine soft bottom Ecological designations – IPNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Fish data – possibly from WRC Prominent alterations present – agriculture, major animal operation, wetlands lost to development Avg. total alteration score – 0.37 Avg. selection frequency - 20 Notes –Pitch Kettle used by hickory shad, Core, Village and Kidney creeks have relatively more and consistent use by juvenile blueback herring than anywhere else in Neuse or Tar. (per B. Wynne)
SHA # 140 : Riverine Upper Neuse 3
Description – Rocky bottom area of upper Neuse, upstream of former Quaker Neck dam, Goldsboro Acres - 22,371 Prominent habitats – forested wetland, riverine soft bottom, riverine hard bottom Ecological designations – IPNA, AFSA, SNHA Conservation Lands - Poplar Creek Bluffs Land Trust, Montgomery Laurel Bluffs Preserve, Land Trust Fish data – possibly from WRC Prominent alterations present – agriculture, development, major and minor NPDES, major and minor animal operations Avg. total alteration score – 0.73 Avg. selection frequency - 477 Notes –
56 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas LITERATURE CITED
Ball, I.R., H.P. Possingham, and M. Watts. 2009. Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Chapter 14: Pages 185-195 in Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Eds Moilanen, A., K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Ball, I. R. and H.P. Possingham. 2000. MARXAN (V1.8.2): Marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing, a manual.
Ballance, E. S. 2004. Using Winslow‟s 1886 NC oyster bed survey and GIS to guide future restoration projects. North Carolina Sea Grant, Fisheries Resource Grant Final Report #03-EP-03 , 22p.
Basta, D. J., M.A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, C.M. Blackwell, T.J. Culliton, J.J. McDonough III , M.J. Katz, D.G. Remer, J.P. Tolson, C.J. Klein, S.P. Orando Jr., and D.M. Lott. 1990. Estuaries of the United States, vital statistics of a national resource base. National Ocean Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD, A Special NOAA 20th Anniversary Report , 79p.
Carroway, R.J., and L.J. Priddy. 1983. Mapping of submerged grass beds in Core and Bogue Sounds, Carteret County, North Carolina, by conventional aerial photography. CEIP Report No. 20, 88p.
Collier, R. S. and M.C. Odom. 1989. Obstructions to anadromous fish migration. US Fish and Wildlife Service , Raleigh, NC, Project No. 88-12 , 29p.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS-79/31 .
Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O‟Neal, B. Boutin. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, NC. 639 pp.
Delorme. 1997. North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, Third Edition, Second Printing. Yarmouth, MA.
DCM (North Carolina Division of Coastal Management). 1994 (data). http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Wetlands/download.htm
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 1988-August 2009. Shellfish Habitat and Abundance Mapping Program. http://www.ncdmf.net/habitat/shellmap.htm
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries) 2006. Process for identification of Strategic Habiat Areas in coastal North Carolina. 55 pp.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2010. North Carolina License and Statistics Section Summary Statistics of License and Permit Program, Commercial Trip Ticket Program, Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Recreational Commercial Gear Survey. DMF, Morehead City, NC.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2010. Application for an Individual Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Unpub. Rep.
57 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 1998. Neuse River estuary SAV ground-truthing study. DWQ, Unpub. Rep. 11p.
DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2005-2006-2007 (data). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Mapping Project. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/SAV_Web/ Home.htm
DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2008. Neuse River Basinwide water quality management plan. Raleigh, NC
DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2010 Tar-Pamlico Basinwide water quality management plan. Raleigh, NC
ECSU (Elizabeth City State University). 2002-2003-2006 (data). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Cooperative Habitat Mapping Program. http://www.ecsu.edu/ECSU/AcadDept/Geology/ GEMSNewHomePageS05/ SavMapping/index.htm
Eggleston D.B., N.B. Reyns, L.L. Etherington, G.R. Plaia, L. Xie. 2010. Tropical storm and environmental forcing on regional blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) settlement. Fisheries Oceanography. 19(2): 89-106.
Ferguson, R. L. and L.L. Wood. 1994. Rooted vascular aquatic beds in the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system. NMFS, NOAA, Beaufort, NC, Project No. 94-02, 103 p.
Geselbracht, L.,R. Torres, G. Cumming, D. Dorfman, M. Beck, D. Shaw et al. 2009. Identification of a spatially efficient portfolio of priority conservation sites in marine and estuarine areas of Florida. Aquatic Conservation Marine and freshwater ecosystems 19: 408-420.
Haase, A.T. 2009 Circulation in Pamlico Sound and predicted oyster larval dispersal and connectivity. North Carolina State University Thesis. 62 pp.
Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musik, and D.E. Barnard. 1996. Abundance and distribution of sea turtle off North Carolina. OCS Study MMS 95-0024. Department of Interior, MMS. New Orleans, La. 77 pp.
Luczkovich, J. J., R.C. Pullinger, S.E. Johnson, and M.W. Sprague . 2008. Identifying sciaenid critical spawning habitats by the use of passive acoustics. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 576-605.
Meyer, Luczkovich, Brinson, and West. 2010. Effects of land cover change on blue crab population in NC‟s estuarine nurseries.
McNaught, D. et al. 2010. River herring habitats: Searching the Chowan River Basin. Environmental Defense Fund. Raleigh, NC. 430 pages.
Moser, M. L. and B. L. Taylor. 1995. Hard bottom habitat in North Carolina state waters: a survey of available data. Final report to NC Division of Coastal Management. Unpub. doc., 20p.
Moser, M. L. and M.E. Terra. 1999. Low light as a possible impediment to river herring migration. Center for Marine Science Research, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, 137p.
NED (National Elevation Dataset). http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm
NHD (National Hydrologic Dataset). http://nhdgeo.usgs.gov/viewer.htm
58 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
NLC (National Land-cover Dataset). 2001 (data). http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_nlcd.asp
Noble, E. B. and R.J. Monroe. 1991. Classification of Pamlico Sound Nursery Areas: Recommendations for Critical Habitat Criteria. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Morehead City, NC, A/P Project No. 89-09 , 70 p.
NWI (National Wetland Inventory). 1981-1982-1983 (data). http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html
Possingham, H. P., I.R. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. p. 291-305 in S. Ferson, M. Burgman. Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Reed, R.E., H.B. Glasgow, J.M. Burkholder, C. Brownie. 2004. Seasonal physical–chemical structure and acoustic Doppler current profiler flow patterns over multiple years in a shallow, stratified estuary, with implications for lateral variability. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 60(4): 549-566.
Reed, R.E., D.A. Dickey, J.M. Burkholder, C.A. Kinder, C.Brownie. 2008. Water level variations in the Neuse and Pamlico Estuaries, North Carolina due to local and remote forcing. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 76 (2): 431-446.
Reyns, N.B., D.B. Eggleston, R.A. Luettich Jr. 2007. Dispersal dynamics of post-larval blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, within a wind-driven estuary. Fisheries Oceanography. 16(3): 257–272.
Ross, S. W. and S.P. Epperly. 1985. Chapter 10: Utilization of shallow estuarine nursery areas by fishes in Pamlico Sound and adjacent tributaries, North Carolina. p. 207-232 in A. Yanez-Aranciba (ed.). Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Towards and Ecosystem Integration. DR (R) UNAM Press, Mexico, 654 p.
Sapp, A., P. Work, K. Haas, and D.A.Warren. 2010. Munitions Constituents in Sediment and Sea Water Collected Around the Perimeters of Offshore Bombing Targets BT-9 and BT-11, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point.
SEAMAP-SA (Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program). 2001. South Atlantic Bight hard bottom mapping. SEAMAP South Atlantic Bottom Mapping Workgroup, Charleston, South Carolina, 166p.
Smith, J. 2005. Identifying strategic habitat marine fisheries habitat in North Carolina. Masters Project, Duke University, Durham, NC. 55 pp.
Smith, M.C. 2006. Habitat use of early Alosa spp. and striped bass Morone saxatilis in the lower Tar River, North Carolina.. Thesis. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
Spidel, M.R. 2009. Residency and habitat utilization of southern flounder, Paralichthys lethostigma, in a NC coastal watershed. Thesis. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Stewart, R.R., T. Noyce, H.P. Possingham. 2003. Opportunity cost of ad hoc marine reserve design decisions: an example from South Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 253:25-38.
Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 656 pp.
59 Region 2 Strategic Habitat Areas
Sutter, L. 1999. DCM wetland mapping in coastal North Carolina. Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC, 33p.
Uphoff, J. 2008. Identifying priority areas for protection and restoration: Chesapeake Bay striped bass spawning and larval nursery areas as a model. A report to the Living Resources Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Fisheries Technical Report Series, 52: 1- 25.
US Navy. 2009. Assessment of the commercial and recreational uses of the waters surrounding the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point and the bombing targets at Piney Island and Brant Island Shoal. Final Report.
Waters, C. T. and C.D. Thomas. 2001. Shoreline hardening effects on associated fish assemblages in five North Carolina coastal rivers. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC, 20p.
Wiegert, R. G. and B. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reports 85(7.29): 71.
Winslow, F. 1889. Sounds and estuaries of North Carolina with reference to oyster culture, US Coast and Geodetic Survey. Bull. No. 10 , 137p.
60
Map 4. Alteration layer for Region 2. Higher values equate to greater degradation.
Map 8. Alteration score of post-corroboration SHA nominations. Management goals – target lowest scores (green) SHAs for protection/conservation, mid scores (yellow) for protection/enhancement, and highest scores (pink) SHAs for restoration.
Map 9a. Post-corroboration SHA nominations, noting occurrence of state, federal, and private (land trust) conservation lands and MFC designated PNAs. Eastern portion of Region 2.
Map 9b. Post-corroboration SHA nominations, noting occurrence of state, federal, and private (land trust) conservation lands and MFC designated PNAs. Western portion of Region 2.
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission
Finfish Advisory Committee
Louis Daniel
FROM: David Taylor
DATE: September 13, 2011
SUBJECT: Finfish Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Finfish Advisory Committee (AC) met on September 13, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. at the Craven County Agricultural Extension office located at Industrial Drive in New Bern, NC. The following were present:
MFC: Darrell Taylor, Anna Beckwith, Chris Elkins
Advisors: Larry Coble, Patrick Finn, Jeff McBane and Jerry James
Public: Mike Shutac, Richard Phelps, Donald Willis, Jim Okenek, and Chris McCaffity
Staff: Kathy Rawls, Charlton Godwin, Chip Collier, Katy West, Officer Carter Witten, Christine Jensen and David Taylor
Bill Walker, Mark Hoff, Jarvis Miller, Chuck Manooch and Tommy Todd could not attend. A quorum was present.
Upon signing in, Chris McCaffity presented Mr. Taylor with a document entitled “A Common Sense Approach to Fishery Management” (attached). Mr. McCaffity alluded to several points found in the paper, but it was not read into the record or discussed at the meeting.
Co-chairman Anna Beckwith called the meeting to order.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
The public comment phase of the meeting was moved in the agenda to following the presentations on striped bass and spotted seatrout, so that participants could base their comments on what was presented. David Taylor gave a brief update on finfish-related actions taken by the MFC at their meeting last week in Raleigh. Southern Core Sound, which closed in July due to sea turtle interactions will re-open October 1. An additional night of gill netting (Sunday) will be allowed in the southern part of the state from Shackleford Banks to South Carolina effective September 18. The Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area (PSGNRA) will open September 19 under the same conditions as last year. Turtle interactions will result in reduced days of allowable fishing until three live kemps ridleys or two dead ones cause closure. Advisory committee and public meetings are being held the next two weeks to obtain input on spotted seatrout harvest reduction options to meet the 57.1 % reduction required to end overfishing and the draft Estuarine Striped Bass FMP. A public hearing on four rules for the annual
1
2011 rule cycle is scheduled for September 14 at the Central District Office in Morehead City. Finally, the MFC decided to maintain the striped bass ocean fisheries this year as gill net, beach seine and trawl with onshore/at dock transfer allowances. Next year, hook and line will be introduced with a limited entry plan to be developed.
PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Charlton Godwin presented the overview, management options and recommendations of the draft FMP in a powerpoint presentation. Jeff McBane asked about funding sources used fro stocking programs. He asked in regard to the proposed Atlantic Ocean closure and whether fish taken would have a significant impact on the stocks. Charlton explained that a sensitivity analysis (issue paper in the FMP) was available for the Oregon Inlet group and that it was mainly a conservation measure for the Roanoke River stocks. Public comment was solicited following the presentation. Chris McCaffity asked when the striped bass catch cards were required and was told they were required durig the summer in the ocean from Ocracoke to Virgina. He was concerned about handling the fish during tagging and release mortality. He felt like the discard mortality rate was greater than the stated 9%. He urged the MFC to allow fishermen to keep what they catch to avoid waste, manage on a quota system with possession limits and to eliminate size limits.
The Finfish AC then discussed the issues and asked questions of the staff. A total of eight issues were discussed and motions taken are shown below.
The first issue discussed was the proposed change to the ASMA southern boundary line as well as the desired change in the Roanoke River management Area lines in the vicinity of Cashoke Creek. Jeff McBane made the motion to support the necessary rule change to create the new boundaries. The motion was seconded by Larry Coble and passed unanimously.
The second issue taken up was stocking of phase II striped bass in the southern area river systems. Larry Coble made the motion to go with status quo-continue stocking with the goal of 100,000 fish stocked annually in all three major CSMA river systems, with 3,000 stocked fish tagged annually in each system. The motion was seconded by Patrick Finn and passed unanimously.
The third issue was the Atlantic Ocean summer recreational closure at Oregon Inlet Jerry James made the motion to close the ocean to the harvest of striped bass from the time recreational harvest in the ASMA closes until October 1 each year. The motion did not receive a second. Patrick Finn then made the motion for status quo and to accept the research needs. That motion was seconded by Jeff McBane and passed by a vote of 3-1.
The next issue taken up was single barbless hooks. Anna Beckwith asked about directed funds for the research needs and was told none presently exist. She expressed concern about unfunded research needs. Larry Coble motioned to accept the status quo-continue to educate anglers on conservative angling practices for striped bass. The motion was seconded by Patrick Finn and passed unanimously.
The fifth issue concerned discards in the CSMA and much discussion centered on the 50 yard from shore requirement lines. Slides on striped bass catches in sampling were shown and explained and the CSMA AC’s discussions were related as well as the Division rationale for staying with the existing lines. Jeff
2
McBane made a motion to accept the status quo anditwas seconded by Patrick Finn. The motion passed unanimously.
The issue of a directed hook and line fishery inside was discussed next. After discussion on why the ASMA AC did not like the agencies’ recommendation (suspect of future implications), a motion was made by Jerry James and seconded by Patrick Finn to accept the status quo with adaptive management so that the Division could respond to possible harvest restrictions that may result from declaring certain species as threatened or endangered or other scenarios. The motion passed unanimously.
The seventh issue concerned adoption of the present management measures in the CSMA with the addition of a pound for pound payback of any overages in the quota during the following year. Larry Coble motioned that the recommendation of the FFAC be status quo on the existing management measures PLUS the overage payback in the commercial fishery. The motion was seconded by Patrick Finn and passed unanimously.
Finally as an eighth issue in the draft FMP, the FFAC discussed endorsing the present management measures in the ASMA. These existing measures were outlined by Charlton and briefly discussed. Jeff McBane made a motion seconded by Jerry James to recommend supporting status quo for all current management measures in the ASMA. The motion passed unanimously.
The Spotted Seatrout draft FMP harvest reduction measures were taken up by the committee next. Co- chairman Darrell Taylor introduced Chip Collier, who presented the history of the reduction requirements throughout the development of this FMP amendment. Chip asked for input on the recommended ways to achieve the reductions as well as the timing of implementing those measures. The various options for achieving a 57.1% reduction in harvest were presented and the floor was opened to public comment.
Richard Phelps from the Swansboro area said he preferred a 3 to 4 fish recreational bag limit, a 15 inch minimum size limit and a season closure from December 1-February 28. For commercial fishermen, he recommended a December through February closed season and a 14 inch minimum size limit because in his area, the mesh size of nets being fished allowed for escapement. He urged that these actions be taken as soon as possible and to stop the delaying tactics and pointed out that the recreational fishermen take around 75% of the seatrout landings. He asked for clarification on the spotted seatrout AC commercial trip limit, which was shown as 50 fish, and Chip explained that it was in numbers of fish, which equated to approximately 100 pounds.
Chris McCaffity asked what the poundage reduction was to achieve the 57.1% reduction and was told approximately 120,000 lbs. for commercial sector. He said that ought to be the annual quota managed by possession limits. A limit on catch and release equal to about twice the allowed harvest should be implemented, that recreational landings should be reported like commercial ones recommended seasonal possession limits (higher in winter, lower in summer), that harvest of cold stunned fish should be allowed with dip nets and that gill net mesh sizes be regulated reduce waste.
The FFAC then discussed the pros and cons of the various proposals. In discussion of day of the week closures, Patrick Finn pointed out that setting and retrieval of nets at midnight would be difficult to do and to enforce. David Taylor said the three day closure should be thought of as a 72 hour period of no
3
harvest that meets the reduction goal and that the managers could make something more practical of the requirement. Closures during the week that would impact guides and last all year were generally discounted in favor of a three month closure on both commercial and recreational fishermen. December through February was discussed as well as an April through June closures to protect the spawning stocks. After additional discussion, Patrick Finn made a motion to accept the Spotted Seatrout AC’s recommendation exactly as it was. That motion was seconded by Jeff McBane and passed 3 to 1. Those measures follow:
• 14” Size Limit • 2 Fish Bag Limit Recreational • 50 Fish Trip Limit Commercial • Weekend No Possession Commercial • Estuarine Gillnets and Long Haul out of Water on Weekends • Implement These Regulations Immediately • Reassess in 3 Years
In addition to the SST AC recommendations, the FFAC’s Jeff McBane made a motion to make investigation of hooking mortality with various hook types with live and artificial bait a priority of the Coastal Recreational Fishing License funding. Larry Coble seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned.
4
MEMORANDUM:
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission MFC Inland Regional Advisory Committee Louis Daniel
FROM: Marine Fisheries Commission Office Randy Gregory
DATE: September 15, 2011
SUBJECT: MFC Inland Regional Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Inland Regional Advisory Committee (AC) met on September 15, 2011 at 6 p.m., at the Archdale Building, Raleigh. The following attended:
MFC: None
Advisors: Everett Blake III (chair), Joseph Hall, Woodard Jackson, Bill Cole, Jim Lilley, Jim Rice and Tom Smith
Staff: Randy Gregory, Jim Kelley, Charlton Godwin, Jacob Boyd and Chip Collier Hesselman
Public: Bernie McCants and Tim Ellis
Buzz Bryson, William Mandulak and John Cidlowski were absent.
Everett Blake III called the meeting to order and served as chair.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
Everett Blake III added an approval of minutes from the last Inland AC meeting. The public comment was moved after the presentations.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jim Rice moved to approve the draft minutes from the committee’s June 28, 2011 meeting. Joseph Hall seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION ON THE ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT I
Charlton Godwin, staff lead for the plan, gave a presentation on the Draft NC Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment I. The presentation outlined the striped bass management units, goals and objectives of the FMP, status of the stocks and fisheries. The committee was asked to discuss and make recommendations on seven issues contained in the FMP.
Jim Rice moved to recommend a rule change for new boundary points used for different striped bass management units. Bill Cole seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Tom Smith moved to recommend the status quo option for striped bass stocking in the CSMA. Joseph Hall seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The committee discussed the issue of the summer Atlantic Ocean recreational fishery. The committee felt that it was important to protect the fish while they were in the ocean since these fish were most likely active spawners that belong to the Albemarle/Roanoke stock.
Bill Cole moved to recommend the closure of the Atlantic Ocean to the harvest of striped bass from the time of the ASMA recreational season closure in the spring to October 1st of each year (option two). Jim Lilley seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Bill Cole moved to recommend status quo and continue to educate anglers on conservative angling practices for striped bass for the barbless hook management option. Joseph Hall seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The committee discussed and asked staff about the different hook types, release mortality research and material available to recreational anglers on conservative angling practices. The staff handed out DMF’s “Ethical Angling” brochure.
Jim Rice moved to recommend DMF develop educational materials with hook types, release and handling techniques with the statistics for post release mortality using different practices. Bill Cole seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Tom Smith moved to recommend status quo on all current measures concerning CSMA discards. Bill Cole seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Woodard Jackson moved to recommend status quo with adaptive measures for hook and line as a commercial gear in estuarine waters. Jim Rice seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Tom Smith moved to recommend status quo with the addition of commercial overage payback provision for CSMA management measures. Joseph Hall seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Joseph Hall moved to recommend status quo with all current management measures for the ASMA and RRMA. Tom Smith seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION ON ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE HARVEST IN THE SPOTTED SEATROUT FISHERY
Chip Collier, staff lead for the Spotted Seatrout FMP, gave a presentation on the management strategies for achieving sustainable harvest in the spotted seatrout fishery. Mr. Collier reviewed the need to revisit the issue, past recommendations of the MFC, DMF and Advisory Committees, the potential management options available and the timing of implementation of any options selected.
Jim Rice commented on spotted seatrout research, conducted by Tim Ellis (NC State researcher), that showed fishing mortality is lower and natural mortality is higher than previously thought and used in the stock assessment model. Dr. Rice supported management strategies to protect the stock after cold stunt events and keep the current management measures in place until November 2013.
Jim Rice moved to recommend the development of new management strategies by DMF to meet the necessary reductions with improved data and keep the current management measures until November 2013. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Bill Cole was concerned with the changes in recreational landings along with the improved data from Mr. Ellis’ research but felt management measures did not need to wait until November 2013.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bernie McCants, recreational fisherman, that the fishery has been overfished with “ups and downs” in the population. He agreed with the comments of Dr. Rice. He encouraged the MFC to keep the size limit consistent for all fisheries, use closed seasons, DMF should use proclamation authority to close the fishery due to cold stunt events, maintain the six fish at 14 inches and to use the data from Mr. Ellis’ research.
Continued - PRESENTATION ON ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE HARVEST IN THE SPOTTED SEATROUT FISHERY
Woodard Jackson moved to recommend the Spotted Seatrout Advisory Committee’s management measures. Jim Lilley seconded. The motion passed 5 to 2.
Bill Cole asked for the meeting minutes to reflect the substantial discussion and concern on the uncertainty of models and data used. The DMF needs to continue to update the data and information used to assess the population especially concerning the cold stunt events.
Jim Rice moved to recommend DMF develop, for spotted seatrout, educational materials with hook types, release and handling techniques with the statistics for post release mortality using different practices. Bill Cole seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned.
MEMORANDUM
TO: NC Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) MFC Central Regional Advisory Committee Louis Daniel
FROM: Marine Fisheries Commission Office Mike Marshall Katy West
RE: MFC Central Regional Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
DATE: October 14, 2011
The MFC Central Regional Advisory Committee (AC) met on Tuesday September 20, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the DENR Regional Office, Washington, NC. The following attended:
Advisors: Pam Morris, Ron McPherson, Keith Bruno, Dick Leach, Gene Wooster, David Kielmeier, Randy Proctor, Gilbert Tripp Staff: Mike Marshall, Katy West, Steve Anthony, Charlton Godwin, Chip Collier, Michelle Duval Public: Lee Kielmeier
Leland Tetterton, Dean Lamont and Dell Newman did not attend the meeting.
Co-chair Pam Morris opened and chaired the meeting.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA Co-chair Pam Morris moved the Update topic to the end of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dick Leach moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Randy Proctor seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments.
DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT I Charlton Godwin made a presentation on the draft amendment including information on the three management units, status of the stock, stock assessment, supporting information from the various sections of the amendment and the seven issues and management recommendations of the two advisory committees.
Randy Proctor questioned why there was a lack of older striped bass in the Central/Southern Management Area (CSMA). Charlton Godwin responded that the lack of older fish was noted
1 on the spawning grounds. Godwin also stated there were river flow problems in this area that affected the spawning grounds and caused the location of spawning activity to vary. However, it is believed not many older fish exist in the CSMA.
The Central Advisory Committee considered each issue in order of presentation.
ASMA and RRMA Boundary Line Changes Dick Leach moved to support Option 2. Support the necessary rule changes to create new lat/long point. David Kielmeier seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
Striped Bass stocking in CSMA Pam Morris asked if the stocked fish would be hybrid striped bass (no). Dick Leach asked if the capacity for the stocking facility was 100.000 fish (yes). Leach also wanted to know if a motion for stocking 150,000 fish would create pressure to expand stocking capacity. Godwin answered that it may in the future but not now due to funding and space constraints. Gene Wooster asked if there were any plans for eliminating the stocking program. Godwin responded there were no set plans for stopping the stocking program and that support of stocking would continue while stocking was assisting the population during low levels of abundance. Ron McPherson asked where the stocked fish would spawn. Godwin responded that the fish are stocked in striped bass nursery areas so that they would migrate with the wild stock and tag returns have verified this occurs.
Motion by Dick Leach to support Option 2. Further increase the number of fish produced/released – goal to 150,000 per yr/sys. Seconded by Gilbert Tripp. The motion was unanimously approved.
Summer Recreational Closure Atlantic Ocean Pam Morris asked if the boundary for the ocean area was east of the Bonner Bridge (yes). Keith Bruno stated mortality is high for recreational fish caught in the summer but not a lot of fish are taken at that time. Gilbert Tripp noted the catch card data for this fishery was poor. Godwin responded citing instances that indicated non-reporting of striped bass taken during summer charters. Morris asked if MRFSS data was used for this fishery. Godwin responded that the data was not useful due to uncertainty in the results probably caused by low sampling effort. Godwin also stated that striped bass are not generally targeted in the summer.
Motion by Dick Leach to support Option 2 (closure during the summer). Motion died for lack of a second.
Pam Morris asked how the fish taken east of the bridge were counted. Godwin responded that they were RRMA fish but they were not counted against the recreational quota due to data limitations.
Motion by Randy Proctor to support Option 1. Status Quo – allow the fishery to continue with catch card survey (May-Oct). Keith Bruno seconded the motion. Motion passed with one opposed.
2
Use of Single Barbless Hooks During the Summer Motion by Ron McPherson to support Option 1. Status quo (continue to educate anglers on conservative angling practices for striped bass). Gilbert Tripp seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
Discard mortality in the CSMA Pam Morris asked for reasons from the Central AC members that served on the CSMA AC for the alternative option chosen by the CSMA AC. Keith Bruno responded that the 50 yard restriction from shore on gill nets in the summer makes fishing impossible due to conflicts with boaters and poor fishing conditions in that area. Bruno also stated there were few fish in the lower part of the restricted area in the summer months indicating the 50-yard from shore restriction on gill nets was not needed at that time in the lower river. The dates in the CSMA AC recommendation on the 50-yards from shore restriction were selected to coincide with cooler waters temperatures when the fish moved back down the rivers. Godwin stated the DMF and WRC recommendation was to keep the tie down and distance from shore lines as they are now and noted additional information was available in the updated issue paper. After much deliberation, the CSMA AC felt the proposed solution would improve fishing, reduce conflicts and still protect striped bass stocks. Gilbert Tripp added that the commercial and recreational CSMA advisors agreed on the proposal.
Motion by Keith Bruno to support status quo with the addition of moving the 50 yard distance from shorelines upriver to the point specified in the Cuthrell map by proclamation from June 15 to August 31, at which point the distance from shorelines is to be restored to the original position. Gene Wooster seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
Hook and Line as Commercial Gear Keith Bruno stated adaptive management was considered by the CSMA AC under a scenario of, if there were no gill nets allowed in North Carolina, then rod and reel could be used for commercial purposes.
Motion by Dick Leach to support Option 2. Status quo with adaptive management. Keith Bruno seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
Management in the CSMA Pam Morris stated she was not excited about having to payback overages on the CSMA TAC and asked how often this occurred. Godwin responded that six of the last nine years had overages but the overages and underages tended to equal out over time. He also stated that the reason landings are low is because stocks are low. Bruno gave the opinion that higher stocks probably never were in the CSMA and questioned the lack of a provision for underages in the options. Randy Proctor suggested a five-year weighted average instead of the one year and if there was an overage on the five-year average it would be addressed. Godwin stated an average was used in the Albemarle and Roanoke areas and it had to exceed the TAC by 10% to require a payback. Morris stated with the large difference between the 275,000 lb. Albemarle TAC and the 25,000 CSMA TAC, she did see the point of a payback. Bruno informed the AC there was a
3 commercial/recreational split on the CSMA AC on this issue and the recreational side had one more member present that carried the vote on this issue. Bruno also stated the staff does a good job of monitoring the landings to keep from going over the TAC. Godwin added that late reporting that appears in the trip ticket program is often the cause of TAC overages.
Motion by Keith Bruno to support status quo with no payback for overages. Dave Kielmeier seconded the motion. The motion passed with one opposed.
Management in the ASMA/RRMA Motion by Gilbert Tripp to support the A/R AC recommendation of status quo for all current management measures in the ASMA/RRMA. Randy proctor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE HARVEST IN THE SPOTTED SEATROUT FISHERY The AC discussed the new requirements for ending overfishing in two years and described them as unfair and absurd. Chip Collier presented a review of the information on spotted seatrout regarding their overfishing status. No projection has been determined on whether spotted seatrout are overfished. Collier also presented options for management measures to end overfishing which would require a 57.1% reduction in the harvest of spotted seatrout in the recreational and commercial fisheries.
After the presentation the AC engaged in an hour-long discussion on the issue of reductions in the recreational fishery. There were many opinions voiced concerning the effects of the various management measures on recreational fishing and the supporting industry. Several committee members also voiced their doubts about the accuracy of the stock assessment for this species however, there appeared to be consensus that they were charged to choose a management option based on that assessment even if they did not agree with it. Collier suggested the AC could pass a motion expressing their concerns with the stock assessment. The AC was concerned with a creel limit so low that the public would not make a fishing trip if they could only keep a few fish and that would hurt bait and guide business and other associated economic benefits in the area. The closure days option appeared to be a balance by still encouraging weekend trips while meeting the needed reductions. It was noted catch and release fishing would still be able to occur on the closed days.
Ron McPherson moved to recommend a 14-inch size limit with a Tuesday through Thursday closed season and a seven fish bag limit for the recreational spotted seatrout fishery. The motion was seconded by Keith Bruno. The motion passed with one in opposition.
Concerning measures to achieve the required reduction in the commercial spotted seatrout fishery, Keith Bruno and Pam Morris expressed serious concern over the fact that all of the closure periods in the management options table (not just the weekend closure) were based on removing all commercial gear that could cause mortality of spotted seatrout from the water during the closure. They felt it was not right to stop fishing for important commercial species such as spot, croaker and flounder for a closure on a species that does not contribute much to
4 commercial landings. Bruno also expressed the need for a culling tolerance on the trip limit.
Keith Bruno moved to recommend a 14-inch size limit, 100-pound trip limit, and weekend prohibition on the commercial possession of spotted seatrout with no gear out of the water. The motion was seconded by Randy Proctor. The motion passed by a vote of 4 in favor and two opposed.
Motion by Randy Proctor to wait for research on natural mortality estimates before implementing management measures. The motion was seconded by Ron McPherson. The motion passed with one in opposition.
Motion by Keith Bruno to recommend the education option for reducing discard mortality in the spotted seatrout fishery. Seconded by David Kielmeier. Motion passed with one in opposition.
MFC UPDATE Staff updated the committee on the new MFC members and MFC actions regarding the ocean striped bass fishery for the coming season and future plans to examine limited entry and hook- and-line gear in that fishery. The AC was also updated on recent actions concerning opening of the PSGNRA and other flounder gill net fisheries this fall.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45pm.
NEXT MEETING/ISSUES The next meeting will be held in Carteret County. No date for the meeting was chosen.
/mm
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins District Managers Dick Brame Allen Jernigan Committee Staff Members Frank Crawley Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Louis Daniel Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) MFC Southeast Regional Advisory Committee (AC) MFC Regional Committee Co-Chairs Louis Daniel
FROM: Rich Carpenter
DATE: October 6, 2011
SUBJECT: Southeast Regional Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Southeast Regional Advisory Committee (SEAC) met on September 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Regional Field Office located at 127 Cardinal Drive Extension in Wilmington, NC. The following attended:
MFC: No commissioners attended.
Advisors: Joe Clem, Fred Scharf, Jim Swartzenberg, Robert Lomax, Sammy Corbett, Seth Vernon, Dick Stone and Jerry Dilsaver
Staff: Chip Collier, Kathy Rawls, Charlton Godwin, Jack Holland, Mike Ervin, Matt Stokley, Rich Carpenter
Public: Art Brownell, Ted Davis, Lee Parsons, Philip Leonard
William Rouse was unable to attend.
Dick Stone chaired the meeting.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
Rich Carpenter asked that an MFC update be added to the agenda. The approval of the meeting minutes from June 16, 2011 were amended to indicate that Jim Swartzenberg was unable to attend. The group decided to defer the public comment period until after Chip Collier’s and Charlton Godwin’s presentations on spotted seatrout and striped bass.
MFC UPDATE
Rich Carpenter presented a summary of the MFC’s September business meeting in Raleigh, NC. The summary covered: . the MFC’s actions on the striped bass fishery in the Atlantic Ocean . approved referring the spotted seatrout sustainable harvest options and the draft estuarine striped bass FMP to the regional and Finfish Committees.
1
The next MFC business meeting will be November 2-4.
SUSTAINABLE HARVEST OPTIONS FOR SPOTTED SEATROUT
Chip Collier presented the sustainable harvest options for the spotted seatrout FMP to end overfishing within two years. The presentation included options for both the recreational and commercial fisheries and included closed days and seasons, trip limits, reduced bag limits and when to implement any new restrictions.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Lee Parsons stated that he had a very difficult time finding information about the meeting. He felt that more research needs to be conducted on the best hook type to reduce hooking mortality in the recreational fishery. He said that circle hooks don’t work well with speckled trout and black sea bass but flounder hooks work well. He suggested that seatrout would be better managed if there was regional management of the stocks because of the differences in the fisheries and as an example he cited the high catches of gigged fish in the southern part of the state. He also said that hooking mortality studies need to be done on a regional basis.
Bert Lomax was concerned about the take of seatrout by gigging wondered if there could be a night time closure for speckled trout.
Seth Vernon wanted to incorporate a recommendation on gigging.
Fred Scharf had a question about the impact of the weekend closure and possession of seatrout on the weekends. He also wondered why the Central AC was opposed to the weekend closure (fish for other species). The committee had other questions about recommendations from the other advisory committees specifically using the number of fish versus poundage for harvest limits and the percentage reduction associated with different measures.
Jerry Dilsaver stated that when gill mesh size restrictions are enacted fishermen will switch the other size mesh.
There was a discussion of the effect of daily closures on the recreational fishery Jerry Dilsaver had reservations about the daily closures on the charter and recreational fishery because it would cut the time dedicated fishermen could fish.
The group also discussed the pros and cons of the seasonal commercial closure and why some of the other committees made the recommendation that they did. Dr. Scharf also asked about the seasonality of the recreational and commercial catch. Jerry Dilsaver had concerns that a seasonal commercial closure could make it through the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC).
Joe Clem made a motion to accept the AC recommendations with the addition of research on hook and discard mortality, the possibility of area management in the future, research on gigs and that the measures be adopted immediately. Second by Jim Swartzenberg, passed unanimously.
2
ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FMP
Charlton Godwin gave the presentation for the estuarine striped bass FMP. He explained that because there are two distinct stocks in North Carolina there are two advisory committees, Albemarle/Roanoke and Central Southern, and that the FMP is a joint plan with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Arthur Brownell agrees with the proposed management measures for the Cape Fear River, continued harvest moratorium. He was concerned that many people don’t know about the moratorium and suggested that notices be posted at the boat ramps. He also volunteered Cape Fear River Watch to help fund striped bass work on the Cape Fear as well as volunteers to help with the creel survey.
Ted Davis feels that stocking phase 2 fingerlings is not efficient and suggested that areas be closed to harvest rather than stocking them. He stated there is a point that stocking should not be continued. There was discussion of the cost of the stocking program and the experience of closing the CFR to harvest. Mr. Brownell said that there has been a dramatic increase in the catch of the striped bass in the Cape Fear.
Sammy Corbett asked about how the recreational catch is estimated. There was discussion of the difference in the surveys for the Albemarle/Roanoke and the Atlantic Ocean catch card survey.
Fred Scharf made a motion to accept the first four recommendations from the Inland A.C. and to add an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current stocking program. Second by Seth Vernon. The motion passed 6-1.
Jim Swartzenberg made a motion to adopt the 2nd four recommendations from the Inland A.C. Second by Joe Clem. Motion passed 6-1.
The was no date set for the next meeting of the Committee.
Meeting adjourned.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marine Fisheries Commission Northeast Regional Advisory Committee Louis Daniel
FROM: Kathy Rawls, Northern District Manager
DATE: September 26, 2011
SUBJECT: Northeast Regional Advisory Committee Meeting/Public Meeting
The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Northeast Regional Advisory Committee (NEAC) met on Thursday, September 22, 2011 at the Dare County Administration Building in Manteo, N.C. The following were in attendance:
Advisers: Riley Williams, Woody Collins, Damon Tatem, Fred Waterfield, Dixie Ray Smith, David Spruill and Linda Harper. Bill Van Druten and Frank Folb participated by conference call.
Staff: Kathy Rawls, Charlton Godwin, Ben Goforth, Chip Collier and Lieutenant Jerry Forbes
Public: Phil Haywood, R. Haywood Jr., Sara Winslow
Co-chair Damon Tatem called the meeting to order.
MODIFICATIONA TO THE AGENDA Mr. Tatem recommended the committee approve last meetings minutes and then receive updates from staff. They also agreed the public comment should follow the presentations on the Spotted Seatrout Sustainable Harvest Management Measures and the DRAFT Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan.
UPDATES Kathy Rawls updated the NEAC on the most recent MFC business meeting held in Raleigh on September 1-2. The update included information on the management of the upcoming Atlantic Ocean striped bass commercial fishery as well as the limited entry proposal that was approved by the MFC. There was considerable discussion on those two topics.
The update also included information on the opening of the PSGNRA and the southern areas of the state to large mesh gill netting. Kathy also updated the committee on the development of NC’s American Shad Sustainable Fishery Plan. The NEAC received information on the upcoming commercial and recreational striped bass seasons in the Albemarle Sound Management Area as well as information on upcoming meetings.
Kathy also reminded the committee that the MFC was seeking advisors and that the committee had a vacancy.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Woody Collins moved to approve the NEAC minutes from the June 30, 2011 meeting. David Spruill seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SPOTTED SEATROUT SUSTAINABLE HARVEST MANAGEMENT MEASURES Division Biologist Chip Collier gave a presentation on the management options to achieve sustainable harvest in the spotted seatrout fishery. Chip informed the NEAC of the timeline, the past recommendations, sustainability targets and the potential management options for both the commercial and recreational fisheries.
The committee began discussion on the recreational management measures first. NEAC member Frank Folb expressed concern about the cold stun events and the effect they had on the population and that the fishermen, both commercial and recreational, would be penalized for those events. Frank commented that is was a waste not to harvest dead or dying fish during cold stun events.
Bill Van Druten said day closures would hurt the recreational charter industry.
Dixie Smith commented that any recreational size limit increase could potentially increase discard mortality as anglers seek out legal sized fish.
Dixie Smith commented that the last two winters cold stun events were causing the depletion in the population and not fishing. He asked about the recreational creel limit with a 12” size limit and Chip explained the limit would be reduced to 1 fish.
Damon Tatem asked if the spotted seatrout AC’s recommendations delivered the needed reductions and Chip informed the committee that they did. Damon commented he did not support closing days as it would create a hardship for the small boat charter fisherman.
Riley Williams indicated he did not support time or day closures for gear.
Dixie Smith asked if there was something in the management options relative to bycatch and Chip informed him there was not.
Linda Harper asked how long before the research on natural mortality would be completed. Chip informed the committee it could be as long as a year due to the peer review necessary for the report.
Riley Williams spoke against commercial nets out of the water on the weekends and did not support this or a time closure. He indicated that the weekend closure was because of a conflict issue and not a resource issue and this was unfair to the commercial fishermen.
Dixie Smith commented he did not support removing strike net on the weekend and that this would be hard for the mullet fishermen.
Bill Van Druten also spoke against the closing of days and removing of gear from the water.
Damon Tatem asked for public comment before the committee voted. Mr. Phil Haywood indicated he did not support removing the gear from the water. He commented that he could manage with no possession of spotted seatrout on the weekends, but that he could not support no gear in the water to fish for other species. Sara Winslow asked if the reductions due to the sea turtle settlement agreement were included in the data Chip presented and he indicated they were.
Frank Folb moved to recommend a 15” minimum size limit, 4 fish creel limit and a December 1- December 31 closure for the recreational fishery. David Spruill seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Riley Williams moved to recommend a 14” minimum size limit and 50 fish daily harvest limit and no possession of spotted seatrout on the weekends for the commercial fishery. This motion died with no second.
Riley Williams moved to recommend a 14” minimum size limit and a 25 fish daily harvest limit with no closure for the commercial fishery. Fred Waterfield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
DRAFT ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN DMF staff Biologist Charlton Godwin presented the draft Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan to the NEAC. The presentation included an update on the management units, the goals and objectives of the plan, a brief overview of the stock and a review of all of the issues for both the Albemarle Roanoke stock as well as the Central Southern stock. Charlton also reviewed with the NEAC what public comment had been received so far from the other committees and members of the public.
The NEAC opted to discuss and vote on each issue as they came to them. The issues and votes are in order they were received and are as follows:
1. Boundary Line Changes
Riley Williams moved to support the necessary rule changes to create new boundary points. The motion was seconded by Woody Collins. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Striped Bass Stocking in CSMA Coastal Rivers
Woody Collins moved to support status quo and including the research needs. The motion was seconded by Riley Williams. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Atlantic Ocean Summer Recreational Closure
Bill Van Druten questioned the need to close the ocean if there were no striped bass being caught. Frank Folb commented that this was an unnecessary measure because the stock was not experiencing overfishing and not overfished.
Damon Tatem asked for public comment on this topic. Sara Winslow commented that the harvest that is occurring is on large, mature females that need protection. She also indicated that the harvest was not being accounted for and that these landings should come off of the annual total allowable catch. She also commented that the rest of the ASMA is closed at that time and that since these are Albemarle Roanoke stock this area should be closed too.
Damon Tatem indicated he did not see this as an issue and did not support closing the fishery here. He indicated that all of the anecdotal information he receives indicates that the harvest is at a very minimal level.
Frank Folb indicated he had filled out two catch cards at his tackle shop this year and he does not think this is an issue.
Woody Collins commented that he attended the Estuarine Striped Bass FMP AC meeting where this topic was discussed and it was a split vote. He also commented that if the fishermen were not catching anything in this area this time of the year then closure should not be a problem for them.
Frank Folb moved to recommend status quo for the Atlantic Ocean summer recreational closure. David Spruill seconded the motion. Riley Williams offered a friendly amendment to the motion to include further public education on the catch card survey. The motion failed 4 approved, 4 opposed. The chairman did not vote to break the tie.
Frank Folb asked the committee members that had voted no what their reasons were and what they would like to recommend.
Linda Harper indicated she supported closure indicating that the fishermen that were catching striped bass in this area were breaking the law by not turning in their catch cards and recording their catch.
No other motion was offered on this issue.
4. Single Barbless Hook
Bill Van Druten recommended status quo and continue to educate anglers about conservative angling practices for striped bass. Woody Collins seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 in favor and 1 abstaining.
5. CSMA Discards
The committee had limited discussion on this issue and asked to look again at what the Central AC recommended.
Fred Waterfield moved to support status quo. Dixie Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6. Hook and Line as Commercial Gear in the Striped Bass Fishery in Estuarine Waters
Woody Collins asked if something happened in the future and further restrictions on gill nets were implemented, wouldn’t the commercial fishermen want some other alternative gear in place? Riley Williams indicated that would likely be developed anyway should further gill net restrictions be implemented.
Riley Williams moved to recommend status quo. Linda Harper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7. CSMA Management Measures
The committee discussed the payback provision and many of the members agreed that if the fishermen were going to be required to payback overages, they should be allowed to roll-over unutilized quota as well.
Woody Collins moved to recommend status quo on all CSMA management measures plus a commercial payback provision for overages as well as a roll-over provision for quota not harvested. Dixie Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
8. ASMA Management Measures
The group had limited discussion on this topic. Commercial fishermen Phil Haywood asked to comment and he indicated that he would like to see the bycatch provision removed. He told the committee that he had to set more net than he normally would just to meet the bycatch requirements. If the bycatch requirements were removed, he could go set a minimum amount of net to catch his limit of striped bass and this would take gear our of the water and eliminate unnecessary harvest of other fish.
Frank Folb moved to recommend status quo. David Spruill seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 approved and 1 abstention.
Damon Tatem asked for further comments and hearing none the meeting was adjourned.
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins District Managers Dick Brame Allen Jernigan Committee Staff Members Frank Crawley Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Louis Daniel Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
Issues/Reports
Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Limited Entry Proposal Analysis November 2011
(Note: Text in blue italics is verbatim language from the motion made at the September 8 Marine Fisheries Commission business meeting in Raleigh. Staff responses are in black)
Purpose: Create a limited access program that preserves the traditional striped bass fishermen while promoting fisheries with less bycatch and protected species interactions.
Authorizing Statute: G.S. 143B‐289.52(d1) The Commission may regulate participation in a fishery that is subject to a federal fishery management plan if that plan imposes a quota on the State for the harvest or landing of fish in the fishery. If the Commission regulates participation in a fishery under this subsection, the Division may issue a license to participate in the fishery to a person who: (1) Held a valid license issued by the Division to harvest, land, or sell fish during at least two of the three license years immediately preceding the date adopted by the Commission to determine participation in the fishery; and (2) Participated in the fishery during at least two of those license years by landing in the State at least the minimum number of pounds of fish adopted by the Commission to determine participation in the fishery.
Management Plan Options
Limit access to “permitted” fishermen and allow sale of those permits to other SCFL‐holding fishermen, but manage fish through seasons and trip limits.
Staff response: • Use of permit vs. license ‐‐ Staff recommends using a license for several reasons: ¾ G.S. 143B‐289.52(d1), which gives the MFC authority to establish a limited entry system under certain conditions specifically states “the Division may issue a license (emphasis added) to participate in the fishery”. While a license and permit are operationally very similar, the statute specifically notes a license as the mechanism for limiting entry. Legal counsel has confirmed that use of a license is the ideal course of action.
¾ A license will maintain consistency with the existing limited entry system for summer flounder, which utilizes a License to Land Flounder from the Atlantic Ocean and with which the commercial fishing industry is familiar.
¾ Use of a license will ease implementation of a limited entry system with regard to the rule development and suspension process. It will be cleaner from a regulatory standpoint to suspend (and/or propose for repeal) all rules associated with the existing permit and move forward with new rules for a limited entry license. Furthermore, the statutory authority for the current Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Commercial Gear Permit (AOSBCGP) is contained in G.S. 113‐ 169.1(b), and specifically states that the MFC “may adopt rules to establish gear specific permits (emphasis added)”. Legal counsel has confirmed that if a permit system were pursued, it would have to be gear specific. However, all gear types could be included in the permit, but would need to be specifically noted.
• Sale of permit/license ‐‐ While sale of the existing License to Land Flounder from the Atlantic Ocean (LLFAO) occurs between license holders, the DMF does not participate in or facilitate funds transferred
1
between these license holders. Qualified participants may obtain a LLFAO for free at any DMF license office. The only role that DMF has in any open market LLFAO sale is transfer of the license from one owner to another as per 15A NCAC 03O .0108(a).
Proposed Program Design
Eligibility requirements: • Period – 2002 through 2005 had most fisheries open with current ASMFC poundage (480,480 pounds). DMF feels 2002‐2005 best exemplified the traditional striped bass fishery when all gear sectors were involved. One permit allowed for each eligible SCFL (One person may hold multiple permits which can be assigned just like the SCFL). • Initial allocation will only be for fishermen who have a history in the ocean striped bass fishery and will be based on historical catch record from the Trip Ticket Program, from 2002‐2005. • Minimum poundage requirements: All SCFL holders landing 300 pounds in 2 out of 3 years.
Staff response: • Time period for eligibility ‐‐ Staff analyzed data from fishing years 2003‐2005. These years are representative of the fishery prior to the existing AOSBCGP, and are a logical timeframe for analysis for two reasons: ¾ Participants were not restricted to use of only one gear type during 2003‐2005 (as they are under the existing AOSBCGP). Because the proposed limited entry system would eliminate that gear restriction, the 2003‐2005 timeframe provides a more accurate basis on which to determine participation than recent years under the AOSBCGP.
¾ Striped bass were present within state waters (0‐3 miles offshore) and therefore legally available to fishermen during this time. With the exception of the 2010‐2011 season, it has been several years since striped bass were available in state waters which impacted participation (as determined by landings) in the fishery since the AOSBCGP has been in place.
• Minimum poundage requirements – Staff expanded the minimum poundage requirement proposed (300 pounds) and also performed analyses using 500, 750, 1,000, and 2,000 pounds as minimum requirements to provide additional options for the MFC to consider in limiting participation in the fishery. An additional criterion (similar to the 2005 analysis) of having 2,000 pounds of landings other than striped bass was also applied to the 1,000 pound analysis. This was done as a means of determining the number of participants who may simply have been recipients of transferred striped bass.
• Mode of determining eligibility – There are three options to determine eligible individuals, based on the qualifying years of 2003‐2005, and the minimum poundage requirements described above:
¾ Vessel: The existing LLFAO qualifies a vessel to participate in the fishery based on minimum required landings during the reference years 1993‐1995 from that vessel. The limited entry license is issued for the vessel. Benefits: Model for this currently exists. Challenges: Logistics of transferring the license are complex, mostly due to transfer of the vessel and out‐of‐state participants. Analysis to determine eligible vessels is also complicated. ¾ Participant: Eligibility is based on qualified landings associated with all SCFLs held by an individual. If a person holds multiple SCFLs, all landings of striped bass under those SCFLs are merged together under the individual SCFL holder’s name. Benefits: Logistically, this is the simplest and cleanest analysis. Challenges: Does not address issue of owners of multiple vessels (i.e. trawls).
2
¾ License: Eligibility is based on qualified landings associated with an individual SCFL. Although one person may own multiple SCFLs and have striped bass landings associated with each, only one license may qualify for participation based on reference years and minimum poundage requirements. Benefits: Individuals could potentially have multiple limited entry licenses for more flexibility. The value of the limited entry license could potentially increase. Challenges: If landings are spread among multiple SCFLs and years, an individual may not qualify under any of his/her SCFLs. This could also potentially put employees (crew) out of business.
• Multiple licenses per SCFL holder – Staff does not recommend multiple limited entry licenses per SCFL holder, as this does not achieve the goal of limiting participation in the fishery and poses potential administrative difficulties. It is important to note that while a SCFL can be assigned, the landings associated with a SCFL “belong” to the owner of that SCFL, not the assignee as per 15A NCAC 03O .0109(d). The existing AOSBCGP limits each SCFL holder to one permit, regardless of the number of SCFLs he or she owns. However, when a SCFL‐holder assigns a license to another person, the assignee is then eligible to obtain an AOSBCGP (the landings under that assignment will still belong to the SCFL holder). Please see “Limited Entry License Assignments” below for more discussion.
Allocation of quota: Entire quota available to all gear sectors and manage gears through season and trip limits (described below)
Staff Response: Staff has no recommendation or response with regard to allocation of quota among gear types.
Appeals of initial eligibility: There will be an appeals process to last no more than 18 months from the time initial permits are allocated. Alternate year combination (to be determined) where SCFL holders landing 300 pounds in 2 out of 3 years may be eligible. The eligibility board will consider appeals on a case by case basis.
Staff Response: • Timeframe for appeals – Staff suggests that perhaps a quarterly meeting of an eligibility board over a period of 18 months might be appropriate.
• Eligibility board composition – Modeling an eligibility board on the existing SCFL eligibility board could be considered. The composition of this board is an MFC commissioner, a member of the public, a DMF staff member and a legal representative.
• Consideration of appeals – Appeals could be considered for reasons of data clarity or health issues. However, G.S. 143B‐289.52(d1) does not allow for an alternate set of years to be chosen for appeals. Legal counsel has confirmed that only one set of three years may be selected for determining participation in a limited entry fishery.
Transfers of fish: Allow transfers from any gear/permit holder to any additional permit holder at any time (at sea or at dock). Trawlers must communicate to DMF Marine Patrol their intention to transfer before entering inshore waters. All transfers and overages go against total quota. Limit on the amount of fish that can be transferred will be set at twice the bag limit.
3
Staff Response: • Limiting the total number of transfers – This could be difficult to enforce for all gear types on the water. It would be easier to enforce transfer limits on trawls that transfer at the dock (presumably this is how most trawl vessels would prefer to transfer). It could also be difficult to place a limit on the total number of trip limits allowed on board (which is what limiting transfers to a specific number of trip limits would do) if the goal is to prevent something like a single net with 1,500 fish that would cause a rapid decline in available quota. For a future hook‐and‐line sector, staff suggests that transfers not be allowed, as hook‐and‐line fishermen have the ability to stop fishing immediately once a trip limit is reached.
• Economic incentives – Removing economic incentives to overset gear could possibly be implemented but they will require additional time and expertise that staff does not currently have. As an example, allowing fish in excess of a particular limit to be donated directly to a food bank would likely require legal agreements between the Division and a third party to organize the donations, as well as rulemaking. A second option would be to consider a per‐pound fee for excess catch that is dedicated to a fund for fish and/or habitat conservation. This would require legislative change, but there is precedent in another state for such a program. Legal counsel has suggested that both options would make excellent pro bono projects for environmental attorneys should the MFC wish to pursue either.
Transferability of limited permits: Allow permit assignments (seasonal) and permanent transfers just like DMF allows SCFL assignments and transfers.
Staff Response: • Permit transfers/assignments – Permits cannot be transferred or assigned with the exception of pound net permits (15A NCAC 03O .0502(9)). Staff does not recommend creating another exception to this rule. Staff also recommends use of a license for a limited entry system (see staff response under “Management Plan Options” above).
• Limited entry license assignments – The rules implementing the LLFAO do not allow the license to be assigned (the only license that can be assigned is the SCFL). The license is issued to an individual for a specific vessel that met the qualifications of landing 1,000 pounds of flounder in two out of three years from 1993‐1995. However, the rules do allow for a “vessel master” to be designated at the time the license is issued, who can use the license to sell fish harvested by that vessel. The designated vessel master can be changed, but the DMF must be notified within five days as to that change. This allows owners of multiple vessels to keep all qualified vessels in operation. In effect, this is a de facto “assignment” within LLFAO itself. A similar rule could be developed for trawl vessels in the ocean striped bass fishery. This is different from the existing Atlantic Ocean Striped Bass Commercial Gear Permit (AOSBCGP), which can effectively be assigned. When a SCFL is assigned by a vessel owner to a trawl captain, the captain can obtain an AOSBCGP.
¾ Option 1: Qualify participants based on SCFL landings, not participant landings (as was done for the previous 2005 limited entry analysis). This would lead to participants possibly qualifying for multiple limited entry licenses which they could then assign with the SCFL. Qualifying poundage may need to be adjusted to achieve the goal of limiting effort in the fishery. Input from an eligibility board could be required for considerations of combining non‐qualifying SCFL’s. The limited entry license would have to identify the “master” on the license if the holder of the license is not the fisherman using the license. Other specific rules would follow those for the License to Land Flounder (03O .0101(b)). ¾ Option 2: Qualify vessels separately from participants. For the beach seine and gill net fisheries, qualification could be based at the participant level. Qualification for the trawl fishery could be 4
based on vessel landings. The limited entry license would then be issued for the qualified vessel, rather than a SCFL holder.
• Limited entry license transfers – The LLFAO can be transferred. However, because the license is associated with a vessel, that transfer occurs only in conjunction with the sale and/or transfer of the vessel to another owner. Transfer of the license also transfers all flounder landings associated with that vessel (15A NCAC03O .0108(a)). Permanent transfers of a limited entry ocean striped bass license would allow for new entrants into the fishery. With regard to seasonal transfers, staff suggests that such a transfer be for the duration of the ocean striped bass season (rather than within the season). Staff further recommends that any transfer (permanent or seasonal) could only be made to another SCFL holder, i.e. not an assignee.
Allowable gears: • Gill net (description of current gears used provided by DMF for our consideration) • Beach seine: current definition is “for the purpose of this Rule, a beach seine is defined as a swipe net constructed of multi‐filament or multi‐fiber webbing fished from the ocean beach that is deployed from a vessel launched from the ocean beach where the fishing operation takes place.” • Trawlers (description of current gears used provided by DMF for our consideration) • The first year of the program will not allow hook‐and‐line, giving DMF time to maneuver through legislative changes required to current rules. • Beginning in the second year allow participants to utilize hook and line/rod and reel as additional allowable gear. o Allow bandit gear and electric reels unless data become available that show an increase in discard mortality in undersized fish. o The use of longline gear is prohibited. Artificial lures can have a max of two hooks (either single or treble hook) o The use of circle hooks (either in‐line or offset circle hook) will be required with any live or dead natural bait, artificial hooks allowed, and barbless hooks required.
Staff Response: • Gill net, beach seine, trawl – Staff has no suggestions regarding these currently allowable commercial gear types as referred to in the proposal. As a point of information, the definition of a beach seine was added to rule effective December 1, 2007 as a result of changes in the configuration of this gear required to reduce protected species interactions.
• Hook‐and‐line – o The earliest that new rules could be implemented is April 2013. Proclamation authority would have to be used to implement use of hook‐and‐line in the interim. o Would the requirements for the use of hook‐and‐line contained in the proposal also apply to the recreational sector? i.e. the use of bandit gear, electric reels, circle hooks w/live or cut bait, barbless hooks, etc.
• No sale from charter trips.
Staff Response: • Definition of charter trip – A charter trip could be defined by the number of people on board using hook‐ and‐line gear. Federal rules for king mackerel define a charter trip as one in which three or more people are on the vessel, including the captain and mate. Another option could be to require list of crew
5
members that can only be changed twice per year. The MFC may also want to consider the following factors: ¾ Whether or not to prohibit the use of multiple gears at once, i.e. hook‐and‐line plus trawl or gill net. ¾ Consideration of crew size on trawl vessels in particular, but also beach seine crews (potentially gill net vessels as well) as they are likely to have more than three people on board and may want to use their existing crew when using hook‐and‐line gear.
• Tracking of landings through Trip Ticket Program. • Overages will be deducted from the following year. • Monitoring and enforcement: ¾ Will be managed by gear sector season and trip limit ¾ Maintain dealer quota monitoring program for a period of time ¾ Visible permit should be issued to assist marine patrol in identifying participants.
Staff Response: • Landings and quota monitoring: Dealers are required by law to submit trip tickets; this would not change. The DMF would also continue quota monitoring for this species and does not anticipate a time when quota monitoring would not occur, as this is necessary to prevent overages to the extent possible.
• Overages: As a compliance element, the ASMFC Striped Bass FMP requires that overages be deducted from the following year’s quota.
• Monitoring/Enforcement: Based on the proposal, the intent appears to be creation of de‐facto seasons through opening each gear separately and at a trip limit suitable to provide opportunity yet prevent overages. With regard to a visible means of identifying participants, this could be achieved through a seasonal decal or flag, but cost would be a factor.
6
Appendix I. Determination of Eligibility
Qualifying Participants (Fishermen) for Fishing Years 2003‐2005
Data are based on the following fishing years and qualifying criteria:
Fishing Year for Striped Bass: December through November 2003 Fishing Year = December 2002 through November 2003 2004 Fishing Year = December 2003 through November 2004 2005 Fishing Year = December 2004 through November 2005
Qualifying Criteria 1. Participants needed to land in at least two out of the three fishing years above and cumulatively have landed at least the minimum number of pounds (300, 500, 1,000, or 2,000) pounds; or 2. Participants need to have landed at least 300 pounds cumulatively over all three fishing years.
Explanation The original motion/proposal made at the September MFC meeting used 300 pounds as the minimum qualifying poundage. Staff expanded this to include a range of minimum qualifying pounds to provide additional options for the MFC to consider. As stated in the staff response, an additional criterion of having 2,000 pounds of fish other than striped bass was also applied to the 1,000 pound analysis as a means of identifying participants who were simply recipients of transfers and not actively fishing.
Table 1. Total number of eligible participants under reference years 2003‐2005 and under various minimum poundage limits. The number of qualified participants with landings of striped bass during the 2011 fishing year is also included for reference.
Qualifying Pounds Total Qualified Non‐Qualified Qualified Participants Participants Participants w/Landings in 2011
300 430 513 81 500 397 546 76 750 355 588 67 1,000 320 623 63 2,000 178 765 40 1,000 + 2,000 pounds 216 656 59 other species
7
MFC FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS - SPOTTED SEATROUT Nov. 3, 2011
•Appoint Advisory Committee
•Approve Goals/Objectives •Review Timeline/Public Information Brochure
•Draft Developed by DMF and Advisory Committee
•Approve Draft for Public Meetings/Standing Advisory Committee Review ‐ March 24, 2010
•Select Preferred Management Options/Approve Draft ‐ May 13, 2009
•Transmitted to DENR ‐ July 23, 2010/Transmitted to JLCSA ‐ Aug. 23, 2010. Reviewed by JLCSA ‐ Sept. 15, 2010
•Send draft back out for Public Meeting/Standing Advisory Committee Review for input on ending overfishing within two years of final adoption of FMP
•Select Preferred Management Option to end overfishing in two You are years. Transmit to DENR and Gov Ops for Review Here
•Final FMP Approval/Final Approval of Rules
•Implement Strategies/Recommendations
10.2.2.B Achieving Sustainable Harvest
I. ISSUE
Establish harvest reductions that end overfishing within two years of the Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan adoption and achieve sustainable harvest within 10 years of management plan adoption as required by law [G.S. 113-182 .1(b) (4-5)].
II. BACKGROUND
The 2009 North Carolina spotted seatrout stock assessment indicated that the spotted seatrout stock in North Carolina/Virginia has been overfished and that overfishing has been occurring throughout the entire 18-year time series (1991-2008) (Jensen 2009, Appendix 4). This was based on the NCDMF threshold of a 20% spawning potential ratio. Spawning potential ratio is the potential spawning stock biomass (SSB) under a theoretical scenario of an unfished population compared to the current spawning stock biomass based on exploitation rates. Under current regulations, the SSB must be rebuilt from the current level of 806,890 pounds (2008) to 1,484,594 pounds within 10 years of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) adoption ( ). The average fishing mortality rate (F) must be reduced from the current rate of 0.86 (2008) to a threshold of F20% SPR =0.41 to end overfishing (Figure 2). The current F rate is more than twice the rate necessary to produce a sustainable harvest. Under a 14 inch minimum size limit with no maximum size limit, a 57% reduction in harvest is required to end overfishing.
The Fisheries Reform Act (FRA) requires that each FMP “include conservation and management measures that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the State, particularly with respect to food production, recreational opportunities, and the protection of marine ecosystems, and that will produce a sustainable harvest” [G.S. 113-182.1(b)(3)]. Sustainable harvest is defined in the FRA as “the amount of fish that can be taken from a fishery on a continuing basis without reducing the stock biomass of the fishery or causing the fishery to become overfished” [G.S. 113-129(14a)]. If a fishery is considered overfished, the FMP must “specify a time period, not to exceed 10 years from the date of the adoption of the plan, for achieving a sustainable harvest” [G.S. 113-182.1(b)(6)]. A modification to the statute in 2010 occurred that reduced the allowable time for ending overfishing from 10 years to 2 years after the date of the adoption of the fishery management plan [G.S. 113-182.1(b)(5)]. The reduction needed to end overfishing for spotted seatrout is 57% with a 14 inch minimum size limit regulation.
The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) adopted a guideline requiring that “management options that set quantifiable fishing restrictions must meet a minimum standard of 50 percent probability of achieving the management benchmark(s) (e.g. fishing mortality rate) necessary to achieve or maintain sustainable harvest. Management options subject to this requirement shall be identified as express management options during FMP development and as express management measures upon FMP adoption or amendment” [MFC Guidelines III(B)(3)(a)(2)]. Projections were not developed for spotted seatrout stock because the biology of the fish, environmental conditions, and lack of sufficient data make it unwise to rely on projections to specify an Frebuild rate that is compatible with professional standards for fisheries management. However the terminal F rate can be based on the output of the stock assessment model to determine if current fishing mortality rate meets the 20% SPR threshold for spotted seatrout overfishing.
The F20% SPR threshold estimated by the stock assessment depends on some key parameters
1 either provided by the NCDMF or estimated by the model. Some of the parameters include growth rates, reproductive schedule, selectivity, steepness in the stock recruitment relationship, and natural mortality. Growth rates and reproductive schedule were developed based on fish collected in North Carolina. These estimates provided to the model were similar to estimates from other states and published studies.
Selectivity is the probability that fish will exist in the area where people are fishing and get caught when they encounter their fishing gear (e.g., attempt to bite their hook, swim into their net, etc.). Changes in size limits and gear modifications alter the selectivity inputs into models used to determine fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass thresholds. Therefore, F thresholds may change slightly based on various management options. Changes to commercial and recreational harvest and dead discards were predicted for changing the original size limits of 12 inches to proposed limits of 14 (current through proclamation) and 15 inches. Input data included weighted length frequencies at age for North Carolina and Virginia commercial landings, recreational harvest, and recreational releases.
The steepness parameter in the stock recruitment curve was estimated by the stock assessment model. This parameter is indicative of how quickly a population will respond to changes in management or exploitation rates. The population abundance of spotted seatrout is largely dependent on levels of recruitment (age-0 fish) since age-0 fish make up an average of 74% of the total population (Jensen 2009, Appendix 4). However, the relationship between SSB and recruitment for spotted seatrout in North Carolina/Virginia remains unknown. Environmental factors such as cold stuns, temperature, or salinity, could have a larger impact on recruitment than does the size of the spawning stock biomass. For example, three of the highest years of spawning stock biomass coincided with cold stun years and subsequently produced the lowest levels of recruitment the following year. Given the low recruitment at high biomass, the model may lower the stocks predicted recovery rate due to lower recruitment caused by the cold stun.
Natural mortality in the stock assessment model was estimated based on methods described in peer reviewed research articles: Lorenzen (1996) and Hoenig (1983). The Lorenzen method estimates an age-specific natural mortality rates based on weight (Lorenzen 1996). The Hoenig method estimates natural mortality based on longevity or maximum age of the species (Hoenig 1983). Both of these methods combined natural mortality rates from a variety of taxa and size of animals. A natural mortality rate based on empirical data may be more appropriate for spotted seatrout in North Carolina since spotted seatrout are at the northern end of their distribution and cold stun events can be a considerable source of natural mortality.
The stock assessment model did not explicity include the effects of cold stun events because no quantifiable data were available to estimate the increase in natural mortality. Since natural mortality was fixed at a constant rate for all years, the impacts of cold stun events appeared as increases in fishing mortality. The impact of periodic increases in natural mortality on sustainability benchmarks was not evaluated because estimates of cold stun mortality events in North Carolina could not be quantified. However, mark/recapture experiments can be used to describe fluctuating natural mortality rates (Pine et al. 2003; Jiang et al. 2007).
The Coastal Recreational Fishing License (CRFL) Grant funded North Carolina State University (NCSU) researchers to study the movement and mortality of spotted seatrout in North Carolina using a combined conventional tag and telemetry approach, September 2009-August 2012. Telemetry tagging can directly estimate natural mortality, which is indirectly estimated through life history parameters, and can also provide more appropriate estimates of mortality attributed to winter kills: a critical component to an accurate stock assessment of spotted seatrout in North
2
Carolina. Once the research is concluded and peer reviewed, the natural mortality rate used in the stock assessment model can be compared to the stock-specific natural mortality rates to determine a range of natural mortality rates the spotted seatrout stock in North Carolina is likely to experience. If there are significant differences between the two methods to estimate mortality rates, then the NCDMF should consider which method is more appropriate to estimate spotted seatrout natural mortality rate and determine if more or less restrictive management measures are needed to end overfishing.
1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 SpawningStock Biomass (lbs)
Year SSB Threshold (F20%)
Figure 1. Spawning stock biomass (lbs) of the spotted seatrout stock from 1991 to 2008 and the threshold indicating the stock is overfished at a level consistent with a 20% spawning potential ratio. Open circles represent years associated with a cold stun event. All analyses assumed regulations would impact only fishermen in North Carolina, while all future harvest and dead discards from Virginia were assumed to remain the same. Virginia’s harvest and dead discards were subtracted from the total, thus, all reduction values shown apply to North Carolina only. That is, North Carolina is bearing all of the reductions to rebuild the interstate stock. All calculations were based on input data averaged from 2003 to 2008. Essentially, the following analyses show the average reduction in the North Carolina total kill (harvest + dead discards) that would have been observed from 2003 to 2008 if a size limit or other management change had been in place during those years.
The following analyses are based on reducing F from a 12 inch size limit, 10 fish recreational bag limit, no commercial trip limit (except for hook and line gear), and no seasonal closure, which were the regulations in place when the stock assessment was conducted. The analyses also assume noncompliance with proposed size limits in the future recreational fishery based on past history of undersized fish in the harvest observed in MRFSS estimates. The commercial fishery does not typically harvest fish less than the size limit of 12 inches and currently has no associated discard component; therefore, a 10% noncompliance rate was assumed with future increases in size limits for the commercial fishery.
A release mortality of 10% was assumed for the recreational fishery to mirror the recent stock assessment (Jensen 2009, Appendix 4), and a 60% release mortality estimate was assumed for the commercial fishery based on a study of small mesh gill nets in North Carolina (Price and
3
Gearhart 2002b).
1.00 0.90 Commercial 0.80 Recreational 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20
Average Fishing Mortality Average 0.10 0.00
Year Figure 2. Estimated average fishing mortality rates (weighted by population number at age) for spotted seatrout ages 1-6+ in the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in North Carolina and Virginia, 1991-2008.
III. DISCUSSION
Management Measures
This issue paper presents a variety of management strategies for reducing overall harvest. Harvest reduction calculations are based on past landings and harvest. The reliability of these calculations to adequately predict future harvest reductions depends on environmental parameters, recruitment, and fishing effort to remain similar to the base years (2003-2008). There are a range of management measures available that could be used in combination with one another to decrease the fishing mortality and rebuild the fishery to the threshold level.
Life History Information
The interim management measure to increase the minimum size to 14 inches was based on basic life history information available for spotted seatrout (refer to section 5, General Life History and Appendix 3, Interim Management Measures to Achieve Sustainable Harvest for a complete description).
Size Limits
The current minimum size limit of 14 inches is a result of interim measures imposed by the NCMFC during the development of this FMP. The reductions that are listed in the document are based on changing from the previous minimum size limit of 12 inches. The estimate of F in the stock assessment was based on a 12 inch minimum size limit, so reductions will be based on changing from the 12 inch minimum size limit to a new proposed minimum size limit of 14 or 15 inches.
4
Increasing the minimum size limit is a common management measure used to end overfishing (lower F), rebuild the SSB, and allow a greater portion of fish an opportunity to spawn before they are harvested. The short term effects of a minimum size increase would be to diminish the pool of younger and smaller fish immediately available for harvest, which would in turn produce a decrease in overall landings. The drop in landings, however, may not produce a corresponding drop in the fishing mortality rate initially since the average annual fishing mortality for spotted seatrout is measured using fish from age classes one and older. Spotted seatrout are fully recruited to the fishery by the time they are two years of age, and an increase in minimum size would predominately protect age-0 and age-1 fish from harvest. Therefore, the benefit to the fishery of an increase in minimum size would not be realized until the increased survival of age-1 fish has occurred for multiple years and has contributed to the pool of older age classes.
One of the major benefits of increasing the minimum size limit is that it would allow a larger number of the age-0 and age-1 fish that would normally have been harvested the opportunity to spawn at least once prior to being harvested. This would increase the size of the SSB and should increase the number of recruits to the fishery in subsequent years. Size limits were addressed due to the high occurrence of age-1 spotted seatrout in the overall catch, of which 89% of females are mature. The past increase in the minimum size limit from 12 inches to 14 inches enabled a higher percentage of spotted seatrout to spawn at least once.
Implementing an increase in the minimum size limit (12 inch limit) in the commercial fisheries may affect some fisheries and regions of the state more adversely than others. The long haul seine fishery and ocean gill net fisheries would be more affected than other fisheries, as is evident by looking at the composition of the commercial harvest (Figure 33), as well as reduction in harvest by one inch size bins (Table 2). However, because long haul seines and ocean gill nets account for only 3-15% of the landings (Table 1), the overall decrease in harvest is less for these fisheries than in the estuarine gill net fishery. An increase in the minimum gill net mesh size used might become necessary to minimize discards of undersized spotted seatrout in these fisheries.
Estuarine gill nets are by far the dominant gear used to harvest spotted seatrout commercially, but they rarely catch small fish (Figure 33, Table 1, Table 2). Although estuarine gill nets rarely catch small fish, the magnitude of landings by estuarine gill nets would result in the highest reduction in harvest (Table 2). The gill net fishery in Albemarle Sound catches smaller spotted seatrout while those in other areas of the state would be less affected (Table 3), but landings from the Albemarle Sound area represent only 8% of total harvest (Error! Reference source not found.).
The commercial fishery, which is largely composed of gill nets, tends to catch larger, older fish than the recreational hook-and-line fishery. As a result, the recreational fishery is predicted to experience 2.5 to 4 times more reduction in harvest than the commercial fishery under size limit restrictions (refer to Section 10.2.1). In addition, the average recreational fishing mortality rate from 2004 to 2006 is over 3 times greater than the commercial fishery (Jensen 2009, Appendix 4) (Figure 2). Therefore, the recreational fishery will experience a much larger reduction under size limit increases than the commercial fishery. An increase in the size limit can play an important role in reducing the overall harvest and allowing smaller fish the chance to spawn at least once before being harvested. The practice of releasing spotted seatrout in the recreational fishery has increased considerably in recent years. An increase in the minimum size would likely further increase the number of released undersized fish. Fishing tackle and fishing
5 techniques could be modified to decrease the amount of discard mortality of released fish and listed in the Ethical Angling guide.
The minimum size limit can be combined with other management measures to achieve the desired level of harvest reduction in the spotted seatrout fishery.
Slot Limits
The Spotted Seatrout Advisory Committee suggested DMF consider a slot limit as a management measure to reduce harvest. Possible Slot limit combinations considered were 14 and 15 inches through 22, 23, and 24 inches.
Since relatively few large fish were represented in the sampling, the harvest reductions including a slot limit was negligible (Table 35 and 7). A slot limit of 14 to 24 inches would result in only a 0.7% reduction in the recreational fishery compared to just a size limit of 14 inches (no upper limit). Although this is a low percentage of the catch currently, protecting these larger, more fecund fish can result in a more productive spawning stock biomass per unit body weight.
The relative abundance of large fish (greater than or equal to 21 inches) in the commercial fisheries was only slightly higher in the estuarine gill nets than the long haul and beach seine fisheries (Table 2). However, due to the predominance of gill net landings, the estimated reduction in landings would be greatest in the estuarine gill net fishery. The estimated harvest of large fish was highest in the gill net fisheries in Pamlico Sound followed by the Rivers (Table 3). The Southern Area ranked second in the relative abundance of large fish, but the Southern Area only accounted for an average of 8% of the landings while Pamlico Sound and the Rivers Areas accounted for 48% and 27% of the landings (Error! Reference source not found.).
Because spotted seatrout are typically caught as a bycatch in multispecies commercial fisheries, as well as their high estimated release mortality of 60%, slot limits are not a preferred management measure for the commercial fishery. The protection of these large fish might be better approached through seasonal or area closures during the spawning season.
Trophy Fish
A harvest restriction commonly used in combination with slot limits is to allow the take of one fish, a “trophy fish”, over a maximum size per day. This option was endorsed by the Spotted Seatrout Advisory Committee (SST AC) and NCMFC. Because of the limitations of so few fish sampled greater than the proposed slot limits, the reduction in harvest with a trophy fish allowance are likely to be negligible. The concept of a trophy fish option is desirable because it protects the largest and potentially more fecund female fish. This option does not result in a quantifiable reduction in harvest.
6
20 25 18 NC NC 16 20 14 Beach Seine Estuarine Gill Net 12 n=9,584 15 n=25,186
Frequency 10 Frequency
8 10 6 Percent Percent 4 5 2 0 0 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Length Bin (TL in) Length Bin (TL in)
16 12 14 NC 10 NC 12 Haul Seine Ocean Gill Net 8 10 n=92,464 n=2,785 Frequency 8 Frequency 6
6 4 Percent 4 Percent 2 2 0 0 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Length Bin (TL in) Length Bin (TL in)
25 16 NC 14 NC 20 Pound Net 12 Trawl 15 n=745 10 n=787
Frequency Frequency 8
10 6
Percent Percent 4 5 2 0 0 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Length Bin (TL in) Length Bin (TL in)
14
12 NC
10 Combined
8 n=131,551 Frequency
6
4 Percent
2
0 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Length Bin (TL in)
Figure 3. Annual length-frequency distributions of North Carolina commercial fisheries, 1994- 2008.
7
Table 1. Annual landings (numbers) of spotted seatrout by commercial fishing gear* in North Carolina, 2003-2008.
E Gill NetLong Haul Beach Seine O Gill Net Other Total Year number % number % number % number % number % number 2003 112,583 73 25,373 16 4,738 3 4,451 3 7,515 5 154,661 2004 46,280 67 8,755 13 6,194 9 4,427 6 2,932 4 68,589 2005 42,112 69 6,288 10 8,080 13 2,317 4 2,340 4 61,136 2006 110,506 67 30,379 18 13,748 8 4,957 3 5,600 3 165,190 2007 137,348 75 26,868 15 6,533 4 3,349 2 8,220 5 182,319 2008 120,093 76 19,313 12 7,229 5 2,844 2 8,328 5 157,807 Mean 94,820 72 19,496 15 7,754 6 3,724 3 5,822 4 131,617
Table 2. Reduction in harvests associated with an increase in the minimum size and slot limits for the primary commercial fishing gear* (2003-2008 average).
E Gill Nets Long Hauls Beach Seines O Gill Nets All Combined Size Limit ( inches) % Cum % Number % Cum % Number % Cum % Number % Cum % Number % Cum % Number 12 1.38 1.38 1,311 13.69 13.69 2,668 7.62 7.62 591 14.32 14.32 533 7.72 7.72 10,156 13 2.95 4.33 4,106 9.76 23.44 4,570 7.23 14.85 1,152 10.66 24.98 930 6.63 14.34 18,878 14 6.41 10.74 10,188 9.81 33.26 6,484 3.81 18.67 1,447 5.65 30.63 1,141 7.23 21.57 28,396 15 10.94 21.69 20,563 11.61 44.87 8,747 9.82 28.49 2,209 7.05 37.68 1,403 10.80 32.37 42,607
21 2.48 8.28 7,854 2.09 7.78 1,517 2.35 7.59 588 1.40 4.80 179 2.28 8.06 10,609 22 1.90 5.80 5,502 1.56 5.69 1,109 1.37 5.24 406 1.88 3.40 127 1.73 5.78 7,602 23 1.65 3.91 3,704 1.73 4.13 804 1.35 3.86 300 0.92 1.52 57 1.68 4.04 5,321 24 2.26 2.26 2,140 2.40 2.40 468 2.52 2.52 195 0.60 0.60 22 2.37 4.89 3,119
*E Gill Nets=Estuarine Gill Nets, Long Hauls=Long Hauls/Swipe Nets, Beach Seines=Beach Seines/Stop Nets, O Gill Nets=Ocean Gill Nets.
Bag Limits
Recreational fishermen are currently restricted to a 6-fish bag limit. The 6-fish bag limit was a result of the previous sustainable harvest management strategy which reduced harvest halfway to the sustainable benchmarks. A ten fish bag limit was requested by recreational fishermen in an effort to decrease the amount of excessive catches and was adopted in rule effective January 1st, 1991 (15A NCAC 03M.0504). Reductions in bag limits were empirically-based predictions using the average catch per angler trip estimated from 2003 to 2008 from the MRFSS survey (Table 4.; Appendix 3). Any trips that landed over the proposed new limit in the past were assumed to land the maximum amount allowed under the proposed new limit. This analysis assumed 100% compliance with proposed regulations.
Bag limits only impact the recreational fishery and, because of the size of the recreational fishery, they can be effective at reducing the overall harvest. Approximately 73% of the trips that anglers took from 2003 to 2008 landed 3 or fewer spotted seatrout (Error! Reference source not found.). The percent reduction achieved under various combinations of management options in the North Carolina recreational spotted seatrout fishery are presented in Table 5.
8
Trip Limits
Trip or vessel harvest limits for commercial fisheries are generally used within the confines of a quota to prevent harvesting the available amount of fish too quickly and to avoid exceeding the quota. Reductions in trip limits were empirically-based predictions using the average catch per trip reported on trip tickets from 2003 to 2008 ( Maximum Size Limit Size Limit Bag Limit No Slot 22 23 24 25 14 Inch 1 72.9% 73.7% 73.5% 73.4% 73.3% Minimum 2 57.1% 58.3% 58.1% 57.8% 57.6% Size Limit 3 46.8% 48.3% 48.0% 47.7% 47.4% 4 39.4% 41.1% 40.7% 40.4% 40.1%
Size Limit Bag Limit No Slot 22 23 24 25 15 Inch 1 74.5% 75.3% 75.2% 75.0% 74.9% Minimum 2 59.7% 60.9% 60.7% 60.4% 60.2% Size Limit 3 50.0% 51.5% 51.2% 50.9% 50.6% 4 43.0% 44.7% 44.4% 44.0% 43.7%
Table 6,
9
Table 7; Appendix 3). Any trips that landed over the proposed new limit in the past were assumed to land the maximum amount allowed under the proposed new limits. This analysis assumed 100% compliance with proposed regulations.
Spotted seatrout are not targeted by the majority of commercial fishermen, with the vast majority of trips (65%) landing 10 pounds or less per trip from 2003 to 2008 (Error! Reference source not found.). Nearly 90% of trips landed 50 pounds or less per trip. However, 16-27% of the annual harvest was by catches greater than 500 pounds per trip (Error! Reference source not found.). These occasional large catches occur in the long haul seine/swipe net, stop net, and strike net gill net fisheries that targeted spotted seatrout during the fall months. The long haul/swipe net fisheries occasionally caught greater than 500 pounds of spotted seatrout in one catch, while the strike net fisheries made several sets that collectively add up to over 500 pounds. Catches of spotted seatrout by area fished were similar, with the exception of larger catches (200-500 lbs) in the ocean (Figure 8). These were primarily by beach seines in the northern beaches and stop nets in Carteret County.
Table 3. Percent reductions in harvest from an increase in the minimum size limit for the estuarine gill net fishery by area*. (Reductions based on 2003-2008 biological sampling data, n=number of spotted seatrout measured). Percent Reduction Size Limit Albemarle Pamlico Southern Rivers (TL, inches) Sound Gill Nets Sound Gill Nets Area Gill Nets Gill Nets (n= 304 ) (n= 6,597) (n= 3,135) (n= 1,073 ) % cum % number % cum % number % cum % number % cum % number 12 4.93 4.93 376 0.56 0.56 275 1.82 1.82 118 2.61 2.61 903 13 8.12 13.04 995 2.08 2.64 1,263 1.70 3.52 229 4.64 7.25 2,507 14 13.62 26.67 2,034 6.45 9.08 4,354 4.69 8.21 535 6.43 13.68 4,731 15 15.07 41.74 3,184 9.64 18.72 8,974 10.79 19.00 1,238 13.20 26.87 9,297
21 1.16 5.22 398 3.01 9.85 4,724 2.52 7.97 520 1.53 5.54 1,917 22 1.74 4.06 310 2.04 6.84 3,280 2.52 5.45 355 1.44 4.01 1,389 23 1.45 2.32 177 2.06 4.80 2,301 0.88 2.93 191 1.10 2.57 891 24 0.87 0.87 66 2.74 2.74 1,313 2.05 2.05 134 1.47 1.47 509
SOUTHERN ALBEMARLE 8% 8%
OCEAN 9%
RIVERS 27%
PAMLICO SOUND 48%
10
Figure 4. The percentage of all commercial landings (2003-2008) by area*.
*The Albemarle Sound Area includes the Albemarle Sound, Alligator River, Chowan River, Croatan Sound, Currituck Sound, Alligator River, Chowan River, Croatan Sound, Currituck Sound, Pasquatank River, Perquimans River, Roanoke River, and Roanoke Sound. The Pamlico Sound Area includes the Pamlico Sound, Bay River, Core Sound, and Newport River. The Rivers Area includes the Neuse River, New River, Pamlico River, and Pungo River. The Southern Area includes Bogue Sound, Cape Fear River, the Inland Waterway, Lockwood Folly, Masonboro Sound, North River, Shallotte River, Stump Sound, Topsail Sound, and White Oak River.
Table 4. Reductions (%) in total removals associated with changes in recreational (Rec) bag limits, 2003-2008. Bag Limit (#) Rec 1-67.2 2-48.0 3-35.4 4-26.5 5-19.4 6-13.9 7-9.6 8-6.2 9-3.7 10 -1.5
11
45 42 40 35 30 25 20 Frequency 20 15
Percent 11 10 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of Fish Kept per Angler Trip
Figure 5. Average frequency of angler trips harvesting 1-10+ spotted seatrout per angler trip in North Carolina, 2003-2008.
12
Table 5. Percent reduction achieved under various combinations of management options in the North Carolina recreational spotted seatrout fishery, 2003-2008. Maximum Size Limit Size Limit Bag Limit No Slot 22 23 24 25 14 Inch 1 72.9% 73.7% 73.5% 73.4% 73.3% Minimum 2 57.1% 58.3% 58.1% 57.8% 57.6% Size Limit 3 46.8% 48.3% 48.0% 47.7% 47.4% 4 39.4% 41.1% 40.7% 40.4% 40.1%
Size Limit Bag Limit No Slot 22 23 24 25 15 Inch 1 74.5% 75.3% 75.2% 75.0% 74.9% Minimum 2 59.7% 60.9% 60.7% 60.4% 60.2% Size Limit 3 50.0% 51.5% 51.2% 50.9% 50.6% 4 43.0% 44.7% 44.4% 44.0% 43.7%
Table 6. Reductions (%) in total removals associated with various commercial (Com) trip limits, 2003-2008.
Trip Limit (lbs) Com 10 -79.9 25 -66.5 50 -53.4 100 -39.1 150 -30.7 200 -24.9 250 -20.8 300 -17.6 350 -15.1 400 -13.0 450 -11.2 500 -9.9 None 0.0
13
Table 7. Percent reduction achieved under various combinations of management options in the North Carolina commercial spotted seatrout fishery, 2003-2008.
Maximum Size Limit Trip Limit Trip Limit Size Limit (lb) (Number) No Slot 22 23 24 25 14 Inch 10 5 82.8% 82.7% 82.7% 82.7% 82.7% Minimum 25 12 71.4% 71.3% 71.2% 71.2% 71.3% Size Limit 50 25 60.3% 60.1% 60.0% 60.0% 60.1% 100 50 48.0% 47.7% 47.6% 47.6% 47.7% 150 75 40.9% 40.5% 40.4% 40.5% 40.5%
Trip Limit Trip Limit Size Limit (lb) (Number) No Slot 22 23 24 25 15 Inch 10 5 83.1% 83.0% 83.0% 83.0% 83.0% Minimum 25 12 71.8% 71.7% 71.6% 71.6% 71.7% Size Limit 50 25 60.9% 60.6% 60.6% 60.6% 60.6% 100 50 48.8% 48.5% 48.4% 48.4% 48.5% 150 75 41.7% 41.4% 41.3% 41.3% 41.4%
70
60
50 Range
40 w/in
30 Trips
of 20 %
10
0 10 25 50
100 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 <
>500 to to
to to to to to to to to to
10 25 50 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Poundage Range
Figure 6. Average frequency of spotted seatrout commercial trips landing within a given poundage range in North Carolina, 2003-2008.
14
60,000 23%
50,000
40,000 14%
Pounds 30,000 10% 8% 9% Total 8% 20,000 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 10,000 3% 2%
0 10 25 50
100 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 <
>500 to to
to to to to to to to to to
10 25 50 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Poundage Range per Trip
Figure 7. Total pounds of spotted seatrout commercially landed within given poundage ranges in North Carolina, 2003-2008.
15
ALBEMARLE PAMLICO SOUTHERN RIVERS OCEAN
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 % of Trips w/in Range w/in Trips % of 0.5
0.0 >500 100 to 150 150 to 200 200 to 250 250 to 300 300 to 350 350 to 400 400 to 450 450 to 500 Poundage Range
Figure 8. Average frequency of spotted seatrout commercial trip landings within given poundage ranges (trips > 100 lbs), by area*, 2003-2008. *The Albemarle Sound Area includes the Albemarle Sound, Alligator River, Chowan River, Croatan Sound, Currituck Sound, Alligator River, Chowan River, Croatan Sound, Currituck Sound, Pasquatank River, Perquimans River, Roanoke River, and Roanoke Sound. The Pamlico Sound Area includes the Pamlico Sound, Bay River, Core Sound, and Newport River. The Rivers Area includes the Neuse River, New River, Pamlico River, and Pungo River. The Southern Area includes Bogue Sound, Cape Fear River, the Inland Waterway, Lockwood Folly, Masonboro Sound, North River, Shallotte River, Stump Sound, Topsail Sound, and White Oak River.
Area Closures
Area closures, such as nursery or spawning area closures, were not considered because data collection methods do not enable estimating the harvest from specific bodies of water. Estimates are available only on a very broad scale (e.g., Neuse River, Pamlico Sound, Pamlico River, etc.) and would likely not be useful for spotted seatrout management.
Seasonal Closures
A seasonal closure can be used to restrict harvest during certain times of the year and to reduce landings to sustainable levels. Seasonal closures are periods of time during which no landings of the target species are permitted. Because effort can be increased during the open periods of the fishery to offset the benefits of the closed season, it is best to have closures that are a minimum of two weeks in duration, but preferably longer. Seasonal closures should only be used if other available management options fail to meet harvest reductions needed especially in the commercial fisheries where spotted seatrout are bycatch in several fisheries.
It is possible that a seasonal closure could cause an increase in effort during the open period. A closure early in the year could lead to increased amounts of nets being fished once the season
16 opens, increasing both effort and spatial conflict among fishermen. Similarly, a closure late in the year could lead to more effort as fishermen try to catch as many fish as possible before the fishery shuts down for the year. In either instance, the effectiveness of the closed season at maintaining the fishing mortality at or below the target level would be reduced. The season selected may also be used to protect spawning females, or to protect spotted seatrout during winter cold spells when they are particularly susceptible to harvest, which would concurrently help alleviate user conflict issues during the cold winter months. The season chosen will need to be a compromise which balances economic impact concerns with meeting the management goal. Seasons selected may be different for the recreational and commercial fisheries.
The highest percent daily harvest in the commercial and recreational fisheries occurs during the months of November and December. The commercial catch peaks in November and December represent an average of 41% of the annual harvest. The recreational catch peaked in wave 6 (November-December) representing approximately 45% of the total spotted seatrout harvest.
A spawning season closure can be used to protect fish while they are spawning. Spotted seatrout have a protracted spawning season which extends from April through October. The peak of the spawn occurs in May and June and was used as a management measure to protect spotted seatrout after two successive winters with documented cold stun events. The estimated reduction in harvest due to the closure from February 17th through June 15th, 2010 was 6.7% recreational and a maximum 16.9% commercial. The maximum reduction for the commercial fishery is based on no harvest. Commercial fishermen were allowed a bycatch harvest of 10% of the catch being spotted seatrout up to a maximum of 50 pounds per operation. However commercial landings are not available for 2011.
If season is selected as a management measure for the recreational fishery, managers should consider seasonality of hooking and discard mortality. Typically discard mortality is highest during the summer when water temperatures are highest and spotted seatrout spawn. The commercial fisheries that land spotted seatrout during the summer typically catch spotted seatrout as bycatch. Closing harvest during the summer would likely lead to increase regulatory discards with little benefit to the stock.
Another option would be to select a closed season during the cold weather months (November through March). Discard mortality is typically lowest during the fall and winter. Additionally a closure during cold weather months would help resolve conflict issues between recreational and commercial fishermen. It may be helpful if the season selected included the same cold water months (November through March) identified as peak conflict months between fishermen.
Days of the week could be considered for both recreational and commercial fishermen. A possible commercial closed season option is to prohibit commercial fishing or landing of spotted seatrout on weekends. Set gill nets with stretched mesh sizes between 4 and 6 ½ inches cannot be fished from Friday one hour after sunrise until Monday one hour before sunset due to the management measure put in place to reduce interactions with sea turtles. This restriction was estimated to reduce spotted seatrout landings by 11.7%. A recreational closure could occur during the week. The combined closed days of the week for recreational and commercial fishermen could reduce conflicts by reducing days that the fisheries overlap.
Quotas
A quota refers to the maximum amount of fish that can be legally landed within a specified time period. The objective of a quota would be to prevent further expansion of the fishery and
17 reduce harvest; however, due to the recruitment dependence of the fishery and the resulting variability in available fish for harvest between years, a quota may not be sufficient in preventing overfishing during years of poor recruitment based on the level of fishing mortality.
Another potential problem with regulating the spotted seatrout commercial fishery using a quota is the variability in daily landings. A quota would have to be monitored daily or weekly with landing reports if the fishery is to be closed prior to exceeding the harvest limit. However, the potential magnitude of daily landings in both the gill net and haul seine fishery would make it very easy to surpass the quota before the fishery could be closed.
A quota system would be an additional burden on both the commercial dealers and the DMF. Spotted seatrout are caught as a bycatch in a number of multispecies fisheries. The spotted seatrout fishery consists of almost 1,548 participants and 215 dealers. Quotas currently monitored by the DMF (striped bass, summer flounder, black sea bass) have only involved between 150 to 700 participants and less than 100 dealers. The monitoring of an additional species is currently beyond the capabilities of the DMF given the existing level of personnel and available resources, and additional resources would have to be investigated. It would not be possible to implement a quota system until the necessary resources and personnel could be in place.
Estimates of possible commercial quota values are not included here because they are dependent on harvest reduction allocations. Once the allocation has been decided, quota options can be calculated and presented if desired.
Managing the recreational fishery with a quota is not feasible due to the lag time between the time of fishing and the time the harvest estimates become available through the Marine Recreational Intercept Program (MRIP). There is no system in place for monitoring recreational landings on a real-time basis that would allow for the fishery to be closed upon reaching the harvest limit.
Gear Restrictions
Maintaining effort at a stable level in the spotted seatrout fishery could be partially achieved by implementing specific gear limitations. These measures will only control effort provided the fishery does not expand much beyond its current level of participants. Currently, gill nets account for 76% of the commercial harvest (estuarine and ocean combined). Estuarine gill nets are by far the predominant gear (73%). Thus, any limitations would need to focus on this gear. Landings by long haul seines had historically been important. They continued to be the second most important gear, but accounted for only 13% of the 2003-2008 harvest.
Set gill nets from 4 to 6 ½ inches stretched mesh are managed under proclamation authority to reduce interactions with endangered sea turtles. Fishermen cannot possess or use greater than 2,000 yards of gill nets north of Highway 58 or 1,000 yards of gill nets south of Highway 58. Nets cannot be greater than 100 yards in length and must have a minimum of 25 yards between each net. Nets can be no greater than 15 meshes deep. Nets can only be fished during designated times. Currently the time restriction allows fishing one hour before sunset and nets must be retrieved one after sunrise. Fishermen are allowed to set nets Monday through Thursday night and the gear must be retrieved the following morning. These restrictions on set gill nets were estimated to reduce harvest in the commercial fishery by 13.1%.
Yardage Limit
18
Limiting the yardage of gill nets would help reduce and control effort within the gill net fishery for spotted seatrout. Although spotted seatrout can be caught in a variety of mesh sizes, they are primarily harvested with small mesh set nets (< 5 inch mesh). Data collected from a fishery dependent sampling program was used to characterize this fishery. Mesh sizes used varied by region, but overall ranged from 3 ¼ to 5 ¾ inch stretched mesh, with 4 inch webbing most common. Of the catches sampled (n=126) that targeted seatrout (at least 50% of the catch was spotted seatrout), the number of yards fished ranged from 67 to 3,000 yards with an average of 1,042 yards. Set gill nets with mesh sizes from 4 to 6 ½ inches stretched mesh are under proclamation authority which limits yardage using three restrictions: 1) fishermen cannot possess or use greater than 2,000 yards of gill nets north of Highway 58 or 1,000 yards of gill nets south of Highway 58, 2) set gill nets cannot be greater 100 yards in length, and 3) set gill nets must have a minimum of 25 yards between each net. This restriction was estimated to reduce harvest of spotted seatrout in the commercial fishery by 1.4%.
Limited Entry
There are limitations to establishing a limited entry system for fisheries in North Carolina. Section 2.1 of the FRA (G.S. 113-182.1) concerning FMPs states that the MFC can only recommend that the General Assembly limit participation in a fishery if the DMF determines that sustainable harvest in the fishery cannot otherwise be achieved. Currently, there are other options available for achieving sustainable harvest and ending overfishing for the spotted seatrout fishery. Therefore, limited entry is not a viable option for consideration at this time.
Combination of Management Options
A combination of management options may be the best approach to accommodate several different fisheries. The current proclamation uses a combination of size limit, creel limit, and closed days to achieve the previously approved management goal of achieving 50% of sustainable harvest. However additional reductions are now required due to the change in G.S. 113-182.1 (b) 4 which reduced the time frame to end overfishing from ten years to two years. Varying combinations of size limits, trip/creel limit, and seasonal closures were explored for recreational (Table 8) and commercial fisheries (Table 9). Areas shaded do not meet the required reductions estimated by the stock assessment model given the size selectivity. The primary assumption of the seasonal closure is that fish are not encountered during the closed seasons. Since this is not likely to occur and very little data were available to base recommendations, the values presented likely overestimate the total reductions due to seasonal closures. All of the reductions assume a 10% noncompliance for the size limit in the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery is based on past encounters of undersized spotted seatrout from the recreational survey. Additionally, seasonal closures will have some overlap with the reductions due to the restrictions enacted to reduce sea turtle interactions. The overall reduction was reduced by the month contribution due to overlap between seasonal closure and gill net restrictions. The required reductions in the commercial fishery can be met with a 14 inch size limit, 150 pound trip limit, and a seasonal closure from November 1st through December 10th. The required recreational reductions can be met with a 14 inch minimum size limit, 3 fish bag limit, and a seasonal closure from November 1st through December 10th. If the encounter rate increases from 0, a lower trip limit or longer seasonal closure would be required.
Timing of Implementation
19
The new regulation to end overfishing within two years requires the NCMFC to enact rules to achieve sustainable harvest in a timely fashion. However the regulation does not state at what time within the two years the rules should be enacted. The commission can decide to have the regulations enacted shortly after approval, one year after approval, or wait until November 2013.
A key piece of information for determining the sustainability of spotted seatrout should become available before the deadline to end overfishing in November 2013. NCSU is conducting a study to estimate natural and fishing mortality using telemetry and mark/recapture. The research being conducted on the natural mortality rate for spotted seatrout should provide a more accurate estimate of natural mortality (Pine et al. 2003; Jiang et al. 2007) than the natural mortality rate used in the Spotted Seatrout Stock Assessment (Jensen 2009). Spotted seatrout have a broad range of natural mortality due to the fish’s susceptibility to cold stun as was experienced in most recently January/February and December of 2010. Data were not available to neither estimate the percent of the population nor total numbers lost during past cold stuns for the stock assessment. Therefore the increase in mortality due to cold stun was lumped into fishing mortality. These periodic spikes in fishing mortality rate likely have an impact on sustainability benchmarks. The natural and fishing mortality rate developed in the NSCU tagging and telemetry study can be compared with the current rate to determine if more or less restrictive management measures are needed after the study has been peer reviewed.
20
Table 8. Recreational reductions achieved with a combination of size limit, creel limit, and season/day of week closure.
Seasons Bag No Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Apr 1 to Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Feb 1 to Dec 15 to 72 48 Size Limit Limit Closure Nov 30 Dec 31 Jun 30 Dec 10 Jan 31 Aug 31 Feb 28 hour hour 14 Inch 1 72.9% 78.4% 80.0% 75.2% 80.5% 80.0% 79.7% 80.1% 84.5% 80.7% Minimum 2 57.1% 65.8% 68.3% 60.7% 69.2% 68.3% 67.8% 68.4% 75.4% 69.4% Size Limit 3 46.8% 57.6% 60.7% 51.2% 61.7% 60.7% 60.0% 60.8% 69.4% 62.0% 4 39.4% 51.7% 55.2% 44.4% 56.4% 55.2% 54.4% 55.3% 65.2% 56.7% 5 33.5% 47.0% 50.9% 39.0% 52.2% 50.9% 50.0% 51.0% 61.8% 52.5% 6 29.0% 43.4% 47.6% 34.9% 49.0% 47.6% 46.7% 47.7% 59.2% 49.3% 7 25.4% 40.6% 44.9% 31.6% 46.4% 45.0% 44.0% 45.1% 57.2% 46.8%
Bag No Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Apr 1 to Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Feb 1 to Dec 15 to 72 48 Size Limit Limit Closure Nov 30 Dec 31 Jun 30 Dec 10 Jan 31 Aug 31 Feb 28 hour hour 15 Inch 1 74.5% 79.7% 81.2% 76.7% 81.7% 81.2% 80.9% 81.3% 85.4% 81.8% Minimum 2 59.7% 67.9% 70.2% 63.0% 71.0% 70.2% 69.7% 70.3% 76.9% 71.2% Size Limit 3 50.0% 60.1% 63.1% 54.1% 64.0% 63.1% 62.4% 63.1% 71.3% 64.3% 4 43.0% 54.6% 57.9% 47.7% 59.0% 57.9% 57.2% 58.0% 67.3% 59.3% 5 37.5% 50.2% 53.8% 42.7% 55.1% 53.9% 53.1% 54.0% 64.1% 55.4% 6 33.3% 46.8% 50.7% 38.8% 52.0% 50.7% 49.9% 50.8% 61.7% 52.3% 7 29.9% 44.2% 48.2% 35.7% 49.6% 48.3% 47.4% 48.4% 59.8% 50.0%
21
Table 9. Commercial reductions achieved with a combination of size limit, trip limit and season/day of week closure. This also includes a 13.1% reduction due to regulations designed to reduce interactions with sea turtles. Trip limit can be based on weight or number of fish. The average weight of spotted seatrout in the commercial fishery was 1.8 lbs.
Seasons
Closure Trip Dec 15 Dec 15 to Limit Trip Limit No Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Apr 1 to Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Feb 1 to to Feb Weekend Jan 31 and Size Limit (lbs) (Number) Closure Nov 30 Dec 31 Jun 30 Dec 10 Jan 31 Aug 31 28 Closures Weekends 14 inch 10 5 82.8% 86.8% 85.9% 85.1% 87.9% 87.9% 87.9% 87.5% 86.1% 89.0% minimum 25 12 71.4% 78.1% 76.5% 75.2% 79.9% 79.9% 79.9% 79.3% 76.9% 81.6% size limit 50 25 60.3% 69.5% 67.4% 65.6% 72.0% 72.0% 72.1% 71.2% 67.9% 74.5% 100 50 48.0% 60.1% 57.3% 54.9% 63.4% 63.4% 63.4% 62.3% 58.0% 66.6% 150 75 40.9% 54.6% 51.4% 48.7% 58.3% 58.4% 58.4% 57.1% 52.2% 62.0% 200 100 35.9% 50.8% 47.4% 44.5% 54.9% 54.9% 54.9% 53.5% 48.3% 58.8%
Closure Trip Dec 15 Dec 15 to Limit Trip Limit No Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Apr 1 to Nov 1 to Dec 1 to Feb 1 to to Feb Weekend Jan 31 and Size Limit (lbs) (Number) Closure Nov 30 Dec 31 Jun 30 Dec 10 Jan 31 Aug 31 28 Closures Weekends 15 inch 10 5 83.1% 87.0% 86.1% 85.3% 88.1% 88.1% 88.1% 87.7% 86.3% 89.1% minimum 25 12 71.8% 78.4% 76.9% 75.6% 80.2% 80.2% 80.2% 79.6% 77.3% 81.9% size limit 50 25 60.9% 70.0% 67.9% 66.1% 72.4% 72.4% 72.5% 71.6% 68.4% 74.8% 100 50 48.8% 60.7% 57.9% 55.6% 63.9% 63.9% 64.0% 62.8% 58.6% 67.1% 150 75 41.7% 55.3% 52.1% 49.5% 59.0% 59.0% 59.0% 57.7% 52.9% 62.5% 200 100 36.9% 51.5% 48.2% 45.3% 55.5% 55.6% 55.6% 54.2% 49.0% 59.4% 250 125 33.4% 48.9% 45.3% 42.2% 53.1% 53.1% 53.1% 51.6% 46.2% 57.2%
22
IV. CONCLUSIONS
• Spotted seatrout are overfished and overfishing is occurring therefore harvest must be reduced. • Projections, which are used to determine harvest reduction necessary to achieve a 50 percent likelihood of success, were deemed unusable for management because there was no discernable stock-recruitment relationship for spotted seatrout and large annual recruitment variability. • For the spotted seatrout stock, the biology of the fish, environmental conditions, and lack of sufficient data make it unwise to rely on projections to specify an Frebuild rate that is compatible with professional standards for fisheries management. • A range of reductions can be met with combinations of size limits (minimum, with or without a slot), bag limits and trip limits (Error! Reference source not found. and 9). • The stock can be reassessed in the near future to determine if the management strategy is enabling the stock to rebuild. • Area specific closures cannot be quantified with the available data. • Managing the recreational fishery with a quota is not feasible, and managing the commercial fishery with a quota would be difficult as well as an additional burden to commercial dealers and the NCDMF.
V. CURRENT AUTHORITY
G.S. 113-134. RULES G.S. 113-182. REGULATIONS OF FISHING AND FISHERIES G.S. 143B-289.52. MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION-POWERS AND DUTIES 15A NCAC 3M .0504 TROUT 15A NCAC 3M.0512 COMPLIANCE WITH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
VI. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
End overfishing immediately:
Examples
• 14”: 2 fish bag limit, 50 lbs trip limit • 14-24”: 2 fish bag limit, 100 lbs trip limit, weekend commercial closure • 14-24”: 4 fish bag limit, 150 lbs trip limit, and a recreational and commercial closure November 1- December 10th
A. Modify Size Limits Size limits alone are not likely to achieve the reduction necessary to achieve sustainable harvest and should be combined with other management options. (i) Increase minimum size limit (size limit is 14 inches) + Increase in the spawning stock biomass and the overall yield to the fishery + Allows more immature fish the opportunity to spawn at least once before being caught + Reduces landings and harvest closer to a sustainable level + Reduces harvest levels closer to the target fishing mortality level
23
+ Could be applied to both the commercial and recreational fisheries - Decrease in the yield to the fishery in the short-term - Some regions may be impacted more than others - Overfishing could still occur if fishing mortality increases on legal sized fish - Effectiveness diminished if proportion of undersized fish in the catch increases due to release mortality - Increase in regulatory discards in the commercial and recreational fisheries
(ii) Establish maximum size (slot limits) + Protects the largest fish in the spawning stock + Potentially protects fish with the highest egg production + Will allow more fish to survive as size and age structure expands - Very little reduction in commercial and recreational landings - May increase pressure on fish in the slot limit - Increase in regulatory discards due to bycatch in commercial fishery - Increase in regulatory discards in the recreational fishery - Data collection for future assessments on largest, potentially oldest fish becomes more limited
(iii) Establish maximum size (slot limits) with a trophy fish + Provides some protection for the largest fish in the spawning stock + Potentially reduces harvest on fish with the highest egg production + Will allow more fish to survive as size and age structure expands than managing with no slot limit + Enables data collection for future assessments on largest, potentially oldest fish - Reduces the effectiveness of slot limit due to harvest of the trophy fish - Reduction in commercial and recreational landings is not quantifiable - May increase pressure on fish in the slot limit - Increase in regulatory discards due to bycatch in commercial fishery - Increase in regulatory discards in the recreational fishery - Fishermen may high grade to keep the largest trophy fish
B.) Trip/creel limits Trip/creel limits alone are not likely to achieve the reduction necessary to achieve sustainable harvest and should be combined with other management options. + Reduces harvest in the fishery + Potential management measure for both the commercial and recreational fisheries + Combined with size limit can achieve sustainability threshold with no seasonal closure - May lead to increased regulatory discards in the commercial fishery - May adversely impact some fisheries and fishermen more than others - Potential for high grading as fishermen reach creel limit
C.) Seasonal closure + Reduces harvest in the fishery + Flexibility to close among fisheries + Combined with size and/or creel/trip limits can achieve sustainability threshold + Potential to close fishery when discard mortality rate is lowest
24
+ Potential to close during spawning season − May lead to increased regulatory discards in some fisheries − May adversely impact some fisheries and fishermen more than others − Potential for recoupment if closed season is not sufficiently long
D.) Timing of Implementation
(i) End Overfishing Immediately + Provides the longest time period for the stock to rebuild after overfishing has ended + Update stock assessment has a longer terminal management regime − Limited time to publish and disperse new regulations − Does not consider research from NCSU study on spotted seatrout natural and fishing mortality − Impacts fishermen immediately
(ii) End Overfishing in One Year + Provides moderate time period to end overfishing + Stock assessment is better able to determine effects of current management regulations compared to immediately ending overfishing + Size limits, creel limits, bag limits, and seasons are able to be published and dispersed + Fishermen are able to prepare for new regulations − Does not consider research from NCSU study on spotted seatrout natural and fishing mortality − Overfishing continues for an additional year
(iii) End Overfishing in November 2013 + Can consider published results from NCSU study on spotted seatrout natural and fishing mortality before enacting management regulations + Provides longest time period for publishing and dispersing regulations + Fishermen are able to prepare for regulations − Provides shortest time period for stock to rebuild − Overfishing continues for two additional years − Most risk prone action
Previous Management Recommendations
SST AC: Take the reductions necessary to end overfishing half way and reassess within 3 years, with a 6 fish bag limit, 14 inch minimum size, and a weekend closure (no possession) for the commercial fishery & gear will be removed on weekends November-February. No use of gill nets as RCGL gear to harvest spotted seatrout. DMF: Take the reductions necessary to end overfishing half way and reassess in 5 years, with a 6 fish bag limit and 14 inch minimum size, and weekend closure (no possession) for the commercial fishery & gear will be removed on weekends November-February. Western Albemarle Sound & Currituck Sounds exempt from the weekend gear removal. MFC : Take the reductions necessary to end overfishing half way and reassess in 5 years, with a 6 fish bag limit and 14 inch minimum size, and weekend closure (no possession) for the commercial fishery. The small mesh gill net attendance requirement is extended to include
25 weekends, December through February. A maximum of 2 fish over 24 inches for recreational fishermen.
Management Recommendations to End Overfishing Within Two Years
SST AC: 14 minimum size limit, two fish recreational bag limit, 50 fish commercial trip limit, no commercial possession on weekends, estuarine gill nets and long hauls out of the water on weekends, reassess in 3 years or when new information becomes available, implement management measures immediately, and eliminate the use of treble hooks with natural bait in estuarine waters and areas where spotted seatrout are typically targeted. DMF: 14 inch minimum size limit, two fish recreational bag limit, 25 fish commercial trip limit, adaptive management to review and respond to new information regarding any aspect of the plan. DMF: 14 inch minimum size limit, three fish recreational bag limit, 75 fish commercial trip limit, no commercial possession on weekends, allow gear on weekend (assumes 25% encounter rate with 60% mortality), recreational and commercial closure December 15- January 31, adaptive management to review and respond to new information regarding any aspect of the plan. MFC:
VII. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Estimates of natural mortality (research currently underway).
2. Batch fecundity estimates are needed for spotted seatrout in North Carolina. Estimates of batch fecundity from North Carolina could help to identify a stock-recruitment relationship, and may provide better estimates of spawning potential ratios and future recruitment.
3. Research the feasibility of including measures of temperature and/or salinity into the stock-recruitment relationship.
4. Area specific spawning surveys could help in the delineation of area specific closures to protect females in spawning condition.
5. Juvenile index of abundance is needed to develop a better understanding of a stock recruitment relationship.
6. A very robust release mortality study needs to be conducted for recreationally and commercially caught spotted seatrout.
26
Votes from the Advisory Committees on the Sustainable Harvest Issue paper to achieve the 57.1% reduction needed to end overfishing. Committee Size Bag Hook Trip Closure Gear Implementation Vote Other Comments Limit Limit Type Limit SST AC 14 2 Ethical 50 fish Weekend* E.G. and Immediately 3-0 Angling L.H. out of water Finfish 14 2 Ethical 50 fish Weekend* E.G. and Immediately 3-1 Angling L.H. out of (4-0) water Southeast 14 2 Ethical 50 fish Weekend* E.G. and Immediately 6-0 Review Hook Angling L.H. out of Type, Areas, and water Gigs Northeast^ 15 4 Dec 1-31^ 8-0 Northeast* 14 25 fish 7-1 Central^ 14 7 Ethical Tues-Thurs Wait for 5-1 Angling research Central* 14 100 lb Weekend Gear 4-2 allowed on weekends Inland 14 2 Ethical 50 fish Weekend* E.G. and Immediately 5-2 Considerable Angling L.H. out of discussion on water mortality and uncertainty in the model DMF 14 3 Ethical 75 fish Dec 15-Jan Assumes a Immediately Angling 31, 25% Weekend* encounter rate DMF 14 2 Ethical 25 fish Immediately Angling MFC * Commercial, ^Recreational E.G.=Estuarine Gillnet; L.H.=Long Haul
27
Number of public attendees at Advisory Committee Meetings and inputs from email and phone calls.
Committee Public Attendance/ Contacts Northeast Regional AC 2 Southeast Regional AC 4 Inland Regional AC 1 Finfish AC 6 Central Regional AC 1 Habitat AC 3 Email 3 Phone 6 Spotted Seatrout AC 3
Public comment regarding spotted seatrout management issues.
Number of Comments For Limit gig harvest 2 Bag limits and quotas to manage fisheries 1 End overfishing immediately 3 Commercial Prefer 40 or 50 trout. Discard mortality is high and that should cover bycatch 1 Slot limit 16-22 and 5 fish bag limit 1 Fairness between fisheries. Most of the reduction likely met with current 1 regulations. 15" rec size limit; 14" com, weekend closure, dec 15-feb 28, 100 lb trip 1 Close for cold stun 2 Commercial gear out of water when closed 3 Increase Size Limit 2
Against Does not like 2 fish bag limit. 4 Rec estimates are not correct 2 Commercial fishermen the problem. Don't allow a commercial harvest 2 Against commercial closure on the weekend rather December 1 Problems with model. Recognize cold stun and wait for research 2 Against size limits 1 Against hook regs 1 Small bag limit will encourage people to fish in other states 3
28
MFC FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS – ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS, AMEND. 1 Nov. 3, 2011
•Appoint Advisory Committee
•Approve Goals/Objectives •Review Timeline/Public Information Brochure
•Draft Developed by DMF and Advisory Committee
•Approve Draft for Public Meetings/Standing Advisory Committee Review
You are •Select Preferred Management Options/Approve Draft Here
•Transmit to DENR
•Review by DENR and Gov Ops
•Approve Rule Text for Public Hearing(s)
•Final Approval/Final Approval of Rules
•Implement Strategies/Recommendations
MEMO
TO: The NC Marine Fisheries Commission, NC Estuarine Striped Bass Plan Development Team, and NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP Albemarle/Roanoke and Central Southern Management Area Advisory Committees (AC).
CC: Louis Daniel Ph. D., Dee Lupton, David Taylor, Michelle Duval Ph. D., Kathy Rawls, Kevin Dockendorf
FR: Charlton Godwin and Katy West
RE: Amendment I to the NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP, Public Comment and MFC Standing and Regional AC Research and Management Recommendations
DA: 17 October 2011
The following tables summarize the Advisory Committee’s (AC’s) and agency (NCDMF and NCWRC as this is a joint FMP) Management Recommendations regarding the Issues identified in the draft NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP Amendment I. Also included are the Research and Management Recommendations from other Sections within the FMP. Also summarized is Public Comment received at six Public Meetings held in conjunction with the AC meetings.
Table 1. Issues developed through the NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP Amendment I process, and the MFC’s Albemarle/Roanoke and Central Southern FMP ACs and the NCDMF and NCWRC Management Recommendations on those Issues. ISSUE A/R AC CSMA AC NCDMF/NCWRC RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION Close the Atlantic Close the Atlantic Ocean to Ocean to the harvest of Atlantic Ocean the harvest of striped bass striped bass from the Status quo; allow the fishery to Summertime from the time the ASMA time the ASMA continue with the catch card Recreational recreational season closes in recreational season survey May 1 through Oct 30. Harvest Closure the spring until October 1 of closes in the spring until each year. October 1 of each year. Striped Bass Status quo on stocking; Target of 100,000 fish stocked annually in each of the three CSMA Stocking in systems (Tar/Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear), with 3,000 stocked fish tagged in each Coastal Rivers system annually. Status quo and educate Require the Use of Status quo and continue anglers on ethical angling Single Barbless Status quo and continue to to educate anglers on practices, with additional Hook During educate anglers on conservative angling recommendation to include Striped Bass conservative angling practices practices for striped mortality statistics associated Recreational for striped bass. bass. with various handling Closed Season techniques ASMA/CSMA and Support necessary rule ASMA/RRMA changes to create new Boundary Line boundaries. Changes Status quo on current Status quo on current management measures and management measures and CSMA Discards N/A does not support DFS does not support DFS proposal. proposal. Status quo with adaptive Status quo with adaptive management; do not allow management; do not allow Hook and Line as Status quo; do not allow Hook and Line as commercial Hook and Line as commercial Commercial Gear Hook and Line as a gear for striped bass unless gear for striped bass unless in Estuarine commercial gear for future restrictions on the use of future restrictions on the use Waters striped bass. gill nets necessitate alternative of gill nets necessitate commercial gears. alternative commercial gears. Status quo on all management Status quo on all management measures with the addition of measures with the addition of Management of a pound for pound payback a pound for pound payback N/A CSMA Fisheries overage in the commercial overage in the commercial fishery and does not support fishery and does not support the DFS proposal. the DFS proposal. Management of ASMA/RRMA Status Quo on the Status Quo on the current Fisheries (was not current management N/A management regime. a formal Issue regime. Paper) Table 2. Issues developed through the NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP Amendment I process and the MFC standing and regional AC’s Management Recommendations on those Issues.
ISSUE Atlantic Ocean Require single barbless hooks during summertime Striped bass stocking in the ASMA RRMA Boundary Line summertime catch and release recreational harvest CSMA Change fisheries closure
Status quo- continue Finfish Status quo-100,000 fish per Status quo and educate anglers on ethical Support rule change for new the fishery with catch AC year per system angling practices boundary points card May-Oct
Status quo and educate anglers on ethical Supports the Atlantic angling practices, with additional Ocean summertime Status quo-100,000 fish per Support rule change for new Inland AC recommendation to include mortality recreational harvest year per system boundary points statistics associated with various handling closure techniques
Status quo- continue Central Recommend stocking 150,000 Status quo and educate anglers on ethical Support rule change for new the fishery with catch AC fish per year per system angling practices boundary points card May-Oct
Status quo and educate anglers on ethical Supports the Atlantic Status quo-100,000 fish per angling practices, with additional Ocean summertime year per system, PLUS Support rule change for new SE AC recommendation to include mortality recreational harvest evaluate cost effectiveness of boundary points statistics associated with various handling closure current stocking program techniques
Status quo - continue the fishery with catch Status quo-100,000 fish per Status quo and educate anglers on ethical Support rule change for new NE AC card May-Oct year per system angling practices boundary points 4 to 4 tie vote: Motion Fails Table 2. Continued ISSUE Current management Hook and line as commercial Current management measures Discards in the CSMA measures in the gear in the CSMA ASMA/RRMA
Status quo with adaptive Status quo with the addition of a Status quo with all Finfish Status quo with tie down line and management if future restrictions commercial overage payback current management AC distance from shore (DFS) lines require the use of alternative provision measures gear
Status quo with adaptive Status quo with the addition of a Status quo with all Status quo with tie down line and management if future restrictions Inland AC commercial overage payback current management distance from shore lines require the use of alternative provision measures gear
Status quo with tie down line and the addition of moving the DFS Status quo WITHOUT the addition Status quo with adaptive lines upriver to the points specified of a commercial overage payback Central management if future restrictions Status quo with all in the Cuthrell map by proclamation provision measures (includes the AC require the use of alternative current management from June 15 to August 31, at recommendation from the Discards gear which point the DFS lines are to be in the CSMA Issue Paper) restored to the original position
Status quo with adaptive Status quo with the addition of a Status quo with all Status quo with tie down line and management if future restrictions SE AC commercial overage payback current management distance from shore lines require the use of alternative provision measures gear
Status quo with adaptive Status quo with the addition of a Status quo with all Status quo with tie down line and management if future restrictions NE AC commercial overage AND underage current management distance from shore lines require the use of alternative payback provision measures gear RESEARCH NEEDS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NC ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FMP AMENDMENT I
The Habitat and Water Quality MFC AC voted at their September 12, 2011 meeting to support and implement the following Research and Management Recommendations relative to striped bass from the 2010 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, as well as the Research and Management Recommendations identified in Section 10, Environmental Status, of the FMP:
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AND IMPLEMENTED IDENTIFIED IN THE 2010 COASTAL HABITAT PROTECTION PLAN:
• There should be continued support and development of SHAs in NC. • Once the SHAs have been designated there should be continued protection of these areas by the cooperating agencies. • Work with WRC, DWQ, and others to implement management measures that will enhance water quality in areas used by striped bass. • Work with American Rivers and other partners to accelerate dam removal in priority areas. • Agencies should continue to protect NC coastal wetlands through the permit review process. Quantify the density and distribution of striped bass eggs, fry, and juveniles in coastal rivers to estimate potential losses to entrainment and impingement. • Determine if contaminants are present in striped bass habitats and identify those that are potentially detrimental to various life history stages. • Evaluate the effects of existing and future water withdrawals on water quality and quantity and fisheries habitat in coastal watersheds.
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AND IMPLEMENTED IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 10, ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS, OF THE DRAFT NC ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FMP AMENDMENT I:
• Identify and designate anadromous fish nursery areas and how early juvenile striped bass move and are distributed in NC estuarine waters. • Identify minimum flow requirements in the Tar/Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear rivers necessary for successful spawning, egg development, and larval transport to nursery grounds. • Evaluate the impacts/effects of reverse osmosis plants on receiving waters and aquatic resources. • Verify condition of identified SHAs used by striped bass. • Investigate abundance and spawning contribution of striped bass in the NC and Virginia portions of the Blackwater, Nottoway and Meherrin rivers. • Investigate striped bass use in the North Carolina portions of the Waccamaw River during the appropriate season. • Continue to investigate the potential for passage of striped bass above Roanoke Rapids Dam. • Support fish passage at Buckhorn Dam and Lock and Dam No.2 and No.3 and investigate anadromous fish utilization of the rock ladder at Lock and Dam No. 1. • Investigate the feasibility of fish passage at and improved water flows from Rocky Mount Mill Dam and Tar River Reservoir Dam. • Support the removal of Milburnie Dam in Raleigh. • Support fish passage above the Yadkin chain of dams in North Carolina. • Data on the density and distribution of striped bass eggs, fry, and juveniles in coastal rivers are needed so that potential losses to entrainment and impingement can be estimated. • Identify effective engineering solutions to prevent entrainment and impingement of striped bass eggs, fry, and juveniles. • NCDMF and NCWRC should work with DWQ and other agencies to determine and establish more stringent water quality standards in Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas.
OTHER RESEARCH NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN VARIOUS SECTIONS OR WITHIN ISSUES IN THE DRAFT NC ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FMP AMENDMENT I:
Atlantic Ocean Summer Recreational Closure • Methodology tested to accurately capture Atlantic Ocean striped bass harvest during summer months (May-October)
Striped Bass Stocking In Coastal Rivers • Increase surveys of stocked systems to determine percent contribution of wild versus stocked fish • Determine if fish produced from system-specific parentage will increase stocking contribution to spawning populations • Determine factors impacting survivability of stocked fish in each system
Discard Mortality Of Striped Bass From Commercial Set Gill Nets In The CSMA • More at-sea observations made for the gill net fishery to more accurately assess the discards from this fishery • Explore improvements to NCDMF programs (Trip Ticket, Fish House sampling, fisherman surveys or logbooks) in order to aquire spatially and temporally accurate gill net gear parameters (e.g. yardage, mesh) • Investigate the impacts of delayed mortality on striped bass captured in gill nets RESEARCH NEEDS BY SECTION:
Section 6 Status Of The Stocks
Research Recommendations from the CSMA stock assessment (2010) (H- High priority, M- Medium priority, and L- Low priority). Life History
• Determine system of origin of fish on the spawning grounds (H). • Acquire life history information: maturity, fecundity, size and weight at age, egg and larval survival (short term research projects) (H). • Conduct a mark-recapture study utilizing conventional tags and telemetry approaches (expanded program) (H). • Determine if suitable striped bass spawning conditions exist in the Tar/Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear rivers (M). • Conduct egg abundance and egg viability studies (M). • Determine contribution of stocked fish to spawning stock (M). • Determine extent of spawning grounds (L).
Fishery Dependent Surveys - Recreational and Commercial
• Improve discard estimates and discard biological characteristics from commercial fisheries (trip level observer coverage) (M). • Obtain biological characteristics such as length, weight, age, and sex of recreational harvest (expanded creel surveys) (M). • Obtain biological characteristics such as length, weight, age, and sex of commercial harvest (increased sampling, age structure collection) (M). • Improve discard estimates and discard biological characteristics from recreational fisheries (creel survey) (L). • Conduct delayed mortality studies for recreational and commercial gear (short term research projects) (L).
Fisheries Independent Surveys
• Conduct independent surveys that adequately capture all life stages of striped bass (H). • Conduct a short term study to determine vulnerability-at-length for survey gears (L). SECTION 8 PROTECTED SPECIES
Request funding for state observer program:
• Provides data on interactions, fisheries characterizations, and discard information • Allows for continued proactive management • Expensive • Could be difficult to achieve adequate observer coverage coast wide
Apply for ITP for impacted fisheries:
• Provides a legal means of having interactions • Provides data on protected species and fisheries characterization • Allows for continued proactive management • Expensive • Could be difficult to achieve adequate observer coverage coast wide
Continue gear development research to minimize species interactions:
• Allows fisheries to continue • Potentially increased survival of protected species • Potentially reduces interactions • Potential for fisheries to close due to protected species interactions while gear is being developed
Implementation of outreach programs to inform state agencies, the public, and the commercial and recreational fishing industries about issues relating to protected species and fishery management:
• Well informed public may be able to reduce interactions • Proactive way to address the issues • Additional staff time to develop outreach materials PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED
12 September 2011 DENR Washington Regional Office, Washington, NC
Public present: 3. One member of the public commented on striped bass.
1) Manage to end overfishing (if overfished) and require net attendance
13 September 2011 Craven County Agricultural Office, New Bern, NC
Public present: 5. One member of the public commented on striped bass.
1) He urged the MFC to allow fishermen to keep what they catch to avoid waste, manage on a quota system with possession limits and to eliminate size limits.
15 September 2011 Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing Room Raleigh, NC
Public present: 1. No public comment on striped bass.
20 September 2011 DENR Washington Regional Office, Washington, NC
Public present: 0. No public comment on striped bass.
21 September 2011 DENR Wilmington Regional Office, Wilmington, NC
Public present: 4. Two members of the public commented on striped bass.
1) The first member of the public commented that he believed that anglers did not know about the no possession provision in the Cape Fear River and its tributaries. He recommended posting signs at area boat ramps. He works closely with the Cape Fear River Striper Foundation in order to improve habitat and water quality to help restore striped bass in the Cape Fear River. He offered to continue to work closely with the NCDMF staff towards these efforts, including possibly sources of funding for research needs of providing volunteers to assist NCDMF staff in any way needed. He stated he and his group were satisfied with the support they have gotten from the NCDMF. 2) The second person commented that he felt the current stocking program was inefficient and a waste of money. Rather than the current system of raising striped bass in ponds at hatcheries (to about 8 inches in length before release) he thought it would be better to close off an area in the wild and let them grow to bigger size. 22 September 2011 Dare County Hearing Room, Manteo, NC
Public present: 3. Two members of the public commented on striped bass.
1) Commented that he did not like the bycatch provision. It forced him to set more net than necessary just to meet the 50% weight provision. Recommended to keep the daily trip limits but do away with the bycatch provision. 2) Another member of the public commented during discussion about the Atlantic Ocean closure. The fish being harvested in the summer in the Atlantic Ocean were A/R prime spawning stock fish and needed protection. Harvest on these fish was closed in the ASMA and CSMA and should be closed in the Atlantic Ocean as well. The catch card survey was not being adhered to by anglers, therefore catch was unquantified and was not getting counted against the ASMA recreational total allowable catch, which could put us out of compliance with the ASMC Atlantic Striped Bass FMP. Overall, it is a resource issue and she felt the A/R spawning stock that was being harvested during this time in this area was too valuable to the stock and needed protection. MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission N.C. Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River (A/R) Advisory Committee and Central Southern Management Area (CSMA) Advisory Committee Dr. Louis Daniel
FROM: Charlton H. Godwin and Katy West
DATE: 6 October 2011
SUBJECT: Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River (A/R) Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP A/R AC met on 6 October 2011 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting took place at the USFWS Edenton National Fish Hatchery, in Edenton, NC. The following attended the AC meeting:
Advisers: Fred Waterfield, Duke Spencer, William Blackwell, Jim Braun, David Buchanan, Lee Briley, and Terry Pratt. Riley Williams, Jeff Buckel, Roger Rulifson, Dossey Pruden, and Dale Petty were absent.
Staff : Kathy Rawls, Charlton Godwin, Officer Brian Long, Officer Justin Lott, and Steve Jackson-USFWS Hatchery Manager
Public: None
The co-chairs of the AC were absent so the AC asked Charlton to run the meeting. The meeting started at 5:07.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no modifications to the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING’S MINUTES
The minutes from the June 2 AR AC meeting were approved by unanimous consent.
DRAFT NC ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
Charlton reviewed previous recommendations on each Management Issue from the Striped Bass FMP AC’s and the DMF and WRC. Charlton then presented the AC with the recommendations made from each of the standing and regional ACs as well as public comment received at the meetings.
The first Issue reviewed was the Boundary Line Change, and there were no comments or questions on this.
Next Charlton reviewed the recommendations for stocking striped bass in the CSMA systems. Terry Pratt asked if there were funds for this and where they came from. Charlton indicated we did have funding for stocking for the upcoming years, and the USFWS provided the majority of the funds to support the stocking program. Terry Pratt asked about evaluating the effectiveness of the stocking program. Charlton indicated we currently do that through tag returns for the portion of stocked fish that are tagged with external anchor tags. The NCWRC has collaborated with South Carolina Department of Natural Resources to use fin clips to determine genetically if a fish was stocked or from wild parentage. This new technique should allow a more extensive evaluation of the contribution of stocked fish to harvest and the spawning biomass of CSMA stocks. Duke Spencer inquired if the Edenton National Fish Hatchery (ENFH) was open year-round and how much of the budget went to striped bass. Charlton indicated the hatchery was open year round and raised American shad among other fish species, as well as sponsored Take A Kid Fishing events. Steve Jackson, hatchery manager, indicated about 2/3 of the hatcheries’ operating expenses were dedicated towards striped bass.
The next Issue was Atlantic Ocean Summertime Recreational Harvest Closure. The DMF/WRC recommendation is to close the Atlantic Ocean to striped bass harvest during the summer. Currently there is a Catch Card Survey in place to gather harvest statistics from May 1 through September 30 on all striped bass harvested from the Atlantic Ocean from Ocracoke Inlet to the Va line. Duke Spencer asked how much the DMF is spending on the survey. Charlton explained the cost is minimal; only the cost of the catch cards and landing tags and the time to distribute them to tackle shops. Duke Spencer suggested discontinuing the survey and spending the money elsewhere. Jim Braun said tackle shops didn’t know about the requirement. Charlton explained all tackle shops have been given catch cards and should know of the program. The DMF will make extra effort next year to publicize the tagging requirement. Fred Waterfield asked if the striped bass harvested between May and October at Oregon Inlet were A/R brood stock fish. Charlton indicated they were. Terry Pratt asked that didn’t the Sensitivity Analysis performed for this Issue Paper indicate that with hypothetical additional removals of age 9# fish the effect on F was minimal? Charlton indicated yes. Jim Braun was concerned that these fish were very large females, with lots of eggs due to their size. Duke asked about the impact from hurricane Irene. Charlton indicated that water quality conditions in the Chowan, Perquimans, Little, and Pasquotank rivers was OK farther down in the system, but was near zero oxygen for these rivers in the upper reaches. The Roanoke however, experienced over 20 days of zero levels of oxygen from the mouth to beyond Williamston. Based on juvenile striped bass surveys being conducted in the western and central Albemarle Sound, dissolved oxygen levels and abundance of juvenile fish in the western Albemarle Sound proper were not adversely affected.
Duke Spencer made a motion to support status quo, that the Atlantic Ocean remain open to recreational striped bass harvest during the summer months. William Blackwell seconded. By a show of hands, the vote was 3 for and 4 against, so the motion failed. David Buchanan made a motion to close the Atlantic Ocean to recreational harvest in the summer from the time the ASMA closes until Oct 1 of each year. Fred Waterfield seconded. The motion carries 4 in favor 3 opposed.
2
Charlton then went through the rest of the Issues. The AC didn’t want to change any of its previous recommendations.
David Buchanan made a motion to accept the FMP with the A/R AC’s recommendations, including any Habitat and Water Quality Recommendations, and Research Recommendations, to forward to the MFC. Fred Waterfield seconded. The motion passed 5 for, 1 against, and 1 abstain.
Terry Pratt then asked the AC if he could read into record a short essay titled “Overfishing: A Term of Art”, written by Jim Hutchinson, Jr., managing Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). The AC had additional discussion on overfishing and current fisheries management practices.
The A/R meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. by consensus.
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins District Managers Dick Brame Allen Jernigan Committee Staff Members Frank Crawley Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Louis Daniel Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission N.C. Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River (A/R) Advisory Committee and Central Southern Management Area (CSMA) Advisory Committee Dr. Louis Daniel
FROM: Charlton H. Godwin and Katy West
DATE: 10 June 2011
SUBJECT: Central Southern Management Area (CSMA) Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP CSMA AC met on 1 June 2011 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting took place at the DENR Washington Regional Office, Washington, NC. The following attended the AC meeting:
Advisers: Kim Tavasso, Gilbert Tripp, Keith Bruno, Nick Blackerby, Alton Parker, Jim Dupree and Anthony Overton
Staff : Kathy Rawls, Charlton Godwin, David Taylor, Michelle Duval, Jason Rock, Michael Shepherd, Chris Stewart, Officer Daniel Ipock,
Public:
Jim Dupree started the meeting at 6:00 pm.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no modifications to the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING’S MINUTES
Alton Parker made a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Gilbert Tripp seconded. They were approved unanimously.
DRAFT NC ESTUARINE STRIPED BASS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
Charlton Godwin presented a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the DRAFT of the NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP. The presentation reviewed five main areas of information:
1. Review Management Units and Stocks 2. Review Goals and Objectives 3. Review Stock Assessment Results 4. Review FMP Sections and Research Recommendations 5. Review Issues, Options, and PDT and AC Recommendations
Discussion/Questions from the CSMA AC:
After the presentation, Charlton pointed out there was a significant addition to the Socioeconomic section that the AC members had not seen yet. It was relative to the estimated economic impact of commercial trips landing striped bass in 2009. There are at least two methods that can be used to estimate the economic impact of striped bass related commercial trips, each with various caveats. One method uses as an input, the ex-vessel value of all landings on a trip that landed striped bass. This methodology is more similar to the method employed when estimating the recreational economic impact of striped bass related trips, as individual species landed during a recreational trip cannot be parsed out as with commercial trip ticket data. The second methodology for estimating commercial economic impact uses the ex-vessel value of only striped bass, not the other species landed on the same trip. In estuarine waters, striped bass are prosecuted as a bycatch fishery, so there will always be significant landings of other species on those trip tickets landing striped bass. Other important caveats of the analysis are that commercial trips in which no striped bass were encountered cannot be used in the analysis, as this information is not captured on a trip ticket. Also, none of the economic costs of striped bass related activities (fish house employees, shipping costs, restaurants, etc) after the fish gets to the dock are calculated, as this data does not exist. The impact of these activities is substantial, so the current estimates for the economic impact of commercial trips is an underestimate, but to what degree is uncertain. The NCDMF is currently working on surveys to gain estimates of economic impacts from the post landings activities, such as economic impact to the fish house, etc. For the recreational estimates, all costs associated with a striped bass related trip are factored in. So, an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the commercial and recreational estimates cannot be made. However, the combined estimates of recreational and commercial striped bass trips indicate the impact is at least 45 million dollars. This is explained in more detail in section 9.0 of the FMP.
There were serious concerns raised by some AC members about the significant economic contributions associated with striped bass after they were landed that are not included in the analysis. One member suggested that we not even conduct a commercial economic impact analysis until the same data was available for the commercial sector that is available for the recreational sector, as this would lead to unfair comparisons of the estimated impact from the two sectors. Charlton explained that is why we stress all the assocoated caveats in Section 9 of the FMP and specifically state that direct comparisons of the commercial and recreational analysis cannot be made b/c of the different methodology. Charlton stressed again that the big picture is the overall impact striped bass has to the state, rather than trying to break out the impact by user groups.
The other major point of discussion revolved around the payback provision in the commercial fishery. That is, if the total allowable catch (TAC) is exceeded then the TAC is reduced by that much the following year. The commercial members did not feel this was necessary, because if you looked at the entire time series and totaled up all the overages and underages, the difference was only a few
2 hundred pounds1. Charlton explained that the potential existed for there to be annual overages year after year and that the stock could be further compromised by this additional harvest. The reason for overages in any given year is late reporting of their daily landings by dealers, which is used to calculate the season end date. The other members of the AC felt it was necessary as the stock was at such low levels of abundance and conservative management measures were necessary for all sectors.
There was no other major discussion so the Chair asked for a motion.
Nick Blackerby made a motion that the CSMA AC approve the draft NC Estuarine Striped Bass FMP to be presented to the MFC for approval to go out to Public Comment. Kim Tavasso seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 with Alton Parker, Keith Bruno and Gilbert Tripp voting not in favor of the motion due mainly to the overage payback provision.
UPDATES
NCDMF staff provided the AC with a timeline for the rest of the FMP process: the draft FMP will go the MFC at their August 10-12 meeting in Raleigh. If approved to go to public comment, the draft FMP will go to the standing ACs and for public comment August 23-25 and August 30-September 1, 2011. The FMP will then go back to the A/R and CSMA ACs to review the public comment, then back to the MFC for final approval. The FMP will go into rule effective April (NCDMF) and August (NCWRC) 2013.
The CSMA meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. by consensus.
1 A quick calculation was done by one of the AC members in which he stated the difference between the overages and underages was only a few hundred pounds. It is actually 12,675 pounds over the TAC since 1994 when overages and underages are totaled and subtracted from each other. 3
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins Kathy Rawls Dick Brame Allen Jernigan District Managers Frank Crawley Amanda Little Committee Staff Members Louis Daniel Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Chris Elkins Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
4
MFC FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS – BLUE CRAB, AMEND. 2 Nov. 3, 2011
•Appoint Advisory Committee
•Approve Goals/Objectives •Review Timeline
•Draft Developed by DMF and Advisory Committee
•Approve Draft for Public Meetings/Standing Advisory Committee You are Review Here
•Select Preferred Management Options/Approve Draft
•Transmit to DENR
•Review by DENR and Gov Ops
•Approve Rule Text for Public Hearing(s)
•Final Approval/Final Approval of Rules
•Implement Strategies/Recommendations
If you would like a copy of the Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2, please contact Lauren Morris in the MFC Office at 252- 808-8022 or [email protected]
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Dr. Louis Daniel
FROM: Tina Moore Lynn Henry
DATE: August 23, 2011
SUBJECT: Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The Blue Crab Advisory Committee (AC) met on August 22, 2011 at 6 p.m., at the NCDENR Regional Field Office located at 943 Washington Square Mall in Washington, NC. The following attended:
Advisers: Perry Beasley, Robbie Beasley, Sammy Corbett, Richard Forward, Marco Gibbs, Mark Hooper, Jimmy Nobles, Robert Bruggeworth
Absent: Eddie Newman, Alton Parker, Martine Posey
Staff: John Hadley, Lynn Henry, Tina Moore, Jason Rock, Bryan Spain, David Taylor, Stephen Taylor, Mike Marshall, Katy West, Michael Shepherd, Ray Mroch
Public: Terry Pratt
MFC: Chris Elkins
Co-chair Perry Beasley called the meeting to order.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no modifications to the agenda.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion was made by Sammy Corbett and seconded by Mark Hooper to approves the minutes from the meeting on July 25, 2011. The motion passed without dissent.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Terry Pratt explained that government agencies have one purpose, to remove fishing gear from the water and are looking for ways to put fishermen out of business. We need to look at blue crabs as a food production issue and stop taking jobs away from fishermen. We should make DMF staff figure out the problem with algae and low oxygen in the Albemarle and stop wasting time developing Fishery Management Plans because they have not added any more fish to the population.
REVIEW THE DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES STOCK ASSESSMENT FOR BLUE CRAB
Ray Mroch provided the AC with a Power Point presentation on the Traffic Light assessment. He gave an overview of the previous assessment and the existing management measures since the adoption of amendment 1 of the Blue Crab FMP in 2004. A spawning stock proxy was used from the Pamlico Sound trawl survey. The proxy summed all the carapace widths of the females sampled in the survey. It was an annual one point estimate of mature female abundance and if it fell below the 90% confidence interval for 2 consecutive years it would initiate management measures of a maximum size limit of 6 ¾-inches for hard crab females and 5 ¼-inch maximum size limit on peeler crabs from September through April. The threshold for initiating the protection measure was exceeded in 2006 and the protection measure has been in place every year since. In 2004, overfished was defined as declining landings for five consecutive years and overfishing could not be determined.
Mr. Mroch continued onto the current assessment. A non-parametric analysis was conducted on all the various indices by region to determine the trends in abundance. A majority of the indices from the Pamlico and Southern regions showed negative trends, while the Albemarle region showed mostly positive trends. The statewide indices showed no trend; and therefore, the blue crabs were reacting differently between the regions. The Traffic Light method allows for the simple representation of complex information through the examination of multiple data sources. The time series from 1987 to 2009 was used and broken into three regions of the state: Albemarle, Pamlico (including Core Sound and the rivers), and Southern (all areas south of Core Sound). Indicators from the various datasets were used to provide measures of the stock condition. In some cases multiple indicators exist within a single dataset. There were 19 indicators used in the assessment and each year they were given a traffic light color (red, yellow, or green) depending on where the annual point fell within the time series confidence interval and these colors represent good, neutral, or poor states. Mr. Mroch further explained the fuzzy set theory which allows the yellow lights to have the proportion of the neighboring color (red or green) reflected in the final outcome depending on whether the yellow fell closer to the green or red boundary. Mr. Mroch explained how the various indices could be integrated into three main characteristics of adult abundance, recruit abundance, and production. Regional influences are taken into account by weighting by the water acreage of each region.
Robbie Beasley stated that crabbers were catching about 75 bushels of crabs out of 300 pots in the Pamlico Sound in fall 2009 which is not reflected in the Pamlico Sound Survey sampling. Mr. Mroch responded that the survey index used data early and later in the year. Mr. Mroch continued on with the presentation to explain the integration process which combines all the indices within each of the three characteristics based on what it is measuring in the stock. The three characteristics were adult abundance, recruit abundance, and production. A fishery dependent index of abundance was not included in the assessment because of biases associated with this data, including fishing behavior, environmental factors, and markets. Adult abundance characteristic has shown a negative trend after 2000. Mark Hooper stated that theoretically adult abundance should track with landings. Mr. Mroch stated that landings do not track adult abundance very well because of many other factors influencing catchability. Richard Forward indicated that Catch per Unit Effort of landings should track abundance. Ray Mroch reiterated that landings CPUE can be driven by market forces and it has been show that CPUE can increase right before a stock is ready to collapse; and therefore, is not a good indicator for estimating the stock condition. Sammy Corbett acknowledged that the fishery independent estimates are like taking a pellet from the ocean to estimate abundance so how is that any more accurate than millions of pounds of landings. Lynn Henry asked the AC to not make up their mind yet and let Ray finish the presentation. Fishery independent data provides a more unbiased approach in determining the stock condition and low catches also do count in determining the condition of the stock. Further discussion occurred about sampling coverage and how this approach uses multiple sources from all regions in the state.
2
Ray Mroch continued on with the presentation showing the recruit abundance and production characteristics and describing their most recent trends. Examples for management implementation were also given in the assessment merely as a starting point as to how it could be applied for management purposes. What is suggested is if the red in any of the three characteristics is below 50% then no management actions are necessary, if the red falls in between 50% and less than 75% then moderate management measures could be implemented, and if the red falls at or above 75% then strict management measures could be implemented. The indicators must have three consecutive years in either of the two thresholds before management measures could be put into place. The issue paper on Adaptive Management Framework presented later tonight will go into more details on how it will apply to management. There was insufficient data at this time to estimate fishing mortality so overfishing could not be determined. If the production characteristic had three consecutive years at or greater than 75% red the stock would be considered overfished. Currently the stock is not overfished.
Mark Hooper asked how new data could be added to the Traffic Light at a later time. Ray Mroch said it would be added in the next FMP update and one of the goals of using this method is to continually improve upon the assessment. Robert Bruggeworth asked if the assessments had been looked at for Virginia and Maryland. Mr. Mroch said Virginia and Maryland have a different management scheme and sampling programs. Sammy Corbett stated that the Chesapeake Bay area has a lot of restrictions in place. They eliminated the winter dredge fishery and they do not allow the take of sponge crabs. Mr. Bruggeworth asked why North Carolina is one of the few states that still harvests sponge crabs. Mr. Henry said most other states have eliminated the harvest of sponge crabs, but have not shown improvement in the stock even with this measure in place. Mr. Corbett and Mr. Beasley did not think many places took sponge crabs anymore. Mr. Henry said they are taken by picking houses when they cannot get anything else and they are marketed the same as straights. Lynn Henry indicated that a more recent stock assessment has been approved in the last few weeks for the Chesapeake Bay. Tina Moore gave a brief overview to the AC on the updated Chesapeake Bay stock assessment. The previous assessment underestimated the amount of spawning stock biomass needed to maintain the stock and now they are considering in the next few weeks to maintain or even increase the management measures in place for further protection of the spawning stock. Members of the AC were informed if they would like to see the updated Chesapeake stock assessment they should email Tina Moore and she will send the link to the information.
Lynn Henry stated that in the 2004 amendment prohibiting sponge crab harvest was looked at versus spawning sanctuaries. Mr. Henry described the process of the sponge stage and that it occurs over about a 14-day period. Eliminating their harvest would only protect the females for the 14-day window, but spawning sanctuaries would protect females from February through August (by rule) if they stay within the sanctuary.
Ray Mroch finished off the presentation by stating that the next steps provide specific management measures for each characteristic. The Traffic Light can be updated every year with multiple indices defining the stock condition which is different from a traditional stock assessment which provided single point estimates in relation to stock abundance and removals from the stock. Richard Forward voiced concern regarding the adult abundance characteristic, in that is it truly representative of the stock condition or a function of the sampling. There are so many other variables like mortality, competition, and environmental factors that also should be considered. Robbie Beasley said he was not seeing the decline in abundance in the Albemarle region. Mr. Mroch stated that the indices are also showing positive trends in abundance in the Albemarle, but because this method looks at the stock statewide there are other regions that need to be considered. The majority of the external reviewers said the Traffic Light could be used for management purposes.
3
Robbie Beasley said that salinity is very important in determining where the crabs are located. Perry Beasley said he saw DMF staff trawl sampling in the Albemarle in areas where he was taking up pots because of bad water. Crabs will move away from the dead water. Ray Mroch said that hits and misses in the sampling are both important to characterize the population, and Lynn Henry stated that staff measure dissolved oxygen when sampling to verify the bad water situation. One of the problems we have is the dynamic nature of the estuarine systems. Sampling can look very different from day to day, and we try to sample enough so instances with bad water do not drive the outcome.
Mark Hooper stated that commercial catch is a better indicator of adult abundance and that it should also factor in economic impacts. Ray Mroch reiterated that commercial landings have many biases that the PDT felt should not be included in the assessment at this time.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR NORTH CAROLINA BLUE CRABS ISSUE PAPER
Lynn Henry provided a presentation on the adaptive management framework for blue crabs to gain further advice from the committee on a management approach. The stock status of blue crab is at the concern level due to reduced landings from 2000 through 2002 and 2005 through 2007. Harvest from the Pamlico and Core sounds and their tributaries continue to remain less than historical levels. Albemarle Sound is the dominant contributor to the landings. The only stock protection management measure from the 2004 amendment was based on an annual point estimate from the Pamlico Sound. The point estimate was the sum of the carapace widths of all mature females during the September Pamlico Sound survey divided by the total number of tows. If the annual index falls below the lower 90% confidence interval for two consecutive years then the maximum size limit would be put in place on females and peeler crabs from September through April until the annual index goes above the lower 90% confidence limit for two consecutive years. .
Mark Hooper asked how many crabs are caught in the survey index. Lynn Henry indicated the index he is showing right now is a sum of the carapace widths and he did not know off the top of his head the actual counts for each year. Mr. Henry continued to discuss the Traffic Light method and the quartiles selected for determining implementation of management measures. Richard Forward stated that the 50% threshold in the Traffic Light is an arbitrary number, so how did we decide if this estimate of adult abundance is truly reflective of a poor condition. The adult abundance index is comprised of 4 indices of abundance weighted to the three regions and includes data across a year. The PDT is suggesting that if the red exceeds 50% in the characteristic that management measures should be initiated. The ranges for initiating any management measures include: >50% to <75% red for moderate measures and; >75% for elevated measures. Mike Marshall stated the rules in place now would remain in place and from this point on, and they are considered the traditional management measures.
Mr. Henry continued on with the presentation to explain that the recruit abundance index is the only characteristic that has shown red within the moderate range management measure for the last three years. The Traffic Light will be updated annually by July 1 of each year and all data from the previous calendar year must be in and verified by April 1 of the next year. Mr. Henry then explained the decision-making flow chart for the management framework. The FMP supplement process would begin if all three characteristics exhibit an unhealthy stock condition for the moderate management level, or if just two fall in the elevated management level for three consecutive years. If management measures have been in place in the moderate management level for three consecutive years with no improvement then the management measures will go into the elevated management level for three more years. If there is no improvement after three more years then the FMP supplement process will begin. If the stock improves
4 to a healthy condition under moderate management levels after three consecutive years then the management actions will be relaxed to the traditional management measures.
In an elevated management level, if there is no improvement after three consecutive years then the FMP supplement process will begin. If a characteristic at an elevated management level shows improvement to the moderate management level after three consecutive years then the management measures will be relaxed to the moderate management level. If the stock improves within three years to a healthy stock condition, then management will be relaxed to the traditional management levels.
Richard Forward indicated that there is a sequential timing situation here between recruits and adults. If you do not protect the recruits one year then they will not become adults two years later. If you do not have adults you cannot make more recruits. The way this is set up now there is a disconnection between the sequence because you look at all 3 characteristics within the same year. Mr. Henry responded that if you look in Table 2 of the paper you will see there are connections in the moderate and elevated management measures within each characteristic and overlap between characteristics. Mark Hooper asked if the management strategy is tailored to each characteristic. Mr. Henry stated that Table 2 shows how the PDT tailored the management to each characteristic.
Sammy Corbett pointed out in Table 2; P2 shows minimum and maximum size limits for crabs, this goes against allowing closed cull rings to take smaller females. Mr. Henry stated there are two trains of thought, one that we are breeding a smaller crab and want to remove them from the population. The other side is there is no evidence to support this concept of breeding for a smaller crab. Mark Hooper stated that we would have to know how many we are catching. Crabs need to be treated like an annual crop. The Chesapeake Bay has been able to estimate the savings for the measures they have put in place. Sammy Corbett responded implementing some measures may keep us from having the same issues as in the Chesapeake Bay. Mark Hooper responded that DMF should be able to tell us how many we take and how many we save with management measures and given the relative low numbers of peelers taken compared to millions of crabs out there, any restrictions would only make a dent. Lynn Henry said there is no way to determine exact estimates of the number of crabs in North Carolina.
More discussion occurred on removing sponge crabs from harvest. Perry Beasley said a few years ago when times were hard he had to take sponge crabs to get by. Lynn Henry said picking houses will take sponge crabs when they need to keep their pickers working.
Sammy Corbett made the motion to prohibit the harvest of sponge crabs. The motion was seconded by Robert Bruggeworth. More discussion followed on sponge crabs in the catch. Sammy Corbett and Robert Bruggeworth agreed to remove the motion from consideration. They wanted to continue through the entire presentation before going further with any decisions.
Lynn Henry continued on with the presentation looking at the management options in the issue paper. Status quo would continue to have the rule in place with the maximum female and peeler crab size in place from September through April if the trigger is reached. Richard Forward stated that this rule is not protecting the stock because these crabs can be caught multiple times. Lynn Henry said the intention of the rule was to protect this size crab so they could get to the spawning sanctuaries. Richard Forward indicated that studies have shown that not all crabs go to the spawning sanctuaries. Katy West stated that she thought tonight’s presentation was to present these strategies, get some advice from the AC on some preferred options, and then come back at the next meeting with more data to base some of our decisions. Sammy Corbett said he has 40 years of crabbing experience and no amount of data will change his mind that sponge crab harvest should be eliminated. Mark Hooper said the stock status is showing up as worse;
5 yet, effort has declined significantly, most crabbers will say that habitat is the issue. We are in a regulatory climate now that may remove some of the buffers that are helping the habitat.
Perry Beasley said it is about economics. I make more money from 5 boxes of jimmies than I do 20 boxes of straights, but if the jimmies are not available then I will go for crabs not worth as much. Robbie Beasley stated he has 10 crabbers coming to his fish house and their catch has not declined at all. He stated he cannot go back and tell them more restrictions may occur. He also noted that increasing the number of cull rings per pot will provide for larger sized crabs in the harvest, and that many of his crabber do that. Perry Beasley said there are only about five crabbers out of Engelhard now; but, fifteen years ago there were 15-20 crabbers in the area. The economy is putting us out with the high prices on gas and bait. The price of crabs is not keeping up with the cost of the expenses. Sammy Corbett stated if we get rid of the 6 ¾” maximum size and the harvest of sponge crabs we will be doing something for the stock. Jimmy Nobles said other states have eliminated sponge crab harvest and have not shown much improvement. Perry Beasley said that everything runs in cycles and the economy right now is weeding out the crabbers who are not that into crabbing.
Lynn Henry said that the PDT gathered the best data we had to get a better indication of the stock status. This framework is much better than what we had before and shows what the stock is doing. Robert Bruggeworth stated that recruitment is what needs help; and, the sponge crab may be what we should protect. Marco Gibbs noted that we cannot continue to harvest at all life stages and expect the stock to withstand that type of pressure. Lynn Henry also pointed out that peelers need protection too based on the input in Table 2 for the recruit abundance. If there is a high peeler harvest year then you do not see as a good a hard crab year. Richard Forward stated that more larvae need to be loaded into the system. He has seen a direct relationship between larvae and subsequent commercial harvest, and there is a September through November larval retention period. Jimmy Nobles said that big females should be allowed to spawn.
A motion was made by Sammy Corbett and seconded by Robert Bruggeworth: 1. To eliminate the current stock management maximum size limit measure (the 6 ¾” hard crab mature female and 5 ¼ ” female peeler size from September through April); 2. Leave management of the sanctuaries as they are now; and 3. Eliminate the harvest of female crabs carrying sponge but allow no more than a 3% culling tolerance by number. The motion passed without dissent.
Sammy Corbett stated that he thought taking this action would prevent having to use some of the management measures associated with the Traffic Light management levels.
Perry Beasley said that we still did not talk further about crab trawling. Robert Bruggeworth stated that there are still items that we need to discuss further as a group and he still has more questions. For example, he does not want to see sponge excluder devices included in the management criteria, but he needs more information as to why this was suggested.
Mr. Corbett wanted to relay to the group the terrapin excluder devices are doing well. The pots seem like they are catching more. No terrapins have been found in the pots; although, he has not set his pots back closer to the shore where the terrapins may be more abundant.
Mark Hooper asked why there is a decline in our recruits. Lynn Henry responded he did not know why; but, that there is something happening with reduced recruitment and production in the Pamlico Sound. Marco Gibbs responded that in his area he sees more black bottom now and we have not had a hurricane
6 to stir up the bottom. Perry Beasley said come to the Albemarle and you will see a lot of black bottom. Sammy Corbett said beach re-nourishment is hurting us in the south. Mr. Henry asked the group for more advice on what DMF should do?
Mr. Bruggeworth believed the framework plan is very good and well thought out but he is not sold on 3 years to relax measures and not particularly fond of all the ideas. Robbie Beasley said he still had problems with only checking Pamlico Sound in September. Mark Hooper asked Mr. Henry if he had any idea on how many peeler crabs are caught and what would be the impacts on a seasonal size limit. Mr. Henry responded we have some sampling of peeler crabs, but not a lot. Peeler estimates may not be very accurate and likely there is a lot of variation. Mark Hooper asked why an increase in cull ring size was not included in the management measures. Mr. Henry commented that the PDT felt it would be a burden to the fishermen to change all of their cull rings. Mr. Hooper stated that we are presented a very bleak picture and soon no crabs will be left. If we adopt this stoplight method Mr. Hooper would like to see a component of the catch and environmental factors added to the analysis. Mr. Henry asked if Mr. Hooper had not seen a decline in the time period. Mr. Hooper responded that effort has been cut by 50% and there is a disconnection between the datasets. In Core Sound, we cannot crab anymore between May through October due to turtles in the area damaging pots. Mr. Hooper stated a fishery dependent index needs to be included too. Ray Mroch stated the Traffic Light paper does look at the dependent data it is just not included in the assessment because of the biases including the shifting in effort. There are other factors why people are leaving the fishery besides sea turtles. Mark Hooper stated that a stock assessment should also consider commercial landings. Mr. Mroch reiterated that the landings data is included in the paper and was investigated for use in the assessment; but, there were too many factors to consider that can bias this dataset. Mr. Hooper responded then you could factor in weather and markets driving the landings to compare to the Traffic Light assessment. Lynn Henry showed the AC the graph in the Traffic Light paper of commercial CPUE (pounds/pot). The figure does show the decline in CPUE. Mark Hooper restated that staff took a good look at the fishery independent data to determine adult abundance, and it needs to be related to commercial harvest in a similar fashion.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND PROPOSED RULES
No further discussion occurred on other issues and proposed rules
The next AC meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 19, 2011. Another meeting date that will need travel authorization confirmed was discussed for Monday, October 3, 2011. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
TM/lm
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins Kathy Rawls Dick Brame Allen Jernigan District Managers Frank Crawley Amanda Little Committee Staff Members Louis Daniel Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Chris Elkins Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Dr. Louis Daniel
FROM: Tina Moore Lynn Henry
DATE: September 21, 2011
SUBJECT: Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The Blue Crab Advisory Committee (AC) met on September 19, 2011 at 6 p.m., at the NCDENR Regional Field Office located at 943 Washington Square Mall in Washington, NC. The following attended:
Advisers: Perry Beasley, Robbie Beasley, Robert Bruggeworth, Sammy Corbett, Richard Forward, Mark Hooper, Jimmy Nobles, Alton Parker, Martin Posey
Absent: Eddie Newman, Marco Gibbs
Staff: John Hadley, Lynn Henry, Mike Marshall, Tina Moore, Ray Mroch Bryan Spain, David Taylor, Stephen Taylor, Katy West,
Public: Penny Beasley, Chelsea DoEpp (A.I.S Inc. Observer Provider)
Co-chair Perry Beasley called the meeting to order.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no modifications to the agenda.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion was made by Sammy Corbett and seconded by Martin Posey to approves the minutes from the meeting on August 22, 2011. The motion passed without dissent.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Perry Beasley spoke on behalf of Terry Pratt who could not attend the meeting. He determined that government agencies have one purpose, which is to look for ways to put fishermen out of business. We need to stop taking jobs away from fishermen. We should make DMF staff figure out the problem with algae and low oxygen in the Albemarle and stop wasting time developing Fishery Management Plans because they have not added any more fish to the population. Alton Parker said he would agree with Mr. Pratt.
CORRECTION OF PEELER TRAWL EXCEPTION RULE ISSUE PAPER
David Taylor described the issue to the AC. The 2006 Shrimp FMP extended the no trawl area from Pamlico Sound down to Core Sound. In development of the rules to extend the no trawl areas the numbering areas referenced in rule 03R .0106 changed, and this led to an incorrect referenced area in the rule 03J .0104 that allows peeler trawling in rule by proclamation. It is a technical issue, which would require just changing in the rule 03J .0104 item 6 to be item 1 to correct the error. DMF wants to correct the rule to allow spring peeler trawling in the proper areas and right now the rule only opens Cape Lookout Bight, which is not the normal area (Core Sound) for spring peeler crab trawling.
A motion was proposed by Sammy Corbett and seconded by Mark Hooper to approve the rule change as outlined in the issue paper. The motion passed without dissent.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR NORTH CAROLINA BLUE CRABS ISSUE PAPER
Lynn Henry provided an overview of the adaptive management framework for blue crabs as presented at the last meeting to re-visit the AC recommendation and items within the issue paper. Alton Parker would like to re-visit the AC approved motion passed at the last meeting.
Current management of blue crabs uses a single measure for mature females upon which to base management from the fall Pamlico Sound Survey. The traffic light assessment presented at the previous meeting which includes multiple datasets statewide. Green indicates a good condition, yellow a transition condition, and red indicates a bad condition for the stock. Three characteristics represent aspects of the population: recruit abundance, adult abundance, and production. The traffic light shows that both adult and recruit abundance was better before 2000. Production has shown positive improvements in more recent years. The protocol for management includes for 3 consecutive years showing red at: <50% no action needed; >50% to <75% - moderate management measures, and >75% elevated management measures. The various management measures that could be considered for each characteristic are presented in Table 2 of the issue paper. The terminal year of the assessment is 2009. Mr. Henry showed the decision-making framework in applying the management measures. It will take 3 consecutive years for management measures to kick in and another 3 years to determine if the management measures in place should be relaxed, elevated or begin the FMP supplement process for further input. Mike Marshall added that the FMP supplement process is a much speedier process than an amendment or review because it does not go to all the committees for review. The FMP supplement has a 30 day window for review, and can only be used if there is a problem that could have a long-term negative impact to the population.
Richard Forward asked why 3 years were chosen and not another time period. Mr. Parker asked what was the time period currently used for the mature female trigger. Mr. Henry responded two years for the mature female trigger and 5 consecutive years of decline in commercial landings for determining an overfished state in the population are used now. The mature female trigger has been in place since 2006 and has not been lifted, the overfished trigger has not been tripped but it has come close in recent years. Mark Hooper iterated that the current overfished definition is based on commercial production and the marriage of the traffic light assessment with the commercial landings would be ideal. Mr. Henry said one of the problems of why we could not include the trip ticket landings index was that the time series for this data does not go back to 1987. Also it should be noted that any recommendations requiring rules in this FMP amendment cannot be implemented any sooner than April 2013 due to the rule cycle process.
2
Mr. Hooper asked how the MFC reacted to the traffic light and adaptive framework information. Lynn Henry guessed that the MFC liked the concept because they did not have questions when it was presented at the September business meeting.
Sammy Corbett stated that the recruit category is already above the 50% red limit and this data is produced by dragging a trawl instead of a gear targeting blue crabs. Mr. Henry stated that the information from the southern region of the state for recruits came from the statewide juvenile trawl survey, which completes 104 one minute tows in May and June at fixed stations. Mr. Corbett stated that a week after the storm (Hurricane Irene) went through shrimp trawlers were catching a lot more blue crabs in the trawls so how can this small trawl tell us what is happening with the population when you can have so much variability with the catch. Mark Hooper stated that high catches in abnormal years would skew the data. Discussions continued on the sampling programs used in the assessment.
Mark Hooper wanted to know what the responses were from the external review of the traffic light assessment. Ray Mroch indicated the assessment had 6 reviews from areas all along the US and one from Canada. The reviewers thought it was a good method considering the data limitations. The main criticism from the reviewers was that it was not a traditional model. Mark Hooper asked if there were any concern from the reviewers on the spatial and time constraints. Mr. Mroch said that mainly we could not combine the different surveys with different time series and some indices were removed from the assessment because they did not have a time series from 1987 to 2009.
Perry Beasley, asked what is a good number of crabs in a one minute tow. Lynn Henry stated that our catches in the surveys can be zero to hundreds in any given tow because fish and crabs are not randomly distributed. The main point is we are sampling the same locations every year and it should give us an indication of relative abundance from year to year. Martin Posey liked the idea of creating an index on the small crabs because it addresses questions on habitat use for different life stages. He understood resources are limited, but it may be interesting to look at a few stations and sample each day over a three week window to get an idea on variability in the catch. Robbie Beasley stated that if catches can be from zero to hundreds in a tow then we need more data to back up why we need to have more regulations. We need to be able to say that we have an idea about what the population is doing. Alton Parker asked if DMF takes oxygen readings at each sample and do you eliminate a sample if the oxygen reading is too low. Lynn Henry said he has been sampling since 1995 with this gear and has never encountered any areas with zero dissolved oxygen levels on the bottom. Shallow bottoms where most of the juvenile sampling is conducted do not have the same problems with dead water as the big water areas. Mr. Parker said that the right time of the year you can have oxygen issues even in shallow water. Richard Forward asked how much variability is there for temperature and salinity in the sampling. Mr. Henry said there was considerable variability in temperature and salinity. Martin Posey stated that if it is a dead water issue and hypothetically you have 54 of 104 stations with dead water then that would indicate a water quality issue.
Lynn Henry re-directed the AC to the point that DMF currently manages the blue crab fishery based on one data point and with this Issue Paper we are proposing to use multiple data points to tell us what is going on with the blue crab stock. We incorporated all areas of the state into the assessment even with data limitations and tried to use all information we could instead of just the one point estimate. That point estimate has dropped off since 2001 at about the same time when we started seeing the fishery decline. Katy West said the Pamlico Sound Survey pulled half the stations last week and is out again this week. So far they have seen very few crabs and almost none in the Neuse River. Mark Hooper asked how does the sampling factor in the hurricane impacts. Ms. West explained that after Hurricane Floyd in 1999 the catches went off the chart and this year after Hurricane Irene we are not seeing much. Martin Posey said he would like to see water quality parameters in the assessment somehow and how habitat and water
3 quality affects the crab population. Mark Hooper said he agrees with Mr. Posey especially if we want fishermen to buy into the traffic light assessment. If fishermen have to take a hit then habitat and water quality measures should be stricter. Lynn Henry said it would be the best approach to incorporate the habitat and water quality parameters somehow, but we cannot tie the items together. Sammy Corbett stated regulators target just only the one group who is responsible for a population and that is who is catching the fish or crabs. Fishermen are the only ones who can be regulated to make the crabs come back. Developers will not agree to stricter habitat and water regulations in order to save a blue crab. Katy West stated that when the stormwater runoff rules went out for public comment they heard from DMF as an agency in support of the rules and the construction and home development group opposed. They did not hear all sides of the impacted parties, like fishermen. Instead they only heard about the constraints for the builders. Lynn Henry said a study from Greg Myers at ECU looked a PNAs and land- use, and he will try to share it with the AC. Katy West said the study found higher catches in areas where development had less of an impact on the waterbody. We have also increased our habitat sampling in the last few years across programs to account for land use and changes in land use.
Robbie Beasley thought that for a moderate management measure, as a dealer, we do not want large immature females. So maybe we should consider eliminating harvest of larger immature females. Martin Posey stated that his concern comes in when you do not have a problem with production but do with recruitment. You need to look at the survival of the recruits. We need to manage to deal with the recruit problem and it is not just about sponge crab spawning but survival of the recruits. Lynn Henry indicated that blue crabs start recruiting to the juvenile trawl survey gear at 7 to 10 mm in size.
Alton Parker stated that sponge crabs are getting enough protection now with over 28,000 acres of sanctuaries. The issue is not about protecting the females but about protecting the eggs and then small crabs coming back into the sound. Lynn Henry stated that the premise is you need more females to produce the eggs to increase the numbers of small crabs coming back into the sounds. Sammy Corbett said these sponge crabs are only unavailable for a few weeks before their sponge falls off and then they can be harvested. Mr. Parker said he does not see how not harvesting a sponge crab will help the population, we do not even know if the eggs will even survive when they come in contact with the air while being removed from a pot. Sammy Corbett said he has tagged and has watched a sponge go from orange to black in a few weeks and get caught multiple times over the course of the change in the sponge. Alton Parker indicated that you only need the eggs to survive from about three dozen female crabs to re- populate Pamlico Sound. He did not think eliminating sponge crab harvest is a good idea. Perry Beasley said he talked to some crabbers in Swan Quarter and Hatteras to see if they harvest sponge crabs. They indicate that sponge harvest helps them at times when crabs are scarce. Alton Parker said NC is one of two states that allow sponge crab harvest and yet we are the second highest producing state of hard crabs in the US. Robbie Beasley said he would give up sponge crab harvest in lieu of closing the fishery or other suggested restrictions but there are going to be some mad people that cannot harvest sponge crabs. Mr. Parker asked, what is the difference between throwing back the large males versus the females. Mr. Forward responded that you will have continuous reproduction from the sponged females you do not harvest. Mr. Parker determined that if he thought crabs were in a bad spot and sponge crabs were the answer then he would eliminate sponge crab harvest, but he does not think eliminating sponge crab harvest would help the population.
Martin Posey stated that he thinks having several measures for each traffic light characteristic is a good idea. The adult component is straightforward, showing less recruitment because of less production and it tries to increase production with the measures. He thought the recruit measures need to be separated more from the production measures. Stephen Taylor asked if Mr. Posey has any suggestions that we could use for this characteristic. Mr. Posey suggested habitat and water quality measures should be included and he
4 realized that it takes time and encompasses more than DMF to implement any habitat and water quality regulatory measures.
Lynn Henry re-directed the AC to Table 2 in the issue paper and asked for more direction on what measures they think will work. Mr. Beasley has already provided one suggestion to eliminate harvest of large immature females. Robert Bruggeworth said he agreed with Mr. Beasley’s input.
Mark Hooper focused on the seasonal size limit for peeler crabs and asked specifically how many crabs and what size limits. If you cannot show me how many you can save then I have no concept on what impact this will have to peeler harvest. DMF should be able to say how many sponge crabs are caught right now and we need to know what kind of savings we will have. Lynn Henry stated what we know is that each item within each category will amount to a very small savings but that we have to look at the combined measures for the big picture. Mr. Henry stated that cannot quantify the total effect because one measure will affect another. Mr. Hooper asked what would be the size limit. Maryland and Virginia have a 3¼-inch minimum size limit on peelers and 3½-inch size limit on soft crabs and then on July 15th they increase the minimum size limit of peelers to 3½-inches. Mr. Hooper said then this could be tailored so it would not affect him. Mr. Henry noted that only a small number of the peelers from DMF’s harvest samples are below 3-inches; however most of the samples come from northern Pamlico and Albemarle sounds. Mark Hooper stated then that this would be a negligible rule, like the rule we have now where maybe only 5% of the population meets the trigger size and we allow a 5% tolerance. Mr. Henry re- iterated that if we do a few small measures that they could add up to something bigger and meaningful. Mr. Hooper suggested that maybe more strict habitat and water quality measures would have more of an impact on the resource. Mr. Henry said we can go back and look at the habitat and water quality parameters in 1987 and say we want the same habitat and weather conditions to occur, but we cannot control that. Mark Hooper stated but if we have information saying for example crop dusters are hurting our waters then we should go after them. Martin Posey said he understood that it is hard to ask for larger buffer zones. The cost involved to show the affects of habitat degradation on a stock is high but it would be nice to have it in there that we have concerns for habitat and water quality and think that it should be considered more for the benefit of the blue crab population.
Mr. Hooper thinks that increasing the cull ring size limit to 2 3/8” is a viable option to consider. Perry Beasley said he would rather have it mandatory for 4 cull rings to a pot with 2 in the top and 2 in the bottom. Some people already are doing this. Sammy Corbett stated with more rings you are helping the crabber but not helping the crab, it is harder to grade the crabs that fall out of more rings. Mr. Bruggworth said the no sponge crab harvest recommendation is at the end of the line and it allows the opportunity for the female crabs to have up to 6 clutches in a season. Alton Parker indicated he is not for any regulations because the population is not in trouble and the crab sanctuaries are providing enough protection of the females. Habitat and water quality is the biggest threat to the blue crab and fishermen are being regulated too much. Mr. Bruggeworth stated that increasing the size or number of cull rings would have an impact on the recreational crab pot fishermen. Perry Beasley said cull rings are inexpensive and can be distributed through local tackle shops.
Lynn Henry directed the group back to the traffic light graph and the recruit characteristic showing the last 3 years with greater than 50% red. Mark Hooper stated that this index is showing the fishery is not in good shape and you have multiple data points to prove this. Lynn Henry asked the AC if any members would say the Pamlico Sound crab fishery is in good shape. Alton Parker stated you do not have the crabbers in Pamlico Sound now like you used to. Many crabbers have moved to other areas. Saying there are not as many crabs there just because harvest is down is not true. Earlier this summer shrimp trawlers avoided the mouth of the Pamlico River because of all of the crabs. Sammy Corbett said the Albemarle is showing improvement in recent years. Robbie Beasley thought there is something going on in Pamlico
5
Sound and remembers when fishermen in Engelhard found certain areas were not producing crabs. Perry Beasley stated Hyde County used to have a lot of crabbers and at our last meeting Mr. Gibbs stated that he only knew about 5 crabbers working in the area now. The catch has moved and so have the fishermen. Alton Parker stated that market has played a big part on the catches. Perry Beasley stated that the fisheries have shifted and the big boats will go out in the ocean to target scallops and shrimp instead of staying inside to crab.
Martin Posey asked the question as to whether DMF has run any correlations of recruitment to production with a time delay. Richard Forward and Martin Posey suggested a correlation should be run with a 2 year delay from the recruit and adult abundance indices and a 1-year delay between the recruit and production characteristic indices. Ray Mroch responded to the suggestion for a rank correlation and that some correlations were completed during the assessment showed no trends.
Lynn Henry stated that the Pamlico Sound trawl survey has shown a decline in crab abundance and landings and effort are also down in this region. The Albemarle region has shown improvement s in recent years. Alton Parker has crabbed on the western side of Pamlico Sound and seen all kinds of little crabs but did not see the results of the crabs growing into adults. Sammy Corbett said the traffic light indicated that the Southern area is not doing as well as it should although my pots are not showing any decline. Lynn Henry reiterated that we have only one estimate now for triggering management on blue crabs that has been in place since 2006. The management options in the paper include: effort control measures, repeal the current management measure, and adopt the management framework and measures provided in Table 2 of the paper. Robbie Beasley stated in reference to effort control he is shocked by the number of participants that have dropped out of the fishery in recent years. Since there are not as many participants he would think there is less need for regulations to protect the stock if less people are in the fishery. Mark Hooper asked if any states limit sponge harvest by color. Mr. Henry responded that Virginia does not allow the taking of brown or black sponge crabs. Alton Parker asked if there have been any studies on the sponge dropping off when they are exposed to the air. Mr. Henry responded he was not aware of any studies that addressed this issue. In DMF tagging work we tagged a lot of sponge crabs and did not have a problem with mortality. We also did not see much egg loss (sponge scrubbing), but that may have been a function of the short soak times (24 hours). Whereas other studies have shown higher instances of females scrubbing off the eggs the longer they are held in the pot.
At the last meeting the AC endorsed repealing the current management trigger for initiating the maximum mature female and peeler size limit, and eliminate the harvest of sponge females with a 3% culling tolerance by number. The PDT endorsed repealing the current management trigger and to provide the Director proclamation authority to implement any of the management measures provided in Table 2.
Robbie Beasley asked, what is the likelihood that a closed season would occur at the peak harvest period. He hoped that we would never get to the point where the season would be closed during peak harvest. His biggest fear is that the traffic light shows blue crabs are bad off when they may not. Mike Marshall explained that all the characteristic have multiple indicators for the final output. It is not based on only one sampling program. We do have the diversity to also address some of the concerns you have.
Mark Hooper stated that commercial landings are still not part of the index and therefore, fishermen are not getting credit for the fact that effort has declined. Ray Mroch stated the biggest problem with adding in the commercial landings index is that it does not have the same time series with the other traffic light inputs and the limitations with dependent data reflecting the stock condition. Mark Hooper indicated that the landings could be filtered to take into account market condition to thus better reflect what is happening in the fishery and reflect adult abundance. Fishermen catch 90 million crabs a year and you are basing abundance on maybe 10,000 crabs that you catch a year in the surveys. Ray Mroch noted by
6 using commercial landing it would also omit 9 years in the assessment that would reflect the fishery doing much better. Robbie Beasley said the number of crabbers are decreasing and production is flat is the best evidence that the crab population is doing alright. Mark Hooper indicated that the DMF data is erroneous in showing CPUE in the commercial fishery as static when it has gone up in recent years, we need to include 2010 numbers. Sammy Corbett said his biggest problem with the traffic light is that the commercial landings were not used as part of the analysis. Ray Mroch stated that he was confused because of the conflicting comments, the commercial CPUE showed negative trends in recent years. Mark Hooper also did not believe that the commercial CPUE data which shows a catch rate of only 2 crabs per pot. Ray Mroch said again this is where I am confused because you say we should use the commercial landings and yet you do not believe what the CPUE estimate is saying. Sammy Corbett expressed that when you catch zero crabs in your survey tows and my pot shows catch in the same area, how can you say that abundance is going down? Ray Mroch responded that it is difficult to compare an active attracting gear to a trawl that is not attracting crabs with bait. Mark Hooper stated that commercial landings should be looked at and considered. Robbie Beasley said that the trip tickets he has are filled out properly, and are some of the best data we have on the fishery. Ray Mroch added that I am not sure that the graph Mr. Hooper is referring to is wrong or not and I cannot address how it was filtered at this moment in time. Mark Hooper noted he has stated his view and left the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Katy West said we can look at the graph and look at the discrepancy because it is likely an issue with the unit of measure, pounds or number per pot. Robbie Beasley said if it is about 2 pounds per pot then it would be about 7 to 8 crabs in the pot. We also have to consider the estimates are year round and catches are much higher in March to July and then drop off in August and this is an overall for the year number.
Lynn Henry asked the AC if they want to make any recommendations or just take some of the ideas into consideration. Robbie Beasley stated that the blue crab population is in great shape and the DMF is saying otherwise. Martin Posey stated that with the traffic light we are going from a single measure to multiple measures to identify the stock condition, which is better. And we are also looking at different life history stages of the stock instead of just one. Sammy Corbett asked if the trip ticket data was even looked at. Ray Mroch said in the first iteration we did look at the fishery data. The problem is that hypothetically if the stock now is 10 times higher than in the 1980s then you will not have contrast. The dataset begins in 1996 when pot numbers were added to the ticket, we could look at pounds per trip but that has its own issues associated with it. Sammy Corbett stated let’s say Mr. Hooper is correct and the CPUE shows 2 crabs per pot and we present this to the MFC and the MFC cannot believe the information that is presented to them. Ray Mroch said he would go back and look at the data, if there are errors we will come back to you with the updated information. Robbie Beasley stated that pots reported on the trip ticket can sometimes be inaccurate. Perry Beasley said he had a problem with DMF trawl sampling around bad water and in the same area all the time.
Lynn Henry indicated to the AC that DMF really needs the AC’s input on this issue now because we need to present the Plan to the MFC and the mail out deadline is on October 17, 2011. At your last meeting you wanted to eliminate sponge crab harvest and the female and peeler maximum size limit trigger. Sammy Corbett said he liked the specific items they addressed better than giving more proclamation power on anything for adaptive management. Robbie Beasley said catching v-apron large immature females should be considered to be eliminated from the harvest. Alton Parker stated he could go along with eliminating harvest of large v-aprons but not the sponge crabs.
Lynn Henry said the production characteristic was used for the overfished definition and we are required to have a proxy if we cannot come up with a quantitative estimate or definition of overfished regardless if we set up management criteria or not. Sammy Corbett asked, what is the feasibility in changing the survey sampling in some of the areas to using small mesh traps. Lynn Henry said if DMF implemented a
7 new sampling program today we would have only 5 years of data during the next review cycle of the FMP. We would need to build a timeline and it also changes the catch rate because it is using a gear attracting crabs versus a gear that goes after them.
Katy West stated that at the next meeting we have to present the AC with the entire draft document and so the AC can either stick with what they already voted on or reconsider your recommendations. Sammy Corbett said we made those recommendations as preventive maintenance. Martin Posey asked the AC, do we like the idea of the traffic light and do we like the ideas in here for management. We do not have to like exactly what is in here, but do we endorse what is in the paper. Sammy Corbett stated that he does not like how the data is collected. He did not like the stoplight and the thresholds for management. Robbie Beasley indicated that the stoplight is no good if the data is not good and he did not like the idea of closing the fishery at the peak harvest season. Lynn Henry stressed that we have not gotten to the point where we would consider closing the fishery down at the peak harvest season and may never get to that point. Alton Parker said that we may get to that problem some time. Sammy Corbett stated that he thought putting more eggs into the water by protecting sponge crabs is better off for the stock, it will be difficult to eliminate this harvest but I do not want blue crabs to end up like river herring. Alton Parker indicated that there are enough sanctuaries protecting the females with eggs plus the military closed area around Brant Island shoal is also a protected area because you cannot even take your boat there. Robert Bruggeworth stated that the sponge crab recommendation is to do something now instead of a size limit later. Lynn Henry stated that none of these AC recommendations would go into rule until April 2013. Katy West re-iterated to the AC that your current motion did not endorse the traffic light assessment and it did not endorse the management framework, so it is not a vote for support of these methods.
Alton Parker made the motion to revisit the previous AC recommendation to prohibit sponge crab harvest and to allow the continued taking of sponge crabs for harvest. The motion was seconded by Jimmy Nobles. The motion did not pass with a vote of three in favor, 4 against and one abstention.
The discussion before the vote on the motion included comments from Perry Beasley, Robert Bruggeworth and Alton Parker. Perry Beasley stated that this could cut out some of the fishermen from the fishery. Alton Parker indicated he has harvested crabs for years and North Carolina is ranked second in the nation for landings. I do not see how eliminating harvest on sponge crabs would benefit the stock especially now when there is less pressure on them with less fishermen in the industry. Robert Bruggeworth reiterated the discussion on this topic at the last meeting: (1) not much of a market for sponge crabs; (2) taking of these sponge crabs affects recruitment; and (3) by keeping more sponge in the water it may help add to the population. Alton Parker stated that it only takes a few crabs to re-populate the stock.
A motion was proposed by Martin Posey and seconded by Robert Bruggeworth to support the principle behind the traffic light/adaptive management system as opposed to the system that is currently in place with consideration of the AC’s previous concerns and comments. The motion passed with a vote of 7 for and 1 against.
Before the vote, Robbie Beasley stated that hard crab landings should go into the assessment somehow. Mr. Bruggeworth said the motion is voting on the system right now, but not the data.
A motion was proposed by Sammy Corbett and seconded by Robbie Beasley to improve data collection and consider fishery dependent and independent data to apply to the stoplight method. The motion passed unanimously.
8
A motion was proposed by Robbie Beasley to prohibit the harvest of v-apron immature hard crab females of 5-inches or greater and seconded by Perry Beasley. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor and 1 against. As an aside to the motion the intent is to maintain the culling tolerance for this group as part of the 10% undersize culling tolerance for the total catch.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND PROPOSED RULES
Lynn Henry had three issue papers to bring back to the AC for clarification. In the diamondback terrapin issue paper, the previous motion passed by the AC included the language for the terrapin excluder device to be a “minimum” of 2-inches X 6-inches in size. The intent of the AC motion was to be specific to just the 2-inch by 6-inch dimensions and we would like to re-write the motion and eliminate the word “minimum”. All AC members agreed by consensus to remove the term “minimum” from their original motion in the diamondback terrapin issue paper.
Lynn Henry went on to discuss items in the Options for escape ring exemptions in hard crab pots to harvest peeler crabs issue paper. He wanted to show the AC that the wording was changed in the paper to reflect the actual motion that focused on the bait type and not the gear dimension to identify the pot as a peeler pot. To also stay in line with the motion and new information in the document two new options were added to the issue paper revision. Richard Forward stated that the bait component should be present within the options. The AC agreed by consensus to the changes in the revised peeler crab pot esacpe ring issue paper.
Lynn Henry brought forward new information in the Incorporate the Pamlico Sound crab trawling proclamation into rule issue paper. Since we opened up this rule it has come to our attention that we could also consider removing the Fisheries Director’s proclamation authority to specify crab trawl mesh size in other areas of the state outside of Pamlico Sound. The PDT agreed to leave the proclamation authority as is in the rule because we wanted to maintain the flexibility to change the mesh size if we needed to in other areas of the state. Alton Parker stated that he did not see the need for a tailbag mesh size increase anywhere else in the state and did not want the Director to have the power to change this. Martin Posey stated that this is already the case; the Director has proclamation authority to take this action. Alton Parker indicated that the Director may choose to eliminate the fishery.
Alton Parker made the motion to repeal proclamation authority for the Director in the current rule (15A NCAC 03L .0202) and the motion was seconded by Jimmy Nobles. The motion did not pass with a vote of 2 in favor, 2 against, and 4 abstaining from the vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
The next AC meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 3, 2011. The meeting adjourned at 9:48 pm.
TM/lm
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins Kathy Rawls Dick Brame Allen Jernigan District Managers Frank Crawley Amanda Little Committee Staff Members Louis Daniel Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Chris Elkins Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Dr. Louis Daniel
FROM: Stephen Taylor Lynn Henry Tina Moore
DATE: October 5, 2011
SUBJECT: Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
The Blue Crab Advisory Committee (AC) met on October 3, 2011 at 6 p.m., at the NCDENR Regional Field Office located at 943 Washington Square Mall in Washington, NC. The following attended:
Advisers: Perry Beasley, Robbie Beasley, Robert Bruggeworth, Richard Forward, Jimmy Nobles, Alton Parker, Marco Gibbs
Absent: Eddie Newman, Mark Hooper, Sammy Corbett, and Martin Posey
Staff: John Hadley, Lynn Henry, Mike Marshall, Stephanie McInerny, Tina Moore, Ray Mroch, Bryan Spain, David Taylor, Stephen Taylor, Katy West, Ben Goforth
Public: Terry Pratt, Kathy Meyers, and Joseph Gibbs
Co-chair Perry Beasley called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no modifications to the agenda.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The AC agreed by consensus to accept the meeting minutes from September 19, 2011 with clarification from Robbie Beasley and Lynn Henry. Mr. Beasley wanted to clarify that he had a concern with closing the fishery for a long period (i.e., December through May) because the market value is higher at these times than in the peak season. He would prefer to do something like they do in Maryland where they shut down harvest on females a week here and a week there. Lynn Henry clarified too that he misspoke at the last meeting and gave the incorrect minimum size for peeler harvest in Maryland and Virginia. The minutes were changed to correct this error. Maryland and Virginia have a 3 ¼-inch minimum size limit which increases to 3 ½-inches for another part of the season, not 3-inch raised to 3 ¼-inch minimum size.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Terry Pratt spoke by reiterating that his comments were not directed personally to staff, but to the Division as a whole. People should come first when evaluating the fisheries. DMF should be looking at what’s causing these problems as a whole and looking at problem solving and not plan writing. Hurricane Irene wasn’t too bad on the environment and things will come back just fine, DMF needs to shift to the real world and use some common sense. Bill Hassler and Chuck Manooch agreed with him if we removed regulations the fish would be fine. Bill Cole and he talked about the striped bass population and management issues and he thinks that each state should have authority over its own fisheries and not necessarily be under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. They (“the crabbers”) want to keep working just like DMF and keep fishing. The striped bass are “thick” and they just need to be able to go get them. Aquaculture is very expensive and the cost of a farm-raised catfish is just about as expensive as flounder and we just need to use common sense.
POT LOSS AND GHOST POT BYCATCH MORTALITY ISSUE PAPER
Lynn Henry took the AC through the issue of reducing pot loss and the bycatch mortality of blue crabs and finfish in abandoned and ghost pots. Abandoned, unattended, and lost (ghost) crab pots continue to actively catch crabs and finfish. When Mr. Henry presented the table on estimates of pot usage and loss, pot numbers were estimated by what people put down in the NCDMF license gear survey. Robert Bruggeworth asked if there was any data on the amount of pots pulled prior to Hurricane Dennis or other storms. Mr. Henry said that most crabbers pull their pots before storms. Alton Parker and Perry Beasley stated that they all helped each other and that if they came across a pot, they usually would notify the crabber as to where it was. Alton Parker wanted to address the issue of the number of pots estimated in the table and make a clarification. He stated that back in the days of a crab license when management options were being discussed for pot limits, crabbers were afraid that DMF would reduce the number of pots they could fish, so they “inflated” the number of pots they used on the trip tickets. Mr. Parker just wanted everyone to know that those numbers were not right, not accurate, and a lot lower than what the NCDMF license gear survey indicates in Tables 1 and 2. Perry Beasley reiterated that crabbers were afraid that they’d have to give some pots up. He said that about 450 pots was the average amount of pots that crabbers in his area could fish, and not the large numbers that they put on their trip tickets. Lynn Henry told them that between 1994 and 1998, the over-reporting and inflated pot numbers were evident from the NCDMF license gear survey. Over 2 million pots were reported in some years. Stephanie McInerny indicated that reported pot numbers spiked to 2.5-3.5 million in the NCDMF license gear survey during 1994-1997, and that these numbers are considered inaccurate. Mr. Henry said it is the crabber’s responsibility to make sure that the trip ticket is filled out correctly.
Mr. Henry brought the AC members back to the presentation with the background on rules that have helped reduce pot loss and influences that increase pot loss. Mr. Henry presented the table on Marine Patrol’s efforts on pot removal from 2003 to 2011, the causes of pot loss, and a table on estimated annual percent escapement, mortality, or number of blue crabs and finfish per ghost pot for various areas. Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any benefits to lost pots. Mr. Henry stated that pots do become habitat too and will provide protection for small species. Discussion ensued about the various amount of crabs that died from ghost pots each year. Various reports saw a range from 11.5 to 25 dead crabs from ghost pots each year with a range of 36 to 55% mortality. Methods to reduce pot loss and mortality were reviewed and discussed from using full size buoys, reflective tape, to escape panels and lids held with degradable materials. Lynn Henry reviewed the results of DMF’s own research in 2007 with seven crabbers throughout the state, evaluating lid strap and panel device opening results on their pots. Afterward, Mr. Henry went into the Management Options and Impacts. Options were separated into two categories: (A) to minimize pot loss, and (B) to minimize ghost pot fishing mortality. After reviewing the Division’s selected management options, Lynn stated that three states (Texas, Florida and New Jersey) had requirements for degradable panels in pots.
2
A motion was proposed by Alton Parker and seconded by Jimmy Nobles to remain status quo to minimize pot loss. The motion passed without dissent.
Jimmy Nobles then asked if the DMF could count all the pots in the state under the Research Needs Section. Katy West stated that she thought that we had tried that at one time. Stephen Taylor supported her and stated that he had flown over waters and counted by boat, pots in the southern area. Lynn Henry indicated that DMF had tried counting pot buoys by plane and that it was very difficult. DMF tried comparing the aerial counts with the boat counts and there was a significant difference. Perry Beasley said that they counted waterfowl by plane. Staff would look into whether the data was available on the statewide counts.
Lynn Henry asked about the B options on minimizing ghost pot fishing mortality. A motion was proposed by Alton Parker to take no action and remain at status quo to minimize ghost pot fishing mortality. The motion was seconded by Marco Gibbs and passed with a unanimous vote.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONCERNS WITH THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR NORTH CAROLINA BLUE CRABS ISSUE PAPER
Lynn Henry went over the adaptive management issue paper that had been distributed at the meeting and mentioned that he was only going to cover the grey shaded areas. These comments had been added in response to concerns of some of the AC from the previous meeting regarding the Traffic Light stock assessment and other questions the AC had brought up. Robbie Beasley made a comment that he would like the DMF to do all of their own sampling all over and not just rely on the Pamlico Sound Survey. At that time, Lynn Henry went over the results of this year’s Pamlico Sound Survey mentioning the Division has caught 139 mature female crabs. Alton Parker made the comment that the Division should use some small mesh crab pots placed at some of our trawl sites to coincide with our trawling. He just couldn’t agree with our sampling methods. Robbie Beasley doesn’t understand why DMF’s data is showing a lack of crabs, when professional crabbers can go out in the same areas and catch crabs. Lynn Henry stated that if the Division went to a new pot sampling program, we would have no way to compare this new data with the 20+ years of existing trawl data. Alton Parker stated that water conditions change hourly with tides, bottom topography, etc. and what’s out there one day is a whole other world the next. He said DMF makes it too complicated. Mr. Bruggeworth left the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Alton Parker stated that the Division’s trawl survey sampling method can’t catch everything on the bottom, that crabs can back themselves in the mud and the trawl net will go right over the crab. Robbie Beasley added that DMF may want to start supplementing the existing surveys with a pot survey. Lynn Henry expressed that he understood what they were saying and that the gear we use is unbiased in respect that it does not attract crabs like the pots do. Mr. Henry said he felt good about all the different programs the Division now uses for our assessment instead of having to rely just on the Pamlico Sound Survey.
Alton Parker stated that the habitat still has changed and is not the same it used to be. Katy West agreed and stated that Program 120 is the same data and that’s what we’ve used all along. All agreed that water quality has degraded in these 20 years. Mike Marshall asked Alton Parker why he thought things were as bad as they were. The Traffic Light only shows that one characteristic (recruit abundance) of three is in the red. Alton Parker responded that he wanted the DMF to compromise a little and complete a pot survey alongside the trawl survey, and the way the Traffic Light is being presented sounds like there is a problem.
3
Lynn Henry proceeded with explaining the process on how this Traffic Light method would be used for management. Adaptive management is based on a learning process; it is intended to get blue crabs out of the red with minimal regulations implemented in each of the three characteristics and provide a way to track from year to year how the stock condition is doing. Lynn Henry explained how the FMP process with the AC will work. An annual evaluation of the traffic light would be presented to the Crustacean Advisory Committee, where they would review the management options, evaluate their merits, and gain Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) approval before the Director’s proclamation authority would be used to implement any changes to the fisheries.
Lynn Henry discussed potential harvest impacts (percent reduction estimates) of the Adaptive Management options for prohibiting sponge crabs, V-apron crabs (sallies or she-crabs) and minimum size limits for peeler crabs. Robbie Beasley asked if we were considering a size limit and stated that he would rather see us go to that option than to shut down the fishery altogether. Perry Beasley said that it would add additional work for a third man in the operation to cull out the smaller peelers. Mark Hooper provided comments via email that were handed out to the AC. Mr. Hooper indicated that introducing a minimum size limit on peelers would economically impact his operation.
Lynn Henry proceeded through the management recommendations of the DMF. The DMF presented two options. Option 1 was to: repeal the current female stock conservation management trigger; continue existing sampling programs to maintain baseline information for the Traffic Light method; and adopt Adaptive Management framework based on the Traffic Light Stock Assessment. The proposed moderate and elevated management level options for recruit, adult, and production stock characteristics were part of that framework. For Option 2, DMF would like further public input to consider the recommendation in Option 1 with the addition of prohibition on sponge crab harvest in rule. Robbie Beasley asked about the 6¾” female crab rule, and Lynn Henry told him that we were recommending repealing that rule. Marco Gibbs asked had that rule worked. Mr. Henry answered that some had thought it had, but that the DMF thought it wasn’t as good as what was being proposed now.
Lynn Henry proceeded into Attachment 1 of the Adaptive Management paper which went into more detail with more specific explanations to address the concerns brought forward by the AC on the Traffic Light Assessment. Alton Parker asked why DMF wasn’t going to add fishery dependent data. At that time, Ray Mroch explained that primarily it was because of two reasons: 1) that there was insufficient data from 1987 to 1997 which biased the data and loses the contrast in the data, and 2) the fishery dependent data have some inherent selectivity biases that will not be consistent with time or space. Including it in the analysis would be inappropriate because of these biases. Robbie asked how could the Traffic Light not show what he saw last year, when he could follow a 30 acre area of blue crabs from the Albemarle Sound to the Pamlico Sound and guys were bringing in 75 bushels a day per boat. Ray Mroch stated that if DMF’s sampling just went to where the crabs are most abundant that would be biased sampling, and that following those crabs was the reason they got the 75 bushels each day. Lynn Henry interjected that there were two different trains of thought here: (1) DMF is trying to provide an unbiased estimate of the crabs in all the habitats, and (2) crabbers are trying to maximize their catch. Crabbers are following the crabs, and DMF is trying to estimate stock size in all areas of the state. Robbie Beasley spoke that he thought it was a healthy population but apparently not, according to DMF’s data. Lynn Henry said he saw the crabs moving from the Albemarle that Mr. Beasley was referring to and we sampled the catches at that time. The AC is not understanding that our sampling has to account for more than what is taken in the fishery.
Ray Mroch presented slides from his power point presentation in an attempt to illustrate the correlation between the landings and the effort in relation to the Traffic Light. Stephanie McInerny explained that if you took the production characteristic from the Traffic Light and turned it upside down, the green and yellow bars somewhat correlated to the commercial pot landings. Robbie Beasley stated that according to
4 the Traffic Light, we have been in trouble for a while with the recruits and asked if this was the case, how long would it be before we see a problem with production. Much discussion ensued about the lack of correlation and the inappropriateness of trying to add dependent data with independent assessments. Richard Forward made the comment that there was a “disconnect” here. As we carry this idea forward, there is going to be a problem in getting the public to buy into Adaptive Management. Ray Mroch couldn’t understand the reasoning for all the doom and gloom outlook. He said that from the assessment’s outcome, overfishing was not occurring and there had not been overfishing in the 20+ year time series.
Jimmy Nobles asked about anoxic conditions at sampling sites and Ray Mroch responded that less than 5% of the sampling events had low oxygen levels. He stated that the zero catches were just as important as the large catches, but again, DMF was not trying to maximize the catch, like fishermen. Robbie Beasley made the comment that he didn’t think that the assessment was characterizing the stock that is out there. Ray Mroch asked the question to the AC, does this assessment provide a better characterization of the stock than what has been used in the past. Richard Forward said yes, but DMF needed to explain it better. Dr. Forward said trends do agree with the Traffic Light and that in order for the DMF to carry this Traffic Light Stock Assessment forward to the public, we need to find a better way to “sell it”. RobbieBeasley then asked about the recruit abundance, and did we have a problem. He stated that he thought the stock was healthy, but that our sampling doesn’t show it. Ray Mroch said he didn’t have an answer.
Richard Forward asked about correlation of salinity at sites where we saw recruits, and if that showed any specific times or sites that we saw them at any range of salinity. Tina Moore stated that we had looked at that in the beginning of the data workshop process with Christine Jensen completing the analysis. The analysis illustrated more of a “shotgun” pattern that showed no real correlation. The data workshop group looked at various habitat parameters relative to catch and it was not meaningful; so then they started going down the road with the Traffic Light approach instead. Program 100 in the Albemarle Sound didn’t show good recruitment data and that was why it was left out. When Lynn Henry gave the results of the number of crabs caught per tow of each program and the duration of each tow, Alton Parker could not understand why trawl surveys are used because they are not set up to catch crabs. At 0.33 crabs/ minute that number became 10 crabs/10 minute tow and that was too low a number for Alton Parker to accept. Questions then arose on the type trawl the DMF used and the size of the trawls. Ray Mroch finished his presentation with the time lagged Traffic Light slide.
REVIEW OF DRAFT BCFMP AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND NCDMF RECOMMENDATIONS
David Taylor explained the process to the AC for review of the recommendations. After the AC finalizes their recommendations tonight, it will go the MFC in early November for their approval to send out for public comment. Then it will go out to the 4 regional and one standing advisory committee of the MFC. Once the public comment period is over the document will come back with the public comments for the AC to review and have the opportunity to modify their recommendations based on the new input.
Lynn Henry went over the handout (Table 4.1.1) with a synopsis of the DMF and AC recommendations for each issue paper and the Environmental Factors section. Mr. Henry explained that this was the time when they could change their minds or stick to what they had agreed on. Lynn Henry emphasized where the DMF and the AC’s recommendations differed and asked if they were happy keeping their recommendation.
5
When he reviewed Section 11.12 Diamondback terrapin interactions with the blue crab fishery in North Carolina, there was some discussion on proclamation authority of the director and establishing criteria and excluder specifications after adoption of the amendment to the FMP. The AC agreed by consensus to change the BCAC to the Crustacean AC. The Blue Crab Advisory Committee will be eliminated once Amendment 2 to the FMP is adopted by the MFC and all issues for blue crabs will go through the Crustacean Advisory Committee, if the MFC wants further advice on an issue.
Lynn Henry continued on to Section 11.13 Multiple Pots to a Single Buoy, where the question was asked whether or not the AC had recommended a maximum number of pots per buoy.
A motion was proposed by Alton Parker and seconded by Perry Beasley to add in the language to their recommendation in the Multiple Pots to a single buoy issue paper not to exceed 2 pots per buoy. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Lynn Henry continued on to the recommendations in the Environmental Section of the paper. Section 10.4 contained the recommended management strategies that covered both habitat and water quality. Section 10.5 covered the research needs. At the end of this presentation, there was some discussion on how some of these items were being done and some would never be done. The AC reviewed the Environmental Factors section management and research recommendations.
A motion was proposed by Jimmy Nobles to accept all the habitat and water quality management recommendations except items 10, 11, and 12 in the list of habitat recommendations and accept all the research recommendations except number 6. The motion was seconded by Alton Parker and passed with a vote of 5 in favor and 1 against. Mr. Gibbs explained he did not vote for these recommendations because there are too many regulations as it is.
OTHER BUSINESS
Lynn Henry asked the AC if they would officially approve the draft plan so that it could go to the MFC next month. There was some discussion about the meetings and Lynn Henry encouraged all AC members to let their constituents know about these upcoming meetings and to please attend the meeting in your area for opinions and feedback.
Mr. Nobles made a motion to send the draft amendment forward to the MFC. The motion was seconded by Dr. Forward and passed without dissent.
Mr. Perry Beasley adjourned the meeting at 10:05 pm.
ST/lm
Cc: Catherine Blum Jess Hawkins Kathy Rawls Dick Brame Allen Jernigan District Managers Frank Crawley Amanda Little Committee Staff Members Louis Daniel Dee Lupton Marine Patrol Captains Chris Elkins Nancy Marlette Section Chiefs
6
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RULES DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE MOREHEAD CITY, NC SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, 6 PM
Marine Fisheries Commission Anna Beckwith Joe Shute
Division of Marine Fisheries Staff Catherine Blum Nancy Fish Colonel Rex Lanier Mike Marshall
Media Mike Shutak
Public None
No public comments were received. The hearing closed at 6:15 p.m.
/cb
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Dee Freeman, Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: Immediate Contact: Patricia Smith Date: Aug. 1, 2011 Phone: (252) 726-7021 Fisheries Commission to Hold Public Hearing on Proposed Rules
MOREHEAD CITY – The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Sept. 14 on four proposed fisheries rules. The hearing will be held at the division’s Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West in Morehead City.
The proposals include establishing a new rule, 15A NCAC 03O .0114, that changes the schedule for suspension, revocation and reissuance of fishing licenses. The N.C. General Assembly passed a law in 2010 directing the Marine Fisheries Commission to adopt such rules.
The changes are necessary to provide a fairer method for suspension and revocation of licenses.
The current system often treats minor violations the same as major violations. For example, a violation of rules pertaining to gear identification (buoy markings) is equal to that of using prohibited gear in a primary nursery area. Additionally, the current system does not provide for the suspension, revocation and reissuance of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses.
Under the proposal, non-resource-related violations will not count toward the suspension or revocation of a license. There are 24 violations that are considered non-resource violations. They include improperly marked buoys or failure to notify the division of a change of address. Also, the new system will treat recreational violations the same as commercial.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the current suspension and revocation schedule as compared to the proposed schedule for violations occurring within a three year period.
Table 1 Suspension and Revocation Schedule
Current Proposed 2 Convictions = 10-Day Suspension 2 Convictions = 30-Day Suspension 3 Convictions = 30-Day Suspension 3 Convictions = 90-Day Suspension 4 or Subsequent Convictions = 6-Month 4 or Subsequent Convictions = 1-Year Revocation Revocation
-More-
Diana Kees, Communications Director [email protected] Phone: (919) 715-4112 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ncdenr 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 RSS feed: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/opa/news-releases- rss Twitter: http://twitter.com/NCDENR An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
2
Table 2 Major Violations Statute Current Proposed Taking Shellfish from a 10-Day Suspension 1-Year Suspension Permanent Polluted Area (G.S. 6-Month revocation (2nd 1-Year Revocation (2nd or 113-187) conviction w/in 3 years) subsequent conviction w/in 3 years) Taking Polluted Shellfish at Felony Conviction Felony Conviction Night (G.S. 113-209) 10-Day Suspension 1-year Revocation Assault on a Marine Patrol Officer (G.S. 14-32 & G.S. 14- No Suspension 2-year Revocation 33©(4)) 1 Misdemeanor conviction would Littering (G.S. 14-399) No Suspension count towards a suspension with a Felony conviction resulting in a 1-year Suspension Coastal Recreational Fishing No Suspension See Table 1 License (G.S. 113-174.2)
The proposal to change the schedule for suspension, revocation and reissuance of fishing licenses is expected to become effective Oct. 1, 2012.
The three other proposed rules for the public hearing follow:
• Repeal rule 15A NCAC 03M .0504, which sets specific recreational size and bag limits for spotted seatrout. The size and bag limits for spotted seatrout changed in 2009, and were implemented under rule 15A NCAC 03M. 0512, which gives the division director authority to issue proclamations to implement measures from fishery management plans. Future changes will be implemented under this same proclamation authority. This proposed rule has an intended effective date of April 1, 2012; • Amend rule 15A NCAC 03M .0519 so that it incorporates an American shad ocean closure that has been in place by proclamation since 2005. This proposed rule has an intended effective date of April 1, 2012; and • Amend rule 15A NCAC 03O .0111, which deals with the surrender of fishing licenses, to allow a notice of suspension or revocation of a license to be made by certified mail. This proposed rule has an intended effective date of Oct. 1, 2012.
Full text of the proposed rules can be found on the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries website at http://www.ncfisheries.net/rules/proposed_rules.html. Written comments will be accepted through Sept. 30, 2011, and may be sent to:
Catherine Blum Rulemaking Coordinator N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 FAX: (252) 726-0254 [email protected]
For more information, contact Blum at 252-808-8013. ### Diana Kees, Communications Director [email protected] Phone: (919) 715-4112 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ncdenr 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 RSS feed: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/opa/news-releases- rss Twitter: http://twitter.com/NCDENR An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER
VOLUME 26 ● ISSUE 03 ● Pages 76 - 240
August 1, 2011
I. EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Order Nos. 94-97 ...... 76 – 86
II. IN ADDITION DENR/Public Notice ...... 87 Decision Letters on "Changes Affecting Voting" from US Attorney General ...... 88 – 89
III. PROPOSED RULES Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Management Commission ...... 90 – 92 Marine Fisheries Commission ...... 92 – 94 Wildlife Resources Commission ...... 94 – 167 Occupational Licensing Boards and Commissions Examiners of Plumbing, Heating and Fire Sprinkler Contractors, Board of ...... 167 – 177 Psychology Board ...... 177 – 178 Real Estate Commission ...... 178 – 190
IV. EMERGENCY RULES Commerce, Department of Tax Reform Allocation Committee ...... 191 – 192 Cultural Resources, Department of Department ...... 192 – 193
V. APPROVED RULES ...... 194 – 234 Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Wildlife Resources Commission Health and Human Services, Department of Medical Care Commission Mental Health, Commission for Insurance, Department of Department Justice, Department of Private Protective Services Board Labor, Department of Department Occupational Licensing Boards and Commission Chiropractic Examiners, Board of Electrical Contractors, Board of Examiners for Irrigation Contractors Licensing Board Marriage and Family Therapy Licensure Board Pharmacy, Board of Podiatry Examiners, Board of Social Work Certification and Licensure Board
VI. RULES REVIEW COMMISSION ...... 235 – 238
VII. CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS Index to ALJ Decisions ...... 239 – 240
This publication is printed on permanent, acid-free paper in compliance with G.S. 125-11.13
Contact List for Rulemaking Questions or Concerns
For questions or concerns regarding the Administrative Procedure Act or any of its components, consult with the agencies below. The bolded headings are typical issues which the given agency can address, but are not inclusive.
Rule Notices, Filings, Register, Deadlines, Copies of Proposed Rules, etc. Office of Administrative Hearings Rules Division 1711 New Hope Church Road (919) 431-3000 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (919) 431-3104 FAX
contact: Molly Masich, Codifier of Rules [email protected] (919) 431-3071 Dana Vojtko, Publications Coordinator [email protected] (919) 431-3075 Julie Edwards, Editorial Assistant [email protected] (919) 431-3073 Tammara Chalmers, Editorial Assistant [email protected] (919) 431-3083
Rule Review and Legal Issues Rules Review Commission 1711 New Hope Church Road (919) 431-3000 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (919) 431-3104 FAX
contact: Joe DeLuca Jr., Commission Counsel [email protected] (919) 431-3081 Bobby Bryan, Commission Counsel [email protected] (919) 431-3079
Fiscal Notes & Economic Analysis and Governor's Review Office of State Budget and Management 116 West Jones Street (919) 807-4700 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8005 (919) 733-0640 FAX Contact: Anca Grozav, Economic Analyst [email protected] (919) 807-4740
NC Association of County Commissioners 215 North Dawson Street (919) 715-2893 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 contact: Rebecca Troutman [email protected]
NC League of Municipalities (919) 715-4000 215 North Dawson Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 contact: Erin L. Wynia [email protected]
Legislative Process Concerning Rule-making Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee 545 Legislative Office Building 300 North Salisbury Street (919) 733-2578 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 715-5460 FAX
contact: Karen Cochrane-Brown, Staff Attorney [email protected] Jeff Hudson, Staff Attorney [email protected]
This publication is printed on permanent, acid-free paper in compliance with G.S. 125-11.13
NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER Publication Schedule for January 2011 – December 2011
TEMPORARY FILING DEADLINES NOTICE OF TEXT PERMANENT RULE RULES
Deadline to submit Delayed Eff. Date of Volume & End of required Earliest Eff. Last day Earliest date for to RRC Permanent Rule 270th day from publication issue Issue date comment Date of for filing public hearing for review at in the Register number period Permanent Rule 31st legislative day of the next meeting session beginning:
25:13 01/03/11 12/08/10 01/18/11 03/04/11 03/21/11 05/01/11 05/2012 09/30/11 25:14 01/18/11 12/22/10 02/02/11 03/21/11 03/21/11 05/01/11 05/2012 10/15/11 25:15 02/01/11 01/10/11 02/16/11 04/04/11 04/20/11 06/01/11 05/2012 10/29/11 25:16 02/15/11 01/25/11 03/02/11 04/18/11 04/20/11 06/01/11 05/2012 11/12/11 25:17 03/01/11 02/08/11 03/16/11 05/02/11 05/20/11 07/01/11 05/2012 11/26/11 25:18 03/15/11 02/22/11 03/30/11 05/16/11 05/20/11 07/01/11 05/2012 12/10/11 25:19 04/01/11 03/11/11 04/16/11 05/31/11 06/20/11 08/01/11 05/2012 12/27/11 25:20 04/15/11 03/25/11 04/30/11 06/14/11 06/20/11 08/01/11 05/2012 01/10/12 25:21 05/02/11 04/08/11 05/17/11 07/01/11 07/20/11 09/01/11 05/2012 01/27/12 25:22 05/16/11 04/25/11 05/31/11 07/15/11 07/20/11 09/01/11 05/2012 02/10/12 25:23 06/01/11 05/10/11 06/16/11 08/01/11 08/22/11 10/01/11 05/2012 02/26/12 25:24 06/15/11 05/24/11 06/30/11 08/15/11 08/22/11 10/01/11 05/2012 03/11/12 26:01 07/01/11 06/10/11 07/16/11 08/30/11 09/20/11 11/01/11 05/2012 03/27/12 26:02 07/15/11 06/23/11 07/30/11 09/13/11 09/20/11 11/01/11 05/2012 04/10/12 26:03 08/01/11 07/11/11 08/16/11 09/30/11 10/20/11 12/01/11 05/2012 04/27/12 26:04 08/15/11 07/25/11 08/30/11 10/14/11 10/20/11 12/01/11 05/2012 05/11/12 26:05 09/01/11 08/11/11 09/16/11 10/31/11 11/21/11 01/01/12 05/2012 05/28/12 26:06 09/15/11 08/24/11 09/30/11 11/14/11 11/21/11 01/01/12 05/2012 06/11/12 26:07 10/03/11 09/12/11 10/18/11 12/02/11 12/20/11 02/01/12 05/2012 06/29/12 26:08 10/17/11 09/26/11 11/01/11 12/16/11 12/20/11 02/01/12 05/2012 07/13/12 26:09 11/01/11 10/11/11 11/16/11 01/03/12 01/20/12 03/01/12 05/2012 07/28/12 26:10 11/15/11 10/24/11 11/30/11 01/17/12 01/20/12 03/01/12 05/2012 08/11/12 26:11 12/01/11 11/07/11 12/16/11 01/30/12 02/20/12 04/01/12 05/2012 08/27/12 26:12 12/15/11 11/22/11 12/30/11 02/13/12 02/20/12 04/01/12 05/2012 09/10/12
This publication is printed on permanent, acid-free paper in compliance with G.S. 125-11.13
EXPLANATION OF THE PUBLICATION SCHEDULE
This Publication Schedule is prepared by the Office of Administrative Hearings as a public service and the computation of time periods are not to be deemed binding or controlling. Time is computed according to 26 NCAC 2C .0302 and the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6.
GENERAL FILING DEADLINES NOTICE OF TEXT
The North Carolina Register shall be published twice ISSUE DATE: The Register is published on the first EARLIEST DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: The hearing a month and contains the following information and fifteen of each month if the first or fifteenth of date shall be at least 15 days after the date a notice of submitted for publication by a state agency: the month is not a Saturday, Sunday, or State holiday the hearing is published. (1) temporary rules; for employees mandated by the State Personnel (2) notices of rule-making proceedings; Commission. If the first or fifteenth of any month is END OF REQUIRED COMMENT PERIOD (3) text of proposed rules; a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday for State employees, An agency shall accept comments on the text of a (4) text of permanent rules approved by the Rules the North Carolina Register issue for that day will be proposed rule for at least 60 days after the text is Review Commission; published on the day of that month after the first or published or until the date of any public hearings held (5) notices of receipt of a petition for municipal fifteenth that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday for on the proposed rule, whichever is longer. incorporation, as required by G.S. 120-165; State employees. (6) Executive Orders of the Governor; DEADLINE TO SUBMIT TO THE RULES REVIEW COMMISSION: The Commission shall review a rule (7) final decision letters from the U.S. Attorney LAST DAY FOR FILING: The last day for filing for any General concerning changes in laws affecting issue is 15 days before the issue date excluding submitted to it on or before the twentieth of a month voting in a jurisdiction subject of Section 5 of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays for State by the last day of the next month. the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as required by employees. FIRST LEGISLATIVE DAY OF THE NEXT REGULAR G.S. 120-30.9H; SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This date is (8) orders of the Tax Review Board issued under the first legislative day of the next regular session of G.S. 105-241.2; and the General Assembly following approval of the rule (9) other information the Codifier of Rules by the Rules Review Commission. See G.S. 150B- determines to be helpful to the public. 21.3, Effective date of rules.
COMPUTING TIME: In computing time in the schedule, the day of publication of the North Carolina Register is not included. The last day of the period so computed is included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or State holiday, in which event the period runs until the preceding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or State holiday.
This publication is printed on permanent, acid-free paper in compliance with G.S. 125-11.13
PROPOSED RULES from Dog Creek to New River and all tributary waters were (3) Old Field Creek (Index No. 10-1-22) from Call reclassified from Class C-trout and Class C to Class B-trout and Creek to the South Fork New River, and Call B. Creek (Index No. 10-1-22-1) from its source to (h) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Old Field Creek were reclassified from Class Standards for the New River Basin was amended effective WS-IV Trout to Class WS-IV Trout ORW. August 1, 1990 as follows: (k) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality (1) New River [Index No. 10] from the confluence Standards for the New River Basin was amended effective of the North and South Forks New River to the August 1, 1998 with the revision to the primary classification for last point at which the New River crosses the a portion of the South Fork New River [Index No. 10-1 (20.5)] North Carolina/Virginia State line was from Class WS-IV to Class WS-V. reclassified from Class C to Class C HQW; (l) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards (2) South Fork New River [Index Nos. 10-1- for the New River Basin was amended effective November 1, (14.5), 10-1-(26), 10-1-(30), and 10-1-(33.5)] 2007 with the reclassification of Bluff Mountain Fen near from Elk Creek to the confluence of the New Buffalo Creek [Index No. 10-2-20] to Class WL UWL as River and North Fork New River was defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101. The North Carolina Division reclassified from Class C, B and WS-III to of Water Quality maintains a Geographic Information Systems Class C HQW, B HQW and WS-III HQW; data layer of the UWL. (3) Howard Creek [Index Nos. 10-1-9-(1) and 10- (m) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality 1-9-(6)] from source to the South Fork New Standards for the New River Basin is amended effective River was reclassified from Class WS-III December 1, 2010 with the reclassification of the North Fork Trout and C Trout to Class WS-III Trout New River [Index Nos. 10-2-(1), 10-2-(12)] and its tributaries HQW and C Trout HQW; from C+, C+ Trout and C Trout HQW to C ORW and C Trout (4) Big Horse Creek [Index No. 10-2-21-(5.5)] ORW with the exception of the following: from North Carolina/Virginia State line to (1) Index Nos. 10-2-21-9, 10-2-21-(8), 10-2-(11) lower Ashe County SR 1361 bridge was and 10-2-20 were reclassified from C+ and C reclassified from Class C Trout to Class C Trout + to C HQW and C Trout HQW; and Trout HQW; and (2) Little Buffalo Creek and Claybank Creek (5) Little River [Index No. 10-9-(11.5)] from N.C. (Index Nos. 10-2-20-1 and 10-2-20-1-1) did Hwy. 18 bridge to the North Carolina/Virginia not qualify for the ORW or HQW designation; State line was reclassified from Class C to however, these waters shall be managed in the Class C HQW. same way as the downstream designated HQW (i) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards areas. for the New River Basin was amended effective August 3, 1992 (n) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality with the reclassification of all water supply waters (waters with a Standards for the New River Basin is amended effective March primary classification of WS-I, WS-II or WS-III). These waters 1, 2012 as follows: were reclassified to WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV or WS-V as (1) a portion of the South Fork New River [Index defined in the revised water supply protection rules, (15A No. 10-1-(14.5)] from the Town of Boone's NCAC 02B .0100, .0200 and .0300) which became effective on intake, located nearly 0.5 miles upstream of August 3, 1992. In some cases, streams with primary SR 1100, to a point approximately 875 feet classifications other than WS were reclassified to a WS downstream of SR 1351 from C HQW to WS- classification due to their proximity and linkage to water supply V CA HQW; waters. In other cases, waters were reclassified from a WS (2) a portion of the South Fork New River [Index classification to an alternate appropriate primary classification No. 10-1-(14.5)] from a point nearly 875 feet after being identified as downstream of a water supply intake or downstream of SR 1351 to Elk Creek from C identified as not being used for water supply purposes. HQW to WS-IV HQW; and (j) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards (3) a portion of the South Fork New River [Index for the New River Basin has been amended effective February 1, No. 10-1-(3.5)] from Elk Creek to a point 1993 as follows: approximately 1.8 miles upstream of SR 1351 (1) the South Fork New River (Index No. 10-1- from C+ to WS-IV +. 33.5) from Dog Creek to the New River was reclassified from Class B HQW to Class B Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). ORW; (2) the New River (Index No. 10) from the * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * confluence of the North And South Fork New Rivers to the last point at which it crosses the Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.2 that North Carolina/Virginia State line was the Marine Fisheries Commission intends to adopt the rule citied reclassified from Class C HQW to Class C as 15A NCAC 03O .0114, amend the rules citied as 15A NCAC ORW; and 03M .0519; 03O .0111 and repeal the rule cited as 15A NCAC 03M .0504.
26:03 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER August 1, 2011 92 PROPOSED RULES
Proposed Effective Date: the rule, a person may also submit written objections to the April 1, 2012 – 15A NCAC 03M .0504, .0519; Rules Review Commission after the adoption of the Rule. If the October 1, 2012 – 15A NCAC 03O .0111, .0114 Rules Review Commission receives written and signed objections after the adoption of the Rule in accordance with G.S. Public Hearing: 150B-21.3(b2) from 10 or more persons clearly requesting Date: September 14, 2011 review by the legislature and the Rules Review Commission Time: 6:00 p.m. approves the rule, the rule will become effective as provided in Location: Division of Marine Fisheries Central District Office, G.S. 150B-21.3(b1). The Commission will receive written 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557 objections until 5:00 p.m. on the day following the day the Commission approves the rule. The Commission will receive Reason for Proposed Action: those objections by mail, delivery service, hand delivery, or 15A NCAC 03M .0504 TROUT This rule is proposed for facsimile transmission. If you have any further questions repeal to eliminate an unnecessary rule and continue to provide concerning the submission of objections to the Commission, flexibility for making adjustments in size and harvest limits in please call a Commission staff attorney at 919-431-3000. the spotted seatrout fishery. These adjustments have been made since 2009 through Rule 15A NCAC 03M .0512, which gives the Fiscal Impact: Fisheries Director the authority to issue proclamations to effect State management measures in state or federal fishery management Local plans. Substantial Economic Impact (>$500,000) 15A NCAC 03M .0519 SHAD Proposed amendments will None incorporate the current closure of the American shad ocean fishery into N.C. permanent rule, for public clarity. The fishery CHAPTER 03 - MARINE FISHERIES was closed by proclamation on January 1, 2005 and has remained closed ever since. SUBCHAPTER 03M - FINFISH 15A NCAC 03O .0111 SURRENDER OF LICENSES Proposed amendments will streamline the service of process for SECTION .0500 – OTHER FINFISH the surrender of fishing licenses by allowing service to licensees by certified mail, in accordance with North Carolina Session 15A NCAC 03M .0504 TROUT Law 2010-145. (a) It is unlawful to possess spotted seatrout (speckled trout) less 15A NCAC 03O .0114 SUSPENSION, REVOCATION than 12 inches total length. AND REISSUANCE OF LICENSES This rule is proposed for (b) It is unlawful to possess more than 10 spotted seatrout per adoption to establish requirements for the suspension, person per day taken by hook-and-line or for recreational revocation and reissuance of licenses, in accordance with North purposes. Carolina Session Law 2010-145. This will create a fair and equitable process by treating commercial and recreational Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-182; 113-221; 143B-289.52. license holders consistently and by separating minor and major violations. Proposed amendments will also streamline the 15A NCAC 03M .0519 SHAD service of process for the surrender of fishing licenses by (a) It is unlawful to take American shad and hickory shad by allowing service to licensees by certified mail. any method except hook-and-line from April 15 through December 31. Link to agency website: (b) It is unlawful to possess more than 10 American shad or http://www.ncfisheries.net/rules/proposed_rules.html hickory shad, in the aggregate, per person per day taken by hook-and-line or for recreational purposes. Procedure by which a person can object to the agency on a (c) It is unlawful to take or possess American shad from the proposed rule: Objections shall be submitted in writing to Atlantic Ocean. Catherine Blum, Rulemaking Coordinator, Division of Marine Fisheries, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557; Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-182; 113-221.1; 143B-289.52. fax(252)726-0254, email [email protected]. Explain the reasons for objection and specify the portion of the rule to SUBCHAPTER 03O – LICENSES, LEASES, FRANCHISES which the objection is being made. AND PERMITS
Comments may be submitted to: Catherine Blum, P.O. Box SECTION .0100 – LICENSES 769, Morehead City, NC 28557, phone (252)808-8013, fax (252)726-0254, email [email protected] 15A NCAC 03O .0111 SURRENDER OF LICENSES (a) It is unlawful for any licensee to refuse to surrender to an Comment period ends: September 30, 2011 agent of the Secretary all licenses, license receipts, endorsements, commercial fishing vessel registration or decals, Procedure for Subjecting a Proposed Rule to Legislative and other forms and records relating to the license following Review: If an objection is not resolved prior to the adoption of
26:03 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER August 1, 2011 93 PROPOSED RULES personal service of notice of suspension or revocation of licenses of suspension or revocation shall be served by an inspector or in accordance with G.S. 113-171. other agent of the Department or by certified mail, must state the (b) It is unlawful for any person in custody or possession of any ground upon which it is based, and takes effect immediately licenses, license receipt, endorsements, commercial fishing upon service. The agent of the Fisheries Director making vessel registration or decals, and other forms and records service shall then or subsequently, as may be feasible under the documentation required to be surrendered to refuse to surrender circumstances, collect all license certificates and plates and other same to an agent of the Secretary making such demand. forms or records relating to the license as directed by the Fisheries Director. Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-171; 143B-289.52; S.L. 2010-145. (e) Where a license has been suspended or revoked, the former licensee shall not be eligible to apply for reissuance of license or 15A NCAC 03O .0114 SUSPENSION, REVOCATION for any additional license authorized in Article 14A, Article 14B AND REISSUANCE OF LICENSES and Article 25A of Chapter 113 during the suspension period or (a) All commercial and recreational licenses issued under revocation. Licenses shall be returned to the licensee by the Article 14A, Article 14B, and Article 25A of Chapter 113 are Fisheries Director or the Director's agents at the end of a period subject to suspension and revocation. of suspension. For a request for reinstatement following (b) A conviction resulting from being charged by an inspector revocation, the eligible former licensee shall satisfy the Fisheries under G.S. 14-32, 14-33 or 14-399 shall be deemed a conviction Director that the licensee will strive in the future to conduct the for license suspension or revocation purposes. operations for which the license is sought in accord with all (c) Upon receipt of notice of a licensee's conviction as specified applicable laws and rules by sending a request for reinstatement in G.S. 113-171 or a conviction as specified in Paragraph (b) of in writing to the Fisheries Director, Division of Marine this Rule, the Fisheries Director shall determine whether it is a Fisheries, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557. first, a second, a third or a fourth or subsequent conviction. Upon the application of an eligible former licensee after Where several convictions result from a single transaction or revocation, the Fisheries Director, in the Director's discretion, occurrence, the convictions shall be treated as a single may issue one license sought but not another, as deemed conviction so far as suspension or revocation of the licenses of a necessary to prevent the hazard of recurring violations of the licensee is concerned. For a second conviction, the Fisheries law. Director shall suspend all licenses issued to the licensee for a (f) It is unlawful for a licensee willfully to evade the service period of 30 days; for a third conviction, the Fisheries Director prescribed in this Rule. shall suspend all licenses issued to the licensee for a period of 90 (g) It is unlawful for a licensee to transfer any license or permit days; for a fourth or subsequent conviction, the Fisheries under suspension or revocation by the Division. Director shall revoke all licenses issued to the licensee for a (h) It is unlawful for a licensee to purchase a license that is minimum of one year, except: currently under suspension or revocation. (1) For a felony conviction under G.S. 14-399, the Fisheries Director shall suspend all licenses Authority G.S. 113-171; S.L. 2010-145. issued to the licensee for a period of one year; (2) For a first conviction under G.S. 113- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 187(d)(1), the Fisheries Director shall suspend all licenses issued to the licensee for a period Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.2 that of one year; for a second or subsequent the Wildlife Resources Commission intends to adopt the rule conviction under G.S. 113-187(d)(1), the citied as 15A NCAC 10D .0105 and amend the rules citied as Fisheries Director shall revoke all licenses 15A NCAC 10A .1101; 10B .0101, .0106, .0114, .0201-.0203, issued to the licensee for a minimum of one .0215-.0216, .0219; 10D .0102-.0103; 10H .0301-.0302, .0304; year; 10I .0102; 10J .0102. (3) For a conviction under G.S. 113-209, the Fisheries Director shall revoke all licenses Proposed Effective Date: issued to the licensee for a minimum of one January 1, 2012 – 15A NCAC 10A .1101; 10B .0101, .0106, year; and .0114, .0215,-.0216, .0219; 10D .0102; 10H .0301-.0302, .0304; (4) For a conviction under G.S. 14-32 or 14-33, 10I .0102; 10J .0102 when the offense was committed against a August 1, 2012 – 15A NCAC 10B .0201-.0203; 10D .0103, .0105 marine fisheries inspector the Fisheries Director shall revoke all licenses issued to the Public Hearing: licensee for a minimum of two years. Date: September 6, 2011 (d) After the Fisheries Director determines a conviction requires Time: 7:00 PM a suspension or revocation of the licenses of a licensee, the Location: District 4, Bladen Community College, 7418 NC Fisheries Director shall cause the licensee to be served with Highway 41 W, Dublin, NC written notice of suspension or revocation, as the case may be. The written notice may be served upon any responsible Date: September 7, 2011 individual affiliated with the corporation, partnership, or Time: 7:00 PM association where the licensee is not an individual. The notice
26:03 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER August 1, 2011 94
Director's Report
ASMFC Volume 20, Issue 6 Fisheries September/October 2011 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission • 1050 N. Highland Street • focusSuite 200A-N • Arlington, VA Working towards healthy, self-sustaining populations for all Atlantic coast fish species or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
The preliminary agenda is subject to change. The agenda reflects the current estimate of time required for scheduled Board meet- ings. The Commission may adjust this agenda in accordance with the actual duration of Board meetings. Interested parties should anticipate Boards starting earlier or later than indicated herein. The final agenda and meeting materials will be available October 26th on the Commission website at http://www.asmfc.org/70thAnnualMeeting.htm.
November 6, 2011 2:00 - 5:30 PM Registration
6:00 - 7:00 PM Welcome Reception Inside This Issue
November 7, 2011 Species Profile: Spot Page 4 7:00 AM - 1:00 PM & Registration Science Highlight: Regional 2:30 - 4:00 PM Fishery-Independent Surveys are Spot On Page 6 8:00 - 10:30 AM Atlantic Herring Section ASMFC Public Comment Guidelines Page 7 10:45 AM - 12:30 PM American Lobster Management Board 2010 Fisheries of the U.S. & 1:45 - 3:00 PM Released Page 8 1:00 - 5:00 PM Law Enforcement Committee ASMFC & MAFMC Approve 2012 Specifications Page 9 1:00 - 5:00 PM Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership Steering ASMFC Approves Resolution on Committee Non-native Invasive Catfish Page 11 continued on page 7 Upcoming Meetings 10/ 7 (9 AM - 4:30 PM) he Atlantic States Marine ASMFC Northern Shrimp Technical Committee, New Hamp- shire Fish & Game Dept., Marine Fisheries Division, 225 Main Fisheries Commission was Street, Durham, New Hampshire; 603.868.1095 Tformed by the 15 Atlantic coastal 10/11 - 13: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Seaview Dolce, 401 states in 1942 for the promotion South New York Road, Galloway, New Jersey; 609-652-1800. and protection of coastal fishery 10/14 (9 AM - 5:30 PM): resources. The Commission serves as ASMFC Northern Shrimp Section & Advisory Panel (Section will consider final approval of Draft Amendment 2), Urban a deliberative body of the Atlantic Forestry Center, 45 Elwyn Road, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. coastal states, coordinating the 10/19 & 20: National Fish Habitat Board Meeting, Albuquerque, New conservation and management of Mexico. nearshore fishery resources, including 10/25 (Noon - 4 PM): ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Advisory Panel, Sheraton BWI marine, shell and diadromous Airport Hotel, 1110 Old Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, species. The fifteen member states Maryland; 800-325-3535 or 443-577-2100. 10/25 - 27: of the Commission are: Maine, New Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Meeting, Washington, DC. Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 10/27 & 28: Island, Connecticut, New York, New Northeast Regional Collaborative Research Conference (www. northeastconsortium.org), Sheraton Harborside Hotel, Ports- Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, mouth, New Hampshire. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 10/28 (9 AM - 5:30 PM): ASMFC Northern Shrimp Section & Advisory Panel (Section South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. will set 2011/2012 fishing season specifications), Urban Forestry Center, 45 Elwyn Road, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 11/6 - 10: Robert H. Boyles, Jr., (SC), Chair ASMFC 70th Annual Meeting, The Langham Hotel, 250 Frank- Paul Diodati (MA), Vice-Chair lin Street, Boston, Massachsuetts; (617) 451 1900.
John V. O’Shea, Executive Director 11/15 - 17: Robert E. Beal, Director, Interstate Fisheries New England Fishery Management Council, Newport Marriot, Management Program Newport, Rhode Island. Patrick A. Campfield, Science Director Laura C. Leach, Director of Finance & Administration 12/5 - 9: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Holiday Inn Tina L. Berger, Editor Brownstone Hotel, 1707 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, North [email protected] Carolina; 800/331-7919. 703.842.0740 Phone • 703.842.0741 Fax www.asmfc.org 12/13 - 15: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Kingsmill, 1010 Kingsmill Road, Williamsburg, Virginia; 757-253-1703. 2 ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 From the From A Tale of Four Fisheries
Most would readily agree that there are great economic In less than 10 years since being declared overfished in and social benefits to be had from healthy and abun- 1997, the sea scallop fishery became one of the most dant fish stocks. In cases where a stock has failed or valuable fisheries on the East Coast. It is still strong is failing, the scientific advice of what to do is usually today, with landings valued at more than $450 million. pretty clear. However, managers often find it difficult Counting the general category permits, there are now to take effective action, usually out of concern about more boats scalloping than any other time in the history doing harm to fishermen. of the fishery. In fact, new boats have been built to replace old ones, a clear sign of the prosperity of stock recovery. To be effective, most conservation measures need to restrict harvest in a substantial way to either protect
Among Commission species, the recovery of Atlantic Executive Director’s Desk young fish long enough to get them into the spawning striped bass is another well-known and important excep- stock or to protect what is left of the spawning stock. tion. In 1984, the states moved to take decisive action in Often, it is necessary to do both. response to clear signs stocks were in trouble. At that time Commercial and recreational fishermen typically op- recreational and commercial landings were 1.3 and 2.9 pose reductions in catch, citing the economic and social million pounds respectively, levels that were not sustain- burdens such measures would place on them and related able due to the depressed biomass. Multiyear moratoria businesses. Their arguments take different forms, but were imposed on most harvesters, enabling a full recovery. their position is grounded in the belief that restrictive In 2010, the recreational and commercial harvests were regulations will permanently put fishermen out of business. 21.3 and 7.3 million pounds, respectively.
Fishery managers are then given the false choice of There are now more recreational striped bass fishermen whether to save the fish or save the fishermen, a dilemma than there were before the recovery. In addition, rebuild- most find incredibly difficult to resolve. In some cases, ing has generated a booming business for charter boats, the first response is to postpone action while more data tournaments, fishing tackle, and guide services. Moreover, are collected. Managers are understandably reluctant most states with a commercial striped bass fishery report to impose economic hardships to solve a problem that the ranks of their commercial fishermen have grown. might not exist. If the additional data confirm the Clearly, the regulations to restore scallops and striped negative stock trend, then often the second response is bass did not destroy the fishery. In fact, they have had the to implement partial measures in hopes of helping the opposite effect; they have brought great benefits to fisher- stock, while limiting the impact to fishermen. men, fishing related businesses, and coastal communities. Unfortunately, while the strategy of delay and partial measures is responsive to the political pressure gener- We don’t see Atlantic sturgeon or Atlantic halibut fisher- ated by fishermen, it has not been very effective in men these days, even though these were both multimil- restoring stocks. Often, this generates poor results lion pound fisheries. At the time landings peaked, the and the need for more drastic action. As the cycle stocks were thought to be inexhaustible. These were continues, stocks spiral down towards depletion and long-lived fish, growing to great size, with few preda- sometimes beyond recovery. This well-intentioned tors. By the early 1900s, they were all but wiped out, approach saves neither fish nor fishermen. along with the fishermen and businesses that depended on them. The lack of conservation rules did not save the However, there are noteworthy exceptions where manag- fish or the fishermen. ers have taken action before stocks collapsed. In the case of Atlantic sea scallops, a series of unpopular and painful These examples remind us of the irreversible conse- regulations including extensive area closures and effort quences that can occur when fishery managers fail to act, reduction measures were implemented starting in 1994 and the dramatic and sustainable benefits that can result in response to declining stocks. While a number of boats when they do. With the right decisions, we can have both went out of business, the measures have led to a tenfold abundant stocks and prosperous fishermen. Hopefully, increase in scallop biomass since its low point in 1993. these are goals with which we can all agree.
ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 3 Species Profile: Spot Short-Lived Fish Gets a Management Makeover
Introduction Spot directly support recreational and commercial fisheries in the Mid- and South Atlantic and function as an important forage species in the region. The range of this short-lived species includes brackish and saltwater habitats predominately be- tween Chesapeake Bay and South Carolina. Annual variation in landings, typically composed of fish belonging to a single year class, is due in part to the prevailing environmental conditions at spawning and nursery sites. To date, a formal coastwide stock assessment of spot has not been conducted. Small-sized spot remain a major component of the bycatch associated with seine, trawl, and pound net fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina, as well as that of the South Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery. However, substantial reductions in the magnitude of bycatch have occurred in the latter fishery.
Life History Spot occur along the U.S. Atlantic coast in estuarine and coastal waters from the Gulf of Maine to Florida, although they are most abundant from Chesapeake Bay south to South Carolina. Spot migrate seasonally, entering bays and estuaries in the spring where they remain until late summer or fall when they move offshore to spawn. Spot mature between the ages of two and three, at lengths of seven to eight inches. Their maximum life span is about six years, although fish older than four years are uncommon.
Spawning takes place in the ocean from fall to early spring and the post-larvae move Spot into estuaries, utilizing low salinity tidal creeks where they develop into juveniles. As Leiostomus xanthurus spot grow, they move toward higher salinity areas during the summer and early fall and offshore in the fall as water temperatures Common Names: Norfolk spot, flat croaker, golden croaker, decrease. Those that summered in the north- spot croaker, silver gudgeon, ern portion of their range also move south in goody, chub, roach, jimmy the autumn. Spot are opportunistic bottom feeders, eating mainly worms, small crusta- Management Unit: Delaware to ceans and mollusks, and organic material. Florida The post-larvae prey on plankton but become Interesting Facts: bottom feeders as juveniles or adults. Preda- * Spot travel in huge (>100 tors such as striped bass, weakfish, summer fish) slow-moving schools over flounder, bluefish, and sharks eat them in turn. sand-mud bottoms. * Spot are the only member of the drum family, which in- Commercial & Recreational Fisheries cludes weakfish, red and black Spot support commercial fisheries along the drum, and croaker, with a forked tail. Atlantic coast, particularly from Chesapeake * Spot tend to live longer and Bay southward. They are harvested by a variety attain a greater size in the of commercial gears including haul seines, northern extent of their range. pound nets, gillnets, and trawls. Commercial Largest Recorded: 14” catches fluctuated widely between 1950 and (Norfolk, VA, 2011) the early 1980s, ranging from 3.9 to 14.5 million pounds. Such variability is expected Life Span: 6 years because spot are a short-lived species and catch in most years consists of a single year class, the Stock Status: Unknown Photo courtesy of Virginia Marine strength of which appears to be determined Resources Commission 4 ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 by environmental conditions that prevail on the spawning and nursery grounds in any particular year. Landings show less year-to-year variability from 1984 to 2010, Science Highlight: ranging from 2.1 to 8.8 million pounds. Regional Fishery- Spot is a popular recreational species sought by anglers from Delaware Bay to Independent northern Florida. Most of the Atlantic recreational harvest is taken within three Surveys are Spot On miles of the coast, from shore or by private or rental boats rather than by party or charter boats. Recreational harvest has fluctuated from a high of 6.9 million When it comes to understanding the ebb pounds in 1981 to a low of 1.6 million pounds in 1999. Over the last ten years, and flow of spot Leiostomus( xanthurus) recreational harvest has averaged 3.7 million pounds, and for the first time in 2006, population size and health, fisheries recreational landings surpassed commercial landings. Recreational harvest again scientists and managers are often left surpassed commercial harvest in 2008, though recent years have again indicated a searching for more information. A lim- commercially-dominated harvest (see figure below). ited number of local life history studies have been conducted, providing valu- able insight into the age, growth, and maturity characteristics of the species. Commercial and recreational landings and discard amounts and rates allow for rough estimates of removals and other fishery-dependent mortality. Scientists use life history and fishery-dependent information in stock assessments but to truly understand stock dynamics, scien- tists need fishery-independent surveys. Independent surveys are ideal because they are unbiased by changes in fishing effort that often confound results from fishery-dependent data.
Several state fishery-independent surveys encounter spot and provide local snapshots of how healthy the stock may be. Spot are managed as a single stock unit, with the primary Stock Status range of the species occurring between No coastwide assessment has been performed for spot; however, spot are a target Chesapeake Bay and South Carolina. or component of several state surveys using trawls, gillnets, or seine nets. Juvenile Geographically broad fishery-inde- abundance indices (JAIs) have been highly variable throughout the survey time pendent surveys are best-suited for series, although many indices, including some from North Carolina, South Caro- characterizing the trends in the spot lina, Virginia, and Maryland, showed increases in 2010. In contrast, many of the stock because regional surveys use adult abundance indices show little change or a decline over the past years, possibly consistent sampling methods, unlike indicating a disconnect between juvenile recruitment and adult abundance. state-specific surveys whose methods differ between states. Fortunately, two In addition to these surveys, commercial and recreational catch-per-unit effort regional surveys provide growing time (CPUE) data provide indices of relative spot abundance. Since 1980, commercial series of relative abundance, biomass, CPUE has generally increased over time in Maryland, although it has declined and life history measures to give sci- over the past five years. Within Virginia, it has varied without trend since 1994. entists a comprehensive look at how Trends have been relatively stable in North Carolina, but most have been showing the spot stock is doing. a decline since 2000. Maryland recreational CPUE has generally decreased with a few spikes and a small amount of potential recovery in 2000-2006, but recent years The Southeast Area Monitoring and have shown additional declines. Virginia’s recreational CPUE has been variable Assessment Program (SEAMAP) has around the time series average, and North Carolina recreational CPUE has shown a
continued on page 6 continued on page 6
ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 5 Species Profile: Spot(continued from page 5) general increase over time, although there undersized or unwanted have been decreases since 2007. South fish) of spot in the South Carolina’s recreational CPUE has shown Atlantic shrimp trawl, high variability since 1981, with a large pound net, long haul peak in 2007 and a gradual decline to the seine, and trawl fisheries. time series mean in 2010. The magnitude of the problem was underes- timated at the time of Atlantic Coastal Management Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative FMP development, although it was cited The Commission adopted the Spot Fish- Management Act (1993) and adoption as having potentially significant effect on ery Management Plan (FMP) in 1987. of the Interstate Fishery Management spot stocks. Since adoption of the original A major problem addressed in the FMP Program Charter (1995). As part of man- FMP, significant progress has been made was the lack of stock assessment data for aging the spot resource and fishery, the in the development of bycatch reduction effective management of the resource. Board initiated an update to the FMP in devices (BRDs) for shrimp trawlers. In Basic data requirements include infor- August 2009, as part of the larger Om- some tests, bycatch has been reduced by mation on recruitment, age, size, and nibus Amendment that includes spotted 50 to 75 percent while still retaining a sex composition, and variations in these seatrout and Spanish mackerel as well. significant shrimp catch. Although com- characteristics over time and space. In The Omnibus Amendment, approved mercial fishermen did not readily accept addition, accurate catch and effort statis- by the Commission at its 2011 Summer use of them initially because of their ex- tics are needed from the recreational and Meeting, updated all three plans with the pense and handling problems, the devices commercial fisheries to assess the effect requirements of the Act and the Charter. are now used by shrimpers throughout the of fishing activities on the population. The updated Spot FMP now includes South Atlantic states. Progress has been made on collecting yearly management triggers to monitor these data elements, but more work the status of the stock until a full coast- Unlike the majority of the Commission’s remains to make an assessment possible. wide stock assessment can be completed. FMPs, the original Spot FMP did not con- Another problem referenced in the FMP tain mandatory management measures, was the bycatch (or inadvertent catch of as it was adopted prior to passage of the continued on page 11
Science Highlight (continued from page 5)
conducted a shallow water trawl survey in spring, summer, and fall continuously since 1982 with 112 stations between Cape Canaveral and Cape Hatteras. Spot is consistently one of the most commonly encountered species in the SEAMAP trawl survey. For example, a total of 65,220 spot, with an average of 582 per tow, were caught in the fall 2010 survey, more than any other species. In addition to measuring abundance, the SEAMAP trawl survey also col- lects spot lengths and weights, and in select years, ageing, stomach, and tissue samples.
The Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) survey has been conducted from 2007-present and trawls 150 nearshore sta- tions from Cape Hatteras to Martha’s Vineyard. Spring and fall surveys both encounter spot, with fall catches often ranking in the top five among the 100+ species the survey encounters. The fall 2010 survey, for example, caught 95,991 spot ranging in length from 8-22 cm (3-9 inches) (Figure 1), with an average catch per station of 640 spot.
continued on page 10
6 ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 ASMFC 70th Annual Meeting Preliminary Agenda (continued from page 1) ASMFC Public Comment Guidelines November 7, 2011 (continued) 3:15 - 5:30 PM Meeting with Massachusetts Marine Fisheries With the intent of developing policies Advisory Commission in the Commission’s procedures for public participation that result in a 6:00 - 9:00 PM Reception at UMASS Club fair opportunity for public input, the November 8, 2011 ISFMP Policy Board has approved the 7:00 AM - 1:00 PM & Registration following guidelines for use at manage- 2:30 - 4:00 PM ment board meetings: For issues that are not on the agenda, 8:00 - 10:00 AM Law Enforcement Committee (continued) management boards will continue to provide opportunity to the public to 8:00 - 11:00 AM Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board bring matters of concern to the board’s attention at the start of each board 8:00 AM - Noon Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership Steering meeting. Board chairs will use a speaker Committee (continued) sign-up list in deciding how to allo- cate the available time on the agenda 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (typically 10 minutes) to the number Coordinating Council of people who want to speak.
11:15 AM - 1:00 PM Legislators/Governors’ Appointees Luncheon For topics that are on the agenda, but have not gone out for public comment, Noon - 5:00 PM Fish Passage Site Visits to Jones River and Mystic board chairs will provide limited op- Lakes Dam, sponsored by MA DMF and ACFHP portunity for comment, taking into (please contact Emily Greene at [email protected] account the time allotted on the agenda by October 13 if you are interested in participating) for the topic. Chairs will have flexibility in deciding how to allocate comment 12:30 - 5:30 PM Management & Science Committee opportunities; this could include hear- ing one comment in favor and one in 1:15 - 3:15 PM Tautog Management Board opposition until the chair is satisfied further comment will not provide ad- 3:30 - 5:30 PM Action Plan Workshop ditional insight to the board.
6:00 - 10:00 PM Dinner on the Odyssey For agenda action items that have already gone out for public comment, November 9, 2011 it is the Policy Board’s intent to end 8:00 - 9:30 AM Horseshoe Crab Management Board the occasional practice of allowing ex- tensive and lengthy public comments. 8:00 - Noon Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Currently, board chairs have the discre- Program Board tion to decide what public comment to allow in these circumstances. 8:30 AM – Noon Habitat Committee In addition, the following timeline 9:45 - 10:45 AM South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries has been established for the submis- Management Board sion of written comment for issues for which the Commission has NOT 10:30 AM - 12:30 PM Registration established a specific public comment period (i.e., in response to proposed 11:00 AM- 12:15 PM Atlantic Menhaden Management Board management action). & 1:45 - 3:00 PM continued on page 10 continued on page 10 ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 7 2010 Fisheries of the U.S. Released
The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) was pleased to col- laborate with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service for the release of the 2010 Fisheries of the United States (FUS) publication. 2010 The document is a preliminary report of the commercial fisheries data for 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology and a final report for the recreational data for 2010. FUS includes landings from
Fisheries Statistics Division U.S. territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the high seas. According to David Van Voorhees, Chief Alan Lowther, Editor the FUS release from NOAA Fisheries Service, “U.S. commercial fishermen landed
Silver Spring, Maryland 8.2 billion pounds of seafood in 2010, valued at $4.5 billion, an increase of 200 August 2011 million pounds and more than $600 million in value over 2009. This report shows U.S. fishermen, who meet high environmental and safety standards, continue to be competitive in the dynamic, fast-paced global seafood marketplace.”
Since 2007, ACCSP has worked with Northeast program partners to provide NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2010 Fisheries Service headquarters with landings from Maine to Virginia. Landings data U.S. Department National Oceanic and National Marine of Commerce Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service from South Carolina and Georgia are also provided to the NOAA Southeast Regional Rebecca Blank, Ph.D. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. Eric C Schwaab, Assistant Acting Secretary Under Secretary Administrator for Fisheries Office. These datasets were obtained in the spring as preliminary and updated as final data in the fall of 2010. By working with partners to develop the FUS datasets, ACCSP is able to populate the Data Warehouse at a finer resolution to further support the ACCSP mission.
In 2010, Alan Lowther, a statistician with NOAA Fisheries Service, spoke on the relationship between the collaborating partners, “I am pleased with the relationship ACCSP has developed with NOAA Fisheries Service and other partners to efficiently collect FUS Highlights and disseminate data for the FUS publication. It has only been three years that we’ve been working with ACCSP for FUS, but • Commercial and recreational fisheries generated $166 each year there has been improvement in the data collection billion in sales impacts, contributed $72 billion to the process. I look forward to continuing this positive collaboration Gross National Product and supported 1.4 million jobs and working together on future enhancements.” in the fishing sector and across the broader economy. • For the 22nd consecutive year, the Alaska port of For more details on the FUS, please visit http://www.st.nmfs. Dutch Harbor-Unalaska led the nation with the high- noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus10/index.html. For more information est amount of fish landed, primarily pollock. For the about the Data Warehouse, please visit http://www.accsp.org/ 11th consecutive year, New Bedford, Massachusetts dataware.htm. had the highest valued catch, due in large part to the About ACCSP sea scallop fishery. • All coastal regions of the country saw increases in total ACCSP is a cooperative state-federal program to design, value of fisheries landings in 2010. The Gulf of Mexico implement, and conduct marine fisheries statistics data col- region, which suffered the nation’s worst marine oil lection programs and to integrate those data into a single spill in 2010 and saw landings drop by 19%, achieved data management system that will meet the needs of fish- a modest two percent increase in total landings value. ery managers, scientists, and fishermen. It is composed of • The U.S. continues to be third-ranked for consuming representatives from natural resource management agencies fish and shellfish, behind China and Japan. Americans coastwide, including the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries consumed 4.878 billion pounds of seafood in 2010 Commission, the three At- (15.8 pounds on average). lantic fishery management • About 86% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is councils, the 15 Atlantic imported, up four percent from 2009 (a portion of this states, the Potomac River imported seafood is caught by American fishermen, Fisheries Commission, the exported overseas for processing and then re-imported D.C. Fisheries and Wildlife to the U.S.). Division, NOAA Fisheries • Almost half of imported seafood comes from aquacul- Service, and the U.S. Fish ture or farmed seafood. & Wildlife Service. For more • In 2010, the U.S. exported 63% of its domestically information, please visit produced seafood, measured by live weight. www.accsp.org. 8 ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 ASMFC & Mid-Atlantic Council Approve 2012 Specifications for Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass and Bluefish
was set at of this year that will provide an update 12.63 mil- on the status of the stock. lion pounds for the 2012 Finally, the Commission approved and fishing year. the Council recommended a commercial quota of 10.50 million pounds and a The Com- recreational harvest limit of 17.19 mil- mission ap- lion pounds for the bluefish fishery. These proved and levels are about 1% higher compared to the Coun- the 2011 limits. cil recom- The Commission and the Mid-Atlantic mended a commercial quota of 34.43 For all four species, the action was con- Fishery Management Council (Council) million pounds and a recreational har- sistent with the recommendations of have established the 2012 commercial vest limit of 10.85 million pounds for the Scientific and Statistical Committee quotas and recreational harvest limits for the scup fishery. These limits are 66% (SSC) regarding acceptable biological summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and and 86% higher for the commercial catch (ABC), which is the level of total bluefish. The Commission’s actions are fi- and recreational fisheries, respectively, removals that cannot be exceeded based nal and apply to state waters. The Council compared to 2011 levels. The Board on the best available scientific informa- will be forwarding its recommendations to adopted a new landing limit to not tion. The Commission and Council NOAA’s Northeast Regional Administra- exceed 50,000 pounds per day for the maintained the 2011 commercial man- tor for final approval. Winter I fishery (January 1-April 30). agement measures for all four species for Previously, it was a one-week landing 2012, with the exception of the Winter I The table below summarizes those ac- limit of 30,000 pounds. landing limit, and approved a Research tions/recommendations (commercial Set-Aside (RSA) quota of up to three quota and recreational harvest limits are For black sea bass, the Commission ap- percent for each fishery. Prior to the start in millions of pounds): proved and the Council recommended of the new fishing year, RSA quota alloca- tions will reduce the above commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits.
For more information about summer floun- der, scup, or black sea bass, please contact Toni Kerns, FMP Coordina- tor, at 703.842.0740 or [email protected]. For The Commission approved and the the same commercial quota as 2011, more information about Council recommended a 7% increase in 1.76 million pounds. However, they bluefish, please contact Mike Waine, the summer flounder harvest limits from recommended a lower limit of 1.36 FMP Coordinator, at 703.842.0740 or 2011 using the process detailed in the re- million pounds for the recreational [email protected]. cently approved Annual Catch Limit and fishery to address the management un- Accountability Measure Amendment. The certainty associated with that fishery. A commercial quota was set at 18.95 million benchmark stock assessment for black pounds and the recreational harvest limit sea bass will be reviewed in December
ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 9 ASMFC 70th Annual Meeting Preliminary Agenda (continued from ASMFC Public Comment page 7) Guidelines (continued from page 7) November 9, 2011 (continued) Comments received 3 weeks prior to the start of a 12:30 - 1:30 PM Captain David H. Hart Award Luncheon meeting week will be included on the briefing CD. 3:15 - 3:45 PM Business Session Comments received by 5:00 PM on the Tuesday im- 3:45 - 6:15 PM ISFMP Policy Board mediately preceding the scheduled ASMFC Meeting (in this case, the Tuesday deadline will be November November 10, 2011 1, 2011) will be distributed electronically to Com- 7:00 - 8:30 AM Executive Committee missioners/Board members prior to the meeting and a limited number of copies will be provided at 8:45 - 10:45 AM Shad & River Herring Management Board the meeting.
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Winter Flounder Management Board Following the Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:00 PM deadline, the commenter will be responsible for dis- 12:30 - 1:00 PM Lunch for Commissioners and Proxies tributing the information to the management board prior to the board meeting or providing enough 1:00 - 3:30 PM Spiny Dogfish & Coastal Sharks copies for the management board consideration at Management Board the meeting (a minimum of 50 copies).
3:45 - 4:15 PM ISFMP Policy Board (continued) The submitted comments must clearly indicate the commenter’s expectation from the ASMFC staff 4:15 - 4:45 PM Business Session (continued) regarding distribution. As with other public com- ment, it will be accepted via mail, fax, and email.
Science Highlight (continued from page 6)
Research and data deficiencies, most notably bycatch estimates, remain for spot, but the regional surveys are providing a steady measure of trends in abundance (Fig- ure 2) throughout the core range of the species, making a formal stock assessment more feasible than in the past. The NEAMAP trawl survey is proving particularly valu- able as it fills the data gap in the northern part of the species’ range. The Commission continues to provide coordination and administrative support to both Pro- grams, to assist South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SEAMAP lead) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (NEAMAP lead) in keeping these valuable trawl survey time series going.
For more information on spot science, please contact Dr. Genny Nesslage ([email protected]). For more information on SEAMAP or NEAMAP, please contact Melissa Paine ([email protected]). 10 ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 ASMFC Approves Resolution on Non-native Invasive Catfish
At its Summer Meeting, the Commis- Whereas, the populations and sion’s Interstate Fisheries Management ranges of blue and flathead cat- Program Policy Board approved the fish have become increasingly following resolution on non-native in- problematic and both species are vasive catfish (blue and flathead) based expanding significantly in the on concern about the potential impacts Chesapeake Bay watershed; and these species may have on Commission managed species, particularly in the Whereas, the fishery manage- Chesapeake Bay region. ment jurisdictions in the Chesa- peake Bay region are developing Whereas, the states along the Atlantic policies to address the impacts of coast from Maine through Florida, in- invasive catfishes. cluding Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, are concerned about the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, increasing variety, abundance, range, and ecological impact of invasive That the Atlantic States Ma- species in estuaries, tributaries, and rine Fisheries Commission does coastal waters; and not support the introduction of nor transport of non-native invasive species; Whereas, invasive species negatively USFWS Fishery Biologist, Mike Mangold with blue catfish impact native species managed by taken from Dyke Marsh, Potomac River, VA (Photo: U.S. the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries That additional research Fish and Wildlife Service) Commission through predation and should be conducted to more displacement; and fully understand the ecological im- pacts of non-native catfish on species That the Atlantic States Marine Fish- Whereas, blue and flathead catfish are managed by the Atlantic States Marine eries Commission supports the de- non-native invasive species that have Fisheries Commission; velopment and implementation of a been introduced and spread to many strategy that minimizes the population That all practicable efforts should be watersheds along the Atlantic coast; and and ecological impacts of non-native made to reduce the population levels invasive catfish species throughout the and ranges of non-native invasive species; Chesapeake Bay watershed. Whereas, blue and flathead catfish are large, long-lived fish species exhibiting an opportunistic and non-selective feeding strategy. Spot Species Profile(continued from Whereas, the spread and high abun- page 6) dance of non-native catfish are causing trophic impacts throughout their range, Further, the plan’s adaptive management section provides the states resulting in unbalanced ecosystems; and the ability to more quickly implement management changes in the future. Each year, the South Atlantic State-Federal Fisheries Manage- Whereas, predation by blue and flat- ment Board reviews an assessment of the Spot FMP, the current year’s head catfish is likely having a negative landings, and data from fishery independent surveys to determine effect on species managed by the At- whether revised management action is required. This review will lantic States Marine Fisheries Commis- now include the management triggers. Although relatively short-lived sion, most notably, shad, river herring, compared to other species in its family, spot plays an important role striped bass, and American eel. Other as prey and bait, as well as being a targeted fishery. These updates will prey species of concern include white ensure continued responsive and responsible management. For more and yellow perch, gizzard shad and information, please contact Danielle Brzezinski, FMP Coordinator, freshwater mussels and clams; and at 703.842.0740 or [email protected].
ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 20, Issue 6, September/October 2011 11 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1050 N. Highland Street, Suite 200A-N Arlington, VA 22201-2196
Return Service Requested
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
NEWS RELEASE
Working towards healthy, self-sustaining populations of all Atlantic coast fish species, or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS CONTACT: Tina Berger September 9, 2011 703.842.0740
States Schedule Hearings on Atlantic Menhaden Draft Addendum V
Arlington, VA – Atlantic coastal states from Maine through North Carolina have scheduled their hearings to gather public comment on Draft Addendum V to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. The dates, times, and locations of the scheduled meetings follow:
Maine Department of Marine Resources Connecticut Dept. of Energy and Environmental October 3, 2011; 6 – 9 PM Protection The Yarmouth Log Cabin September 28, 2011; 4 - 6 PM 196 Main Street Bridgeport Regional Aquaculture Science & Yarmouth, Maine Technology Center Contact: Terry Stockwell at 207.624.6553 60 St Stephens Road Bridgeport, Connecticut New Hampshire Fish and Game Contact: David Simpson at 860.434.6043 October 4, 2011; 7 PM Urban Forestry Center October 5, 2011; 4 - 6 PM 45 Elwyn Road The Sound School Portsmouth, New Hampshire 60 South Water St Contact: Doug Grout at 603.868.1095 New Haven, Connecticut Contact: David Simpson at 860.434.6043 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries September 28, 2011; 7 PM October 12, 2011; 7 PM CoCo Key Hotel & Water Resort-Boston CT DEEP Marine Headquarters Newburyport Room 333 Ferry Road 50 Ferncroft Road Old Lyme, Connecticut Danvers, Massachusetts Contact: David Simpson at 860.434.6043 Contact: David Pierce at 617.626.1532 New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife September 29, 2011; 7:00 PM October 5, 2011; 6:00 PM Township of Toms River URI Narragansett Bay Campus, Corless Auditorium 33 Washington Street South Ferry Road L.M. Hirshblond Room Narragansett, Rhode Island Toms River, New Jersey Contact: Jason McNamee at 401.423.1943 Contact: Peter Himchak 609.748.2020
-over-
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was formed by the 15 Atlantic coastal states in 1942 for the promotion and protection of coastal fishery resources. The Commission serves as a deliberative body of the Atlantic coastal states, coordinating the conservation and management of nearshore fishery resources, including marine, shell and anadromous species.
1050 N. Highland St. – Suite 200A-N – Arlington, V.A. 22201 703.842.0740 (phone) 703.842.0741 (fax) www.asmfc.org
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources & Potomac River Fisheries Commission Environmental Control October 18, 2011; 6:30 PM September 26, 2011; 7:00 PM John T Parran Hearing room Lewes Field Facility PRFC Commission Building 901 Pilottown Road 222 Taylor St. Lewes, Delaware Colonial Beach, Virginia Contact: Jeff Tinsman at 302.739.4782 Contact: AC Carpenter at 804.224.7148
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries October 11, 2011; 6 – 9 PM October 13, 2011; 6 PM Tawes State Office Building, C1 Conference Room Dare County Administration Building, Room 168 580 Taylor Avenue 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive Annapolis, Maryland Manteo, North Carolina Contact: Lynn Fegley at 410.260.8285 Contact: Michelle Duval at 252.808.8011
Virginia Marine Resources Commission October 17, 2011; 6 PM Northumberland High School Auditorium 201 Academic Lane Heathsville, Virginia Contact: Jack Travelstead at 757.247.2248
The Draft Addendum proposes establishing a new interim fishing mortality threshold and target (based on maximum spawning potential or MSP) with the goal of increasing abundance, spawning stock biomass, and menhaden availability as a forage species.
The Draft Addendum will also initiate the scoping process (comparable to that of a Public Information Document) on the suite of management tools that could be used to implement the new fishing mortality threshold and target levels. As in a PID, it will contain preliminary discussions of biological, environmental, social, and economic information, fishery issues, and potential management options for action through an addendum.
The MSP approach, as recommended by the 2009 peer review panel, identifies the fishing mortality rate necessary to maintain a given level of stock fecundity (number of mature ova) relative to the potential maximum stock fecundity under unfished conditions. The Draft Addendum presents two options for the new interim fishing mortality threshold (status quo based on an MSP of 8% and an MSP of 15%) and four options for the interim fishing mortality target (status quo and F based on MSPs of 20, 30 and 40%). For illustration purposes, a 15% MSP would equate to a fishing mortality rate threshold required to maintain approximately 15% of virgin stock fecundity. The current MSP level is 8%.
Based on the revised 2009 Atlantic menhaden stock assessment, menhaden was not overfished but had experienced overfishing in 2008. Given the current overfishing definition, which sets the fishing mortality rate (F) target at 0.96 and the F threshold at 2.2, this is the first time overfishing has occurred since 1998. Over the time series, overfishing had occurred in 32 of the last 54 years. F in 2008 (the latest year in the assessment) is estimated at 2.28.
The Board will meet in November at the Commission’s Annual Meeting to review public comment and consider final action on the Addendum. Having gathered scoping information on management tools to implement Addendum V, the Board may also consider moving forward on a subsequent addendum to establish associated management measures. The Board’s intent is to finalize these management measures for implementation in 2013.
Fishermen and other interested groups are encouraged to provide input on the Draft Addendum by either attending public hearings or providing written comments. Copies of Draft Addendum V are available on the Commission’s website (www.asmfc.org) under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission at 703.842.0740. The public comment deadline has been extended to 5:00 PM (EST) on November 2, 2011 and should be forwarded to Toni Kerns, Senior Fishery Management Plan Coordinator for Management, 1050 N. Highland St., Suite 200 A-N, Arlington, VA 22201; 703.842.0741 (FAX) or at [email protected] (Subject line: Menhaden Draft Addendum V). PR11-35 SUMMARY OF THE 2011 FOR-HIRE
STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS
WITH
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE FOR-HIRE LICENSE STRUCTURE
REPORT TO THE
NORTH CAROLINA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
PREPARED BY DON HESSELMAN
NC DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank members of the guide, charter, head boat and dive boat industry in North Carolina for assisting in development of this proposal. Nearly 30 members attended the three stakeholder meetings and many more commented via email or in person. It is hoped this proposal addresses many of their concerns.
The author would also like to thank Marine Fisheries Commission members Anna Beckwith, Mac Currin and Edward Lee Mann for their attendance and assistance with the meetings. Various Division staff also contributed their expertise to various sections of this report, namely Doug Mumford, Chris Wilson and John Hadley. Thanks are also due to Nancy Fish for organizing the meeting schedules and administering each meeting.
i
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 History of For-Hire Licensing in NC ...... 2 Moratorium Steering Committee Recommendations ...... 3 Current License Structure ...... 5 Current Requirements ...... 9 Current Fees and Duration ...... 9 For-hire Licensing in Other States ...... 11 Coast Guard Requirements ...... 16 Drug Testing ...... 18 Catch Reporting ...... 18 Considerations of a for-hire license ...... 21 Comments from the For-Hire Industry ...... 24 Recommendations and Proposal ...... 35 Statute and Rule Changes Necessary to Implement Proposal ...... 40 Financial Costs and Benefits of the Proposal ...... 42 Summary and Approach ...... 43
iii
iv
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the comments received from charter, guide, head boat and dive boat owners and operators on the topic of the current for-hire license structure as administered by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. These comments and public meetings were based on a directive from the Marine Fisheries Commission to hold a series of three stakeholders meetings in coastal NC to receive feedback from the industry.
Three meetings were held in March 2011 in Wilmington, Morehead City and Manteo. Attendance varied from primarily inshore guides at the Wilmington meeting, to primarily offshore charter boat captains at the Manteo meeting with a mixture of all sectors at the Morehead City meeting. The meeting arrangement was based on a short introduction by DMF staff and identification of the issues followed by an open discussion period lasting approximately two hours.
Comments received from the industry members in attendance included:
• Maintain or improve professionalism in the fleet • Increase flexibility to license holders • Ensure equity in fees • Improve catch data • Minimize cost increases and complexity • Consolidate licensing and reporting as much as possible.
This report will address each of the issues brought up for discussion and provide detail on the various comments received. Recommendations for improvements and a restructuring proposal are included.
1
Introduction
History of For-Hire Licensing in NC
During the 1950s rules were established requiring vessels engaged in commercial fishing activities in North Carolina to register their vessels. Many referred to this registration requirement as a license. Each fisherman was given a sticker or decal at the time of registration that had to be displayed on their vessel at all times. Fees based on vessel length were also established. Licensing agents of the Division were established throughout the coastal region. The earliest license/vessel registration requirement did not include a provision for charter boats, guide boats, or head boats. A check-off box on the vessel registration application allowed the individual purchasing the vessel registration to classify the vessel usage as Full-time commercial or Part-time commercial only. North Carolina fisheries legislation was amended in 1976 to require charter boats and head boats to obtain vessel registrations. Many for-hire vessels participated in commercial fishing actives during certain times of the year. These for- hire operators often identified their vessels as “Full-time commercial” when purchasing their registrations. This made it difficult to enumerate and monitor changes in the For-hire fleet size.
DMF observed significant growth in the commercial fishing sector during the 1980s and development in other fishing units that did not “fit” in the current licensing/registration process. Furthermore, DMF fisheries managers needed a more encompassing licensing/registration system that would provide better and more detailed information. This would help to characterize these fisheries to determine the potential impacts of any new fishery rules or regulations as well as to monitor the growth and changes within this sector and conduct surveys.
The for-hire sector of the fishing industry in NC has undergone tremendous growth in the last 20 years (Figure 1). The number of for-hire vessels has grown from about 200 in 1990 to over 800 in 2010. The increased effort associated with an increase in the number of vessels has not occurred; however, data shows that the number of angler trips on for-hire vessels has declined since the mid 1990’s. The cause of this decline is unknown but could possibly be attributed to increase in costs from high fuel prices leading to higher trip fees to the customer and less discretionary spending available to the public.
2
350,000 All For Hire Trips 900 EEZ For Hire Trips 800 300,000 For‐Hire Vessels 700 250,000 600 200,000 500
Trips 150,000 400 Vessels 300 100,000 200 50,000 100 0 0
Figure 1. Number of for-hire vessels and angler trips in NC 1990-2010 (NCDMF data).
Moratorium Steering Committee Recommendations
In July 1994, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a moratorium on the sale of most state commercial fishing licenses. The legislation also established the Moratorium Steering Committee (MSC) to study North Carolina’s entire coastal fisheries management process and to recommend changes to improve the licensing system. Within the MSC, a License Sub- committee was established. The first group in North Carolina to examine in detail licensing the for-hire sector was the MSC License Sub-committee. The result of their efforts provided direction and language for passage of the Fisheries Reform Act (FRA) of 1997 requiring new fisheries laws with a focus on licensing.
The License Sub-committee of the Moratorium Steering Committee also made recommendations regarding the structure of a recreational fishing license, later to be termed the Coastal Recreational Fishing License (CRFL). Included in their recommendations was a provision for several “special license categories”. Among other measures, these included a consideration for a blanket license for commercial piers and the for-hire fishing sector. The License Sub-committee established and defined license units and reporting requirements as follows:
License Unit
The Coastal Recreational Fishing License shall be an individual license, except that a Coastal Recreational Group Fishing License shall be available to the owners of commercial fishing piers or charter/head/dive boats for a set fee, to cover their paying customers, but unlicensed customers. As with all other licenses under the new licensing system, the Coastal Recreational Fishing License will be generally an individual license. However, the “blanket license” 3
exception recommended will ensure that the new recreational license requirement does not duly interfere with existing businesses that depend upon use by recreational fisheries, by allowing a professional, recreational fishing business to exempt its customers from the individual licensing requirements when the blanket license holder agrees to provide the Division of Marine Fisheries with specific data concerning the number of anglers using its services. Potential blanket license holders will also have the option of not purchasing the blanket license, whereupon each fishing customer will be required to obtain an individual Coastal Recreational Fishing License.
Given the public input and after additional consideration, the License Sub-committee continued to believe that a provision for a limited blanket license was a necessary and practical part of the revised license structure.
Reporting Requirement
Fishing pier owners and charter/head/dive boat operators purchasing the blanket license in order to exempt their customers from the individual licensing requirement shall be required, on a monthly basis, to report to the Division of Marine Fisheries the number of angler trips per day provided by their professional, recreational facilities/services.
Along with the blanket license recommendation, special license fees were suggested with specific licensing definitions for these special groups. The MSC was also the first group to define the various units of the for-hire sector (Table 1). The MSC released its report in October 1996.
Table 1. License system definitions for the blanket vessel license group from the MSC.
Group Definition
A vessel engaged in recreational fishing for monetary gain, which is hired on a per-trip Charter boat basis and generally carries six or fewer passengers
A vessel engaged in recreational fishing for monetary gain, which is hired on a per-trip Head boat basis and generally carries more than 6 passengers
4
The findings and recommendations of the MSC provided language and served as the framework for development and passage of the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997. Within the MSC final report were provisions for for-hire vessel licenses and a Coastal Recreational Fishing License. Unfortunately, the political environment was not ready to allow these provisions to remain in the final legislation and it took 10 more years for these recommendations to be implemented.
Current License Structure
North Carolina currently requires for-hire operators to obtain either a free For-Hire Permit or a Blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing License that costs $250 for six or fewer passengers or $350 for more than six passengers. The permit does not cover licensing requirements for the anglers aboard the for-hire vessel so they must each have their individual CRFL. Anglers fishing aboard vessels with a Blanket CRFL do not have to purchase an individual license.
Licensing legislation needed to monitor and manage the for-hire fishery in North Carolina was dropped from the final version of the FRA. In order to establish a system to provide management tools for monitoring this fishery, the Marine Fisheries Commission utilized rule- making authority to establish a provisional for-hire fishery permit in 2003. Several years after the permit requirement was established, new laws were passed in North Carolina creating a Coastal Recreational Fishing License. During the 2003 Session, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed a CRFL requirement (G.S. 113-174 et. seq.) which became effective January 1, 2007. G.S. 113-174.3 pertains directly to the optional Blanket For-Hire License, establishes fees and removes responsibility for licensure of angling customers from the owner or operator of the vessel.
G.S. 113-174.3. For Hire Blanket CRFL.
(a) License. – A person who operates a for hire boat may purchase a For Hire Blanket CRFL issued by the Division for the for hire boat. A For Hire Blanket CRFL authorizes all individuals on the for hire boat who do not hold a license issued under this Article or Article 25A of this Chapter to engage in recreational fishing in coastal fishing waters that are not joint fishing waters. A For Hire Blanket CRFL does not authorize individuals to engage in recreational fishing in joint fishing waters or inland fishing waters. A For Hire Blanket CRFL is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. The fee for a For Hire Blanket CRFL is:
(1) Two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for a vessel that will carry six or fewer passengers.
(2) Three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) for a vessel that will carry greater than six passengers.
5
(b) Implementation. – Except as provided in this section and G.S. 113-174.2(d), each individual on board a for hire boat engaged in recreational fishing, other than crew members who do not engage in recreational fishing, must hold a license issued under this Article or Article 25A of this Chapter. An owner, operator, or crew member of a for hire boat is not responsible for the licensure of a customer fishing from the boat.
(2005-455, s. 1.5; 2006-255, s. 7; 2006-259, s. 20.5.)
The General Assembly noted that it is essential that the recreational as well as the commercial fishing sectors provide data on the use of fishery resources for the development of scientifically valid plans to manage fishery resources. In addition to the individual CRFL, current legislation allows for-hire vessels and operators to purchase a blanket license to cover their patrons; but, it is not mandatory. However, either the permit or the blanket license is currently required to operate a for-hire business.
The MFC adopted the following rules for licensing of for-hire participants. Early rules requiring the For-Hire Permit were updated after the implementation of the CRFL For-Hire Blanket License in 2007.
15A NCAC 03O .0101 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN LICENSES, ENDORSEMENTS AND COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSEL REGISTRATIONS
(a) To obtain any Marine Fisheries licenses, endorsements, commercial fishing vessel registrations except Recreational Fishing Tournament Licenses to Sell Fish and Land or Sell Licenses, the following information is required for the application by the licensee, a responsible party or person holding a power of attorney:
(13) In addition, for the For-hire Blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing License, the applicant shall provide:
(A) A valid certification from the United States Coast Guard (USCG) that allows carrying six or fewer passengers or a certification from the USCG that allows carrying more than six passengers; and
(B) Valid documentation papers or current motor boat registration or copies thereof for the vessel engaged as for- hire. If an application for transfer of documentation is pending, a copy of the pending application and a notarized bill of sale may be submitted.
6
15A NCAC 03O .0112 FOR-HIRE COASTAL RECREATIONAL FISHING
(a) It is unlawful to operate a For-hire Vessel unless the vessel operator possesses either the For-hire Blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing License (CRFL) for the vessel or a Division of Marine Fisheries For-hire Fishing Permit for the vessel as provided in 15A NCAC 03O .0503(k).
(b) It is unlawful for a For-hire Vessel operator to operate under the For-hire Blanket CRFL without: (1) Holding the USCG certification required in 15A NCAC 03O .0101(a) (13), (2) Having the For-hire Blanket CRFL for the vessel or copy thereof in possession and ready at hand for inspection, and (3) Having current picture identification in possession and ready at hand for inspection.
(c) It is unlawful for the holder of the For-hire Blanket CRFL to fail to participate in and provide accurate information as requested by the Division for biological sampling and survey programs.
(d) It is unlawful to fail to display a current For-hire Blanket CRFL decal mounted on an exterior surface of the vessel so as to be visible when viewed from the port side while engaged in for-hire recreational fishing.
15A NCAC 03O .0503 PERMIT CONDITIONS; SPECIFIC
(k) For-hire Fishing Permit:
(1) It is unlawful to operate a For-hire Vessel unless the vessel operator possesses either the For-hire Blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing License (CRFL) for the vessel as provided in 15A NCAC 03O .0112 or a Division of Marine Fisheries For-hire Fishing Permit for the vessel.
(2) It is unlawful for a For-hire vessel operator to operate under the For-hire Fishing Permit without:
(A) Holding the USCG certification required in 15A NCAC 03O .0501(g)(1);
(B) Having the For-hire Fishing Permit for the vessel or copy thereof in possession and ready at hand for inspection;
(C) Having current picture identification in possession and ready at hand for inspection.
7
(3) It is unlawful for the permittee to fail to notify the Division within five days of any changes to information provided on the permit.
(4) It is unlawful to fail to display a current For-hire Fishing Permit decal mounted on an exterior surface of the vessel so as to be visible when viewed from the port side while engaged in for-hire recreational fishing.
(5) The For-hire Fishing Permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance.
The CRFL established provisions for a for-hire blanket license (see G.S. 113-174.3 above). The blanket license allows DMF to obtain contact information from the operator of the licensed vessel. The free for-hire permit also collects operator contact information for the vessel. Only in the case where the owner is also the vessel operator do we collect owner contact information.
The For-Hire Survey was adopted in 2003 by state and federal partners of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) as the official method for collecting recreational catch and effort data from the for-hire fleet. For-hire vessels are sampled weekly from a coast wide vessel directory to report trip information for the previous week's fishing activity; catch information is obtained through a dockside/at-sea field survey. This required North Carolina to establish and maintain a complete list of for-hire vessels. The ability to contact the captain of the vessel makes fishing activity data much easier to collect. In addition, the conditions of the permit may be modified by the MFC while changes to the Blanket License would require legislative action which is much more complicated, expensive and unpredictable. Given the cost of the blanket license many individuals chose to obtain a free For-Hire Permit instead (Table 2). The free permit is also commonly obtained by charter captains who own and use more than one vessel. Generally, captains obtain one blanket for their primary vessel and free permits for their second or even third vessels.
Table 2. Number of for-hire blanket licenses sold 1984 through 2010 and for-hire permits issued since 2003. Data from 1984 through 1998 came from the historical DMF vessel registration requirements while from 1999 to 2002 many sources were used to determine fleet size including vessel registrations and personal observations.
Year Blanket CRFL For-hire Permit Vessel Registrations and Other Total 1984 113 113 1985 99 99 1986 110 110 1987 121 121
8
Year Blanket CRFL For-hire Permit Vessel Registrations and Other Total 1988 135 135 1989 181 181 1990 160 160 1991 198 198 1992 187 187 1993 223 223 1994 254 254 1995 222 222 1996 197 197 1997 189 189 1998 229 229 1999 251 251 2001 341 341 2002 350 350 2003 NA 629 629 2004 NA 677 677 2005 NA 705 705 2006 NA 765 765 2007 670 161 831 2008 658 151 809 2009 629 153 782 2010 626 176 802
Current Requirements
As established in 15A NCAC 03O. 0101 (a)(13), both the blanket and the for-hire permit require the applicant to provide a valid certification from the United States Coast Guard (i.e. Captains license) that allows carrying passengers for-hire. In addition, the applicant must provide valid vessel documentation papers or current state vessel registration. The only other requirements to obtain a license or permit are to have a valid picture ID and to participate in DMF statistical surveys.
Current Fees and Duration
The For-Hire Permit implemented in 2004 is free. The CRFL For-Hire Blanket License implemented in 2007 costs $250 for less than six passengers and $350 for more than six passengers. Both the permit and the blanket license fees are the same for residents and nonresidents.
9
Both the permit and the blanket license are effective for one year from the date of issuance or purchase. This differs from all other DMF commercial licenses and permits which are effective on a fiscal year basis July 1 through June 30 of each year. To assist the for-hire industry with renewals, DMF sends out renewal reminders to each participant 30 days prior to expiration.
The license duration was established by the legislature assumedly to prevent charter captains, who may also have commercial licenses, from having to pay out large sums at the beginning of each fiscal year. This effectively spreads out their license fee obligations.
Fees from the sale of CRFL For-Hire Blanket Licenses are deposited in the Marine Resources Fund where revenue from the sale of all CRFL licenses, excluding lifetime and unified licenses, are deposited. Revenue from the sale of CRFL For-Hire Blanket Licenses is about $175,000 each year compared to revenue from the sale of other CRFL’s of around $4M. These funds are spent according to the CRFL Strategic Plan for the enjoyment and enhancement of the marine resources in NC.
10
For-hire Licensing in Other States
Each state structures its for-hire license program differently (Table 3). Some states have a separate individual and vessel license while some states like NC only license the vessel. It makes comparing our license program or determining reciprocal fees with other states very difficult. However, it is instructive to review how other states structure their for-hire licenses to get ideas for what would make for effective and efficient improvements in NC.
Table 3. For-hire license descriptions, fees, and miscellaneous comments, Atlantic and Gulf states, current as of January 2011.
Miscellaneous Comments State License Description Fee (Reporting Requirements)
Commercial Party Boat <=6 Alabama $201.00 passengers Same fees apply to vessels from other Gulf States Commercial Party Boat 7- $301.00 operating in Alabama. 25passengers Federal permit required for Commercial Party Boat >25 head boats (SRHS Logbook). $501.00 passengers Federal permit required to Party and Charter Fishing harvest selected species Connecticut $315.00 Vessel Registration (VTR Logbook).
Delaware Resident Head Boat $300.00
Non Resident Head Boat $600.00
Resident Charter Boat $150.00 Federal permit required to Non Resident Charter Boat $300.00 harvest selected species Guide License-Resident $100.00 (VTR Logbook).
Guide License-Non Resident $300.00
Free Head Boat/Fishing Boat Free Permit
11
Miscellaneous Comments State License Description Fee (Reporting Requirements)
Florida Charter Captain <=4 customers $201.50 These are blanket licenses. To purchase a charter boat Charter Captain <=10 $401.50 license the vessel must be customers registered as a commercial vessel. Must have a captains Charter Captain >=11 $801.50 license. Additional permits customers may be required to operate in Charter Boat <=4 customers $201.50 parks or refuges. Some counties may require Charter Boat <=6 customers $401.50 occupational license. Fish tags required for selected Charter Boat <=10 customers $401.50 species. Federal permit required for head boats (SRHS Logbook). Charter Boat >=11 customers $801.50
Georgia Resident Saltwater Fishing $25.00 Guide Customer license is a blanket Non-Resident Saltwater Fishing $50.00 license. State logbook for Guide recording names of clients Resident customer license <=6 $150.00 and other information as needed. Federal permit Resident customer license required for head boats $400.00 (SRHS Logbook). unlimited Non-Resident customer license $400.00 unlimited
12
Miscellaneous Comments State License Description Fee (Reporting Requirements)
Charter Boat Fishing Guide, Louisiana $250.00 resident, <=6 passengers
Charter Boat Fishing Guide, $1000.00 nonresident,<=6 passengers Charter Boat Fishing Guide, $500.00 Provisions for state reporting resident, >6 passengers requirements. Federal permit required for head boats Charter Boat Fishing Guide, $2,000.00 (SRHS Logbook). non resident, >6 passengers Mothership license <=6 skiffs $2,000.00
Mothership license>6 skiffs $2,000.00
Charter Skiff License $50.00
U.S. Coast Guard License required and the vessel must have a U.S. Coast Guard Maine Coastal Operator License $51.00 Vessel Certificate. Federal permit required to harvest selected species (VTR Logbook).
New applicants are required to take an exam and pay $100 onetime fee. Some fee reductions for age 68 ($56) or age 69 ($29). First aid is required. This is a long Guide License, 3yr resident $81.00 standing license and was primarily a license utilized by freshwater guides. Monthly reporting required.
Federal permit required to harvest selected species (VTR Logbook).
13
Miscellaneous Comments State License Description Fee (Reporting Requirements)
Comm Tidal Fishing Guide, Limited entry (562), no limit Maryland $50.00 Resident on no. of customers, USCG license required. CPR and Comm Tidal Fishing Guide, $100.00 First Aid required. Must also Non Resident have valid angler license but may not possess fish for $50 per Master Fishing Guide personal use while guiding. vessel Limited Guide licenses (no Limited Fishing Guide, limited entry) are for foot and $50.00 Resident paddle fishing only and have some other restrictions. I think the Master Guide license allows him/her to hire other guides to run his/her boat. Monthly reporting Limited Fishing Guide, Non $100.00 required. Striped Trophy Resident Fish tagging required. Federal permit required to harvest selected species (VTR Logbook).
Massachusetts Charter Boat Permit <=6 $125.00 Must post size and creel passengers, Resident limits on vessel and give verbal notice to passengers. Charter Boat Permit <=6 Charter boats must have at passengers, Non Resident $625.00 least one measuring device, head boats must have at Head Boat Permit >6 least five measuring devices. passengers, Resident $175.00 Provisions for state reporting requirements. Federal permit required to harvest Head Boat Permit >6 selected species (VTR passengers, Non Resident $875.00 Logbook).
Mississippi Charter Boat $200.00 Blanket license. Approved drug testing program and proof of liability insurance. Provisions for state reporting requirements. Federal permit required for head boats (SRHS Logbook).
14
State License Description Fee Miscellaneous Comments
(Reporting Requirements)
New York Party and Charter Boat $250.00 Both boat and blanket licenses License required operating in coastal or federal waters. First Aid, CPR, Recreational Marine $400.00 Water Safety classes and Fishing License Physicians statement required. (Blanket) Exam required. Federal permit required to harvest selected Guide License $100.00 species (VTR Logbook). +
$20/category
for 5 years
North Carolina For-hire Permit Free USCG license required for all for- hire and blanket permits. Federal For-hire Blanket <=6 permit required to harvest passengers $250.00 selected species. Federal permit required for head boats (SRHS For-hire Blanket >6 Logbook). Provisions for state passengers $350.00 reporting requirements.
Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat $25.00 Random drug testing program License enrollment required. Federal permit required to harvest selected species (VTR Logbook).
South Carolina Charter vessel license $150.00 State Charter Logbook see <=6 passengers Appendix 25 (reciprocal agreement with SRHS) Charter vessel license $250.00 maintaining a log of the number 7-49 passengers of persons carried each trip, number of hours fishing, number Charter vessel license $350.00 of fish by species by day and >50 passengers other information as deemed necessary. US Coast Guard license required.
15
State License Description Fee Miscellaneous Comments
(Reporting Requirements)
Virginia Class A Fishing Guide $100.00 When the same applicant for a License-resident boat license has a guide license, the fee for the boat license is Class A Fishing Guide $200.00 reduced by the cost of the guide License-Non resident license. Federal permit required to harvest selected species (VTR Class B Fishing Guide $100.00 Logbook). Provisions for state License-resident reporting requirements. Class B Fishing Guide $200.00 License-Non resident
Head Boat/Charter Boat <=6 $190.00 passengers, resident
Head Boat/Charter Boat <=6 $380.00 passengers, Non resident
Head Boat/Charter Boat >6 $190 passengers, resident + $5 pp
Head Boat/Charter Boat >6 $380 passengers, Non resident + $5 pp
Texas Fishing Guide License- $210.00 USCG license required. Paddle Resident craft guide licenses may also require additional certifications. Federal permit required for head Fishing Guide License-Non $1,050.00 boats (SRHS Logbook). Resident
USCG Requirements
In an effort to promote and ensure the safety of charter vessel passengers, the U. S. Coast Guard enforces the regulations applicable to the for-hire industry as Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPV) for vessels carrying six or fewer passengers. These regulations include the equipment and operational requirements of 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subchapter C, the chemical testing requirements found in 46 CFR 16, the licensing requirements found in 16
46 CFR 15, and other pollution prevention requirements found in 33 CFR 151 and 159. The USCG defines the carrying of passengers for-hire as: the carriage of any person or persons by a vessel for a valuable consideration whether directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, charterer, operator, agent or any other person interested in the vessel.
Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPV) makes up the vast majority of for-hire vessels in NC. The USCG requires all operators of UPV which includes charter, guide and dive boats, carrying less than six passengers to be properly licensed as stipulated in 46 CFR 15:
§ 15.605 Licensed operators for uninspected passenger vessels.
Each uninspected passenger vessel must be under the direction and control of an individual licensed by the Coast Guard as follows:
(a) Every self-propelled, uninspected vessel as defined by 46 U.S.C. 2101(42)(B), carrying not more than six passengers, must be under the direction and control of an individual holding a license as operator.
(b) Every uninspected passenger vessel of 100 gross tons or more, as defined by 46 U.S.C. 2101(42)(A), must be under the direction and control of a licensed master, pilot, or mate as appropriate.
Vessels carrying more than six passengers are required to be inspected annually by the USCG and operated by a licensed captain carrying the appropriate license. The primary difference in operators of uninspected versus inspected vessels is in experience and examination requirements.
Generally, operations that carry six or fewer passengers for-hire are referred to as 6-Pack operations. These are your typical charter boat fishing guide or tour boat operations that may use a state registered boat. UPV operations traveling on navigable waters of the United States under U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction are not required to be inspected by the Coast Guard. They must comply with minimal federal standards for safety, navigation, pollution prevention and the vessel operator must hold an Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license issued by the Coast Guard.
The USCG offers voluntary dockside examinations that are conducted by a qualified Coast Guard inspector, generally a member of the USCG Auxiliary. The vessel operator requests this examination at a time and place convenient for the operator. This examination is designed to bring attention to the elements of the program and vessel requirements and is, therefore, not punitive. Discrepancies (if any) are brought to the attention of the operator. Violations of regulations are not cited.
Upon successful completion of an examination, a decal sticker is issued that can be displayed on the vessel. The decal represents that the vessel meets the applicable requirements for
17
uninspected passenger vessels. Accordingly, the USCG intends for other law enforcement authorities to consider the presence of such an inspection decal if requesting a vessel to stop for a boarding.
In NC, once an inspection is completed, the specifics of the vessel inspection are submitted to the USCG Safety Examination office in Atlantic Beach, NC. This office maintains a database of inspections; however, it has been reported that this database is insufficient to provide a list to DMF as proof of examination.
Drug Testing
The USCG requirements for drug and alcohol testing are contained in regulations in Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 4 and 16. The regulations in 46 CFR Parts 4 and 16 were developed and first promulgated in 1988 as part of the Department of Transportation (DOT) program to address drug and alcohol use in the U.S. transportation system. The regulations developed by the Coast Guard set the minimum requirements for testing in the marine industry. Testing conducted under these regulations is limited to five dangerous drugs (marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine (PCP)) and alcohol. All drug samples collected as part of these regulations are urine samples and must be analyzed at Health and Human Services (HHS) certified labs in accordance with DOT procedures contained in 49 CFR 40. A marine employer may conduct DOT tests more often than required. However, if an employer wishes to test for additional drugs or use a different cutoff level, the employer must keep such a program separate from the DOT required testing program, including separate sample collections.
A basic requirement for all USCG operator or master licenses is to be a member of a drug consortium. Licensees are subject to random drug testing. Many of the meeting attendees had been randomly selected for testing indicating that this is an effective program.
Catch Reporting
Catch reporting is integral to any discussion of license structure. Since this proposal will address logbook reporting, it was felt necessary to provide some background on how catch reporting from the for-hire sector is implemented in NC and along the southeast coast.
18
In NC, catch and discard data from the for-hire industry are obtained by the For-Hire Survey (FHS). The FHS was developed to improve the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). This program is funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) but conducted by Division employees. A series of pilot studies to obtain fishing effort information directly from charter boat operators was first conducted in North Carolina and Maine, then throughout the Gulf of Mexico sampling region (Louisiana - West Florida). After several years of testing, the FHS was implemented as the “official” methodology for obtaining Gulf of Mexico charter boat effort in January 2000. This FHS design was further tested against a logbook program and the Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) in South Carolina in 2000 that included head boats as well as charter boats. The FHS was implemented for all Atlantic Coast states from Maine through Georgia in January 2005. It overlaps other charter boat and head boat monitoring programs including the Northeast (Maine-Virginia) Vessel Trip Reporting Program (VTR), the Southeast Regional Headboat Survey (SERHS), various state logbook programs, and the ongoing CHTS.
The sampling unit for the FHS is the individual for-hire vessel rather than the household as in the CHTS. The sample frame (list of vessels) is constructed from a comprehensive directory of all for-hire vessels from Maine through Louisiana. The vessel directory consists of a vessel identifier (vessel name or registration number), name, address and telephone number of an identified vessel representative (captain or owner), as well as a variety of ancillary information, such as eligibility, activity, and cooperation status. Data collection is conducted on a weekly basis during each sample period. The weekly dialing is completed during the week following the specified week of fishing activity. Ten percent of the NC for-hire fleet is randomly selected for surveying each week.
Respondents are asked to report vessel fishing activity for the prior week and then asked to profile each for-hire fishing trip. Information obtained for each trip includes area fished, number of anglers who fished, hours of actual fishing activity, method of fishing, and target species, if any. Advance notice of selection is mailed to each selected vessel representative. Alternative reporting tools are provided for the Atlantic Coast respondents, including an interactive website, a fax number and a phone contact for respondent-initiated interviewing. Effort estimates are produced from the average number of angler-trips per vessel-type per week and the number of vessels per vessel-type in the sampling frame. Adjustment factors for active for-hire fishing boats that are not in the sample frame (i.e., new to fleet, no contact information known, etc.) are produced from field intercept survey questions and applied to the effort estimate.
Actual catch data and biological sampling are obtained via the Access-Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS). The APAIS is conducted at public marine fishing access points (i.e., boat ramps, piers, beaches, jettys, bridges, marinas, etc.) to collect individual catch data, including species identification, total number of each species, length and weight measurements of individual fish, as well as some angler-specific information about the fishing trip and the anglers fishing behavior. The interviews are conducted in person by trained field staff. Sites and dates are selected by a proportional random selection process such that those sites that have the 19
most activity will be sampled most often. The sampling schedule is independently determined by fishing mode (i.e., shore anglers, charter boat anglers, or private or rental boat anglers) and target sample sizes are based on statistical power and available funds. From these angler- interviews a catch estimate per trip can be made for each type of fish encountered, either observed or reported.
The results from the telephone survey (total trips) are combined with the angler interviews (catch per trip) to produce overall estimates of catch and angler participation.
Head boats in NC (n=14) also participate in the NMFS Southeast Regional Headboat Survey. The Southeast Headboat Survey program has been in place since the late 1960’s providing a substantial time series for consideration by scientists and analysts when examining catch trends, the impact of regulations, changes in age class distribution, and other management criteria. It is a NMFS survey that is conducted from North Carolina through the Gulf Coast States. It is the official head boat survey providing the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast Councils with data used to conduct assessments of the species within in the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast Fishery Management Councils. Logbook reporting requirements are administered and compliance assessed with a permit system.
Head boats are required to maintain a log of the number of persons carried each day, number of hours engaged in fishing, number of fish by species caught each day and other information considered necessary by NMFS. A person licensed to operate a charter fishing vessel that fails to maintain or submit a log will not be issued another permit until the reporting requirements are met.
Approximately 165 head boats are monitored throughout the southeast, and in 1996, biological samples were collected from 37,435 fishes of 124 species. The compliance data (i.e., the percent of head boats providing trip logs) indicates that during the time period 2004-2006 the rate of compliance in Southeast Florida never reached 10%. This low rate of compliance raises a question of the accuracy and the usefulness of this information. If a for-hire logbook program was established in North Carolina, enforcement and validation programs must be developed to ensure a suitable level of compliance was maintained. A problem also exists through duplication with other surveying programs. The Southeast Headboat Logbook program is conducted at the same time the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Program (MRFSS) and FJHS is being conducted. This duplication of reporting places an undue burden on the head boat operators and should be eliminated.
The NOAA Northeast Center Vessel Trip Reporting Program (VTR) has required mandatory logbook reporting since 1994 for permitted vessels. This program serves as the mechanism for
20
NOAA’s Northeast Management Center to establish new rules and address new management strategies.
The logbook requires all vessels that land federally permitted species in the EEZ (>3 miles offshore) to report trip activities including;
1) time and date sailed and returned, 2) number of anglers per trip, 3) number of crew per trip, 4) statistical area fished, and 5) number of fish kept and discarded by species.
The data provided from the VTR serves as the foundation for most of the new fishery rules and regulations of the region. The program requirements differ little between commercial and for- hire effort.
The VTR is conducted at the same time as the For-Hire Survey (FHS) is being conducted in NC. This duplication of reporting places an undue burden on for-hire operators and should be eliminated.
In NC, MRIP personnel frequently sample aboard head boats as paid passengers to observe catch and discard rates as well as to obtain biological parameters such as weight and length. Each sampler randomly selects a group of four or more anglers and records time of fishing, catch and discard rates while obtaining biological parameters for all fish. During 2010, eighty- three at-sea head boat sampling trips yielded 1,357 individual angler interviews. A total of 4,797 harvested fish and 8,150 released fish representing sixty-one species were observed in 2010 during at-sea head boat sampling. At-sea head boat observer data has been utilized as both an indices and a means to evaluate logbook data in Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) workshops for black seabass, red snapper and vermilion snapper.
Considerations of a For-hire License
The ability to recognize changes in fishing effort and angler participation for any group is essential to all fishery management obligations. The list of all for-hire fishery members obtained from the blanket license and for-hire permit satisfies current survey needs related to obtaining estimates of effort and allows DMF to monitor changes in effort over time. Our current license and permit system for the for-hire fishery also supplies the necessary information to qualify for
21
an exemption to the National Angler Registry by providing NOAA with up-to-date lists of for-hire vessels and contact information. At a minimum, the information required for this exemption is name and contact information.
The commercial license model in NC includes an individual license- the Standard Commercial Fishing License (SCFL) and a vessel license- the Commercial Fishing Vessel Registration (CFVR). This is an especially useful model from an analytical standpoint. It allows DMF to count the number of fishery participants and assess demographics of those participants. The vessel license allows DMF to count the number of vessels in a fishery, their characteristics and amount of effort expended in a fishery. This would be a very useful model for the for-hire industry as well which currently is only based on a vessel license.
One characteristic of our current for-hire blanket license is the inability to transfer it to another vessel. This reduces industry flexibility in the event of a mechanical breakdown of the primary vessel or any other need to use a different vessel. The commercial license model allows any licensed individual to operate any commercially registered vessel. Vessel registrations are relatively low cost and additional vessels are easily registered. For a licensed captain to obtain a for-hire blanket license for an additional vessel, it will cost either $250 or $350, depending on the number of passengers. For an 18-38’ vessel, this is nearly ten times the cost of a CFVR. To ensure equity in fees and provide increased flexibility to the for-hire industry, a provision for license transfers or low cost vessel registrations should be considered.
Alternatively, the vessel specific license model works very well for the charter boat and head boat fleet wherein the owner/operator generally owns and licenses only one vessel. However, because a USCG operators license is required to obtain the license, the captain is often the individual who obtains the license. This can and has led to owners having to replace the license, for an additional fee, for their vessel if the captain separates. Most charter and head boat vessel owners like this system though as it allows them flexibility in the event they need to hire another captain to run their vessel for a day.
NC is the only state that has a free for-hire permit or license. DMF does not have the authority to charge for a permit unless specifically authorized by statute which we did not have for a for- hire permit. The CRFL legislation enacted the blanket for-hire license but made it voluntary as a service to their customers. DMF rules required either the permit or the license be obtained to run a for-hire operation. It takes staff and resources to manage fishery resources and administrative costs to issue permits. For these reasons, it would not be advisable to continue with the current free permit or consider new free permits.
The cost of a for-hire license should be equitable within the fleet taking into consideration the various types of operations. For instance, operations with only one vessel are only required to 22
obtain one blanket license while those with multiple vessels often obtain more than one blanket. So, for a 70ft sport fishing vessel, the licensing cost is $250. However, for an inshore operation with 18ft and 26ft vessel, the cost for two blankets licenses would be $500. This possible inequity should be considered when restructuring the for-hire license system.
There are also licensing considerations for dive boats that carry divers who sometimes spearfish. Blanket CRFL’s are available to these operations but for the most part, the intent is to go diving, not fishing. Some consideration should be made to developing a low cost “non- blanket” for-hire license that would legalize these operations. Under this scenario, each diver who intends to spearfish would be required to obtain his/her own license.
The difference between resident and nonresident costs should also be considered. Currently, nonresidents pay the exact same fees as residents and the free permit is also free to nonresidents. A review of the state by state license structure (Table 3) indicates that about half of the states require higher nonresident fees than other states. Maryland has a limited entry program for guide licenses which effectively excludes nonresidents. Almost all the states with higher nonresident fees have set fees for all nonresidents and are not based on reciprocal costs. Adversely, nonresident commercial license fees in NC are based on reciprocal rates charged by other states. In neither case is it a simple matter to determine reciprocal fees since structures differ and comparing apples to apples is difficult. As stated before, fee schedules are established in legislation so it’s up to the legislature to determine if nonresident fees should be higher and if so, how much higher and whether or not reciprocal fees should be established instead of set fees.
23
Comments from the For-Hire Industry
Seven issues were identified for discussion at the for-hire stakeholders meetings although other separate and ancillary issues were also brought up. These seven issues were:
• professionalism, • individual versus vessel licenses, • requiring commercial liability insurance, • requiring USCG vessel inspections, • license fees including the free for-hire permit and nonresident fees, • requiring additional certifications such as CPR, first aid, drug tests, physicals etc. • catch reporting using logbooks.
Comments on these issues were received by email and telephone, both prior to and after each meeting. Digital audio recordings of each meeting were taken and reviewed to ensure no meaningful comments were excluded. As with all proposed regulatory changes, some industry members supported a change, some did not. Some supported more restrictive measures to minimize competition and some felt that government should not intrude any further into the business. The following is a synopsis of the comments received by phone or in writing:
Professionalism
“Anything that helps keep up the professionalism for the NC charter fleet is a good thing”
“I follow the rules and would like to see everyone in the charter fishing industry be held to the same standard. At this moment there is an epidemic of charter boats that do not adhere to the federal or state laws. This needs to be addressed.”
“I think it is important that there is some consistency among the holders of these licenses and permit to provide the professionalism that our clients expect and to enhance the recreational charter business in NC.”
24
“It is difficult for professional guides that are currently incurring the extra expenses that we have discussed to be competitive with guides that meet the bare minimum.”
“I think that nothing should change with the current program other than you should have to prove that at least half your income comes from for-hire guiding.”
Individual versus vessel licenses
“If you have a for-hire permit, you should be required to have the blanket license as well”
“I believe there should be a fee, a new guides permit or a combination including the CRFL and guides permit so we don’t have to keep up with more paperwork”
“No, We don’t need anything new at all”
“Blanket/Guide license - How about combining these two and meeting half way $150 to cover the captain and the vessel he is running.”
“There should be no free for-hire license. If you want to charter fish for a living, then pay the fee.”
“I would also support your idea of a guide card – I’d much rather have something like that other than a 8x11’ piece of paper that I have to have to show that my blanket (or the free “for-hire” permit on my flats boat) is valid. If it was absorbed in similar cost - great idea.”
“Why start something new when you already have something in place, seems like it would be cheaper.”
“I do not believe we should require every guide to hold a blanket license due to the cost but should continue with either a for-hire license or guide permit. Currently, I am required to buy a
25
guide license from NC Wildlife to out charters on the Roanoke River. The fee is $10/yr. I think this would be acceptable to most Guides.”
“I think that we already have to buy a blanket license so why create another license to stick us with another $300-400 to pay?”
“I think that all for-hire captains should be required to have a blanket CRFL.”
“I think all guides should be licensed upon completion of the annual physical, first-aid/CPR certification and with proof of liability insurance. I think that the cost should be minimal say $25 or $50 annually.”
“I have two boats that I put a blanket license on. It costs me $500 a year to do so at the moment. I hold a NC commercial fishing license. I can add additional boats to the commercial license at a fraction of the cost. The NCDMF need to handle the blanket license in the same way it does the commercial.”
“I am not in favor of the state requiring vessels to obtain the blanket CRFL, that is a choice that should be left to the operator.”
“The blanket should be mandatory.”
Requiring commercial liability insurance
“They (NPS/OIFC) also require a small yearly physical exam and proof of insurance”
“I believe the state should require mandatory liability insurance”
“Absolutely not! The state should not get involved, the state has NO idea on [what] it takes to run a business like this!”
26
“I feel that the state should require some type of liability insurance for charter and fishing guides.”
“The insurance requirement is too loose. Some people pay insurance month to month. They could get insured, and the blanket license, then stop payment on insurance.”
“I think liability insurance is a good idea as many weekend charter guys probably have no insurance and when they get someone hurt the folks who make their living doing this are the ones who will suffer higher rates because of them.”
“It’s good to have, should it be required, No. If we do this the insurance companies will increase rates because they can and will take advantage of us and use for profitability. We all know how much Insurance companies make, their raking in the dough…”
“I am required to carry $1 million of liability insurance to be an Orvis Endorsed Guide. I wonder if the State has any exposure if guides they license do not carry liability insurance if an accident occurred. To be incorporated and carry liability insurance is just good business but expensive.”
“I think the State should require proof of a blanket liability insurance policy to cover all persons on board including the for-hire captain and clients.”
“I do not know how insurance is structured for offshore boats, but I offer this for small, inshore operators. With regards to insurance, as stated in the document, adding commercial liability to regular recreational insurance is nominal. Perhaps a 25-30% increase in premiums. However, once you go to “unlimited” (or full time charter insurance) the jump is going to be 300%+ or so. For my 23’ Parker the rate goes from $350-400 rec to approx $500 “for under 25 trips.” But, since I am a full time guide, it jumps to $1200-1600/yr. I currently pay $2,000/yr for my center console and a flats boat (which includes a healthy break for being the sole operator of both boats). I am also keeping a high deductible to keep insurance costs down, and I have not had a single claim in 9yrs of operating as full-time guide. There are not many insurance companies offering charter boat insurance, and I have shopped around extensively. Since I buy the unlimited insurance – I don’t have a bone to pick either way and welcome the requirement. It will help to professionalize the industry, but if the desire is to limit entry to those who are serious about the business I do not think it will have much of an impact at all if the requirement is “any type” of commercial liability.”
“I have no problem with the state requiring liability insurance…”
27
“No where in the USA is insurance mandatory YET. Liability is smart for guides and all I know carry it but don’t tell me I have to.”
“If marine insurance should be mandatory for one group, then all licensed boat users should be require to carry insurance, like drivers. So yes, if commercially licensed vessels are also required.”
“I think the insurance requirement is a good idea, just wonder how it will be enforced and checked by NCDMF”
Requiring USCG vessel inspections
“…this is up to the Coast Guard, not the state! The process is already in place.”
“The only way to make sure the state is issuing blanket license to captains who are credible is to require to see a Coast Guard OUPV inspection certificate. …This is already required by the feds but not a requirement of the state”.
“The guide is required to meet USCG regulations. There are Coast Guard auxiliary personnel that could make sure the regulations are met and it would not cost the guide any money. A sticker could then be displayed to show that the requirements have been met. DMF could help by providing the name of the auxiliary personnel.”
“I think all for-hire vessels should have an annual inspection. This relates to the liability insurance issues as well.
“Part of our requirements (with the OIFC) is to have a USCG vessel inspection every two years”
“Then would this require a different USCG license? Current OUPV does not require our vessels to be inspected and if that changes then should our current USCG licenses requirements”?
28
“I believe that for-hire inspections should be mandatory. Used to have mandatory uninspected coast guard inspections before they did away with them for what reason I don’t know.”
“The guide is required to meet USCG regulations. There are coast guard auxiliary personnel that could make sure that the regulations are met and it would not cost the guide any money. A sticker could then be displayed to show that the requirements have been met. DMF could help by providing the name of the auxiliary personnel.”
‘I believe that the USCG OUPV inspection should be mandatory before you can buy a for-hire permit. Make sure that a Drug Testing program is in place and in compliance.”
License fees including the free for-hire permit and nonresident fees
“If the state requires creates a new guide license, it should cost the same for both instate and out of state captains or a reciprocal amount. Several NC captains operate in Maryland in the spring and Virginia in the winter.”
“Whatever the price comes to, the out-of-state should be more than resident for-hire license. Resident for-hire licenses should be somewhere around the cost of the CRFL Blanket and the cost of a commercial license per foot, same as commercial for vessels.”
“Out of state should be just as the commercial license deal is with other states.”
“For what we pay for a blanket and/or a commercial license we should be covered to fish wherever in NC saltwater, ie. not have to also purchase an angler license”.
“Delete the free for-hire permit. Nonresident should be same for blanket or reciprocal”
“I would like to see the costs cut, not raised. Just like hunting or fishing or anything else. Out of state should be a little more but how much I don’t know. I pay about $25 to hunt in NC and $275 in West Virginia which is kind of extreme but it should be more.”
29
“I do not think any one out of NC should be given a permit. As a commercial fisherman I am being told all the time about how we have a shortage of one kind of fish or another.”
“I think the cost should be determined by looking at the maximum number of people the boat has been rated for by the USCG and multiplying that number by the cost of an individual license. I think that the cost should be the average between the NC resident cost and the out of state license cost.”
“There should be no fee for-hire license. If you want to charter fish for a living, then pay the fee.”
“I do not think we should require every guide to hold a blanket license due to the cost but should continue with either a For-hire license or a guide permit. Currently, I am required to buy a guide license from N.C. Wildlife to take out charters on the Roanoke River. The fee is $10 per year. I think this would be acceptable to most guides.”
“On this topic I feel that the state should charge for the (free) for-hire (guide) permit but still keep the blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing License.”
“If the “new” guide license covers the blanket fishing license like it is now, I have no problem with the prices now of $250 a year for residents but if not a NC resident I feel it should be double. IF the new guide license does not cover the rec blanket license then maybe $50 for residents and $100 for non-residents sounds fair.”
“I personally spend over $500 annually to guide and operate my bait shop. The $250 blanket is of no value when numbers of trips are being greatly reduced due to MFC decisions. I bought last year and lost money – clients won’t sweat over $10 but will over not being able to keep fish.”
“As far as the for-hire license – until a more reasonable blanket license is instated, I would say keep it. Why should I have to buy two blanket licenses as the sole-operator of two boats? I am not taking more folks on the water than a guy with a slightly bigger boat? In fact, with my 2.5 person avg per day, I am willing to bet I take less folks out than the avg. waterfront boat. Perhaps a formula, taking into both the size and maximum avg. occupancy, could be developed
30
for said license. I get an insurance break for being the sole-operator of a 2nd boat – why not a discount for a 2nd blanket license? (BTW - The idea of a P-number type formula is excellent).”
“The free permit should remain. As long as the Captain submits his credentials and he opts to have his clients purchase licenses, then he/she should not have to carry or pay for additional licensing. This can also be a factor for those guides who use a boat for a specialty fishing period and do not make enough money off of that charter to justify an additional $250. I view the blanket license as a courtesy to my clients. I would remind the MFC that as guides we are unable to provide a inland blanket license, therefore there is precedence for client self licensing in the state already.”
“Better yet, were does my $250 annual license fee go and what does it get spent on? Who has control over that money? How much money is collected annually by the state for for- hire licenses and how many do they issue?”
“The cost difference between a 6pack and more than 6pack license needs to be more than $100.”
Requiring additional certifications such as CPR, first aid, drug tests, physicals etc.
“We are required to be in a random drug testing program (by the NPS) which I believe is also required by the USCG.”
“I am in the process of renewing my Captain’s license. Drug testing, physical, hearing, vision, medications as well as days at sea are all required every five years. As long as a captain’s license remains a requirement to obtain a For-Hire or guide license, I think it would be a duplication if the state required the same. First aid and CPR is one of my requirements and protects the guide and the client. I would recommend that the state work with the Red Cross or a state agency to provide an opportunity for guides to take the courses free of charge and then make it a requirement. We must be careful not to add too many requirements and fees that the guide pays since there are so many expenses in the guide business.”
“For-hire captains already have to pass drug tests, physicals, first aid and CPR to have a Captains license. No need to do it twice.”
31
“It’s not the states job to do this! The captains are already required to take physicals for license renewals and have taken at least once first aid and CPR and most marinas require that charter crews do to cover the marinas butts.”
“I believe that all for-hire captains should have an annual physical to include drug screening. I also think that all captains should be required to have an annual certification in first aid and CPR.”
“CPR, drug tests, physicals and boat inspections are things we already have to do now, I don’t want to do it twice. Our dock has the USCG auxiliary come down and inspect us all. The inspection is good for two years.”
“The state should not require captains to take first-aid, CPR or physicals due to the fact the USCG already requires these things to get a new or renew a captains license. But I feel that the state should see proof of a (Confirmation of Enrollment and Compliance of a year round random drug testing program) in order to get a for-hire permit from the state.”
“The Coast Guard requires first aid, CPR, drug tests and physicals to keep your Capts license, so there is absolutely no reason for the state to duplicate this. If you have a charter boat the USCG requires that you have a drug testing program that randomly tests 50% of your crew each year, this has been in effect since 1996.”
“CPR, first aid, drug tests, physicals are USCG requirements – not state.”
“Redundant! The USCG requires all these to be current for OUPV licensing. If the state requires current OUPV or better licensing for a for-hire permit then that information should be available with USGC license.”
“I get boarded often during the season and they ask for certain requirements and I thus have to have my paperwork together. The CPR/First-Aid and drug consortium are not one of them – and I always keep them valid. My opinion is that these things are not enforced for the GROWING sector of the industry – smaller, inshore boats. Most guys I know do have insurance, but most don’t take random drug tests (like I do) or keep CPR, etc. up-to-date (at least not the part-time guys). If folks are worried about required inspections (or aux guys who really don’t know much) becoming expensive later, I respect. But that’s not to say, for an inshore guy fishing state waters why he cant also show those said requirements at the time he goes to get a DMF permit.”
32
Catch reporting using logbooks.
“Many years ago Doug Mumford told me the state had no interest in logbooks. I hope they still have no interest.”
“I don’t think that guides need to keep up with log books.”
“Absolutely not!”
“Should be mandatory.”
“Don’t really want to keep another logbook. If you need info, let the guys doing the survey call me and ask for it instead of having an officer show up on the dock to ask why my logbook is three days late when I have been working for the past three weeks straight.”
“A logbook is a great idea but they should be required to weight the fish they take and fill out a trip ticket as well”.
“I have no opinion on log books.”
“I have no problems with having to have a logbook (I assume that this is about number and type of fish caught).”
“I think logbooks are a great idea if NOAA and NMFS would and will use this information. The state of NC has a great program commercially with our trip tickets but from what I see is not being used by the power that be in the correct manner.”
“If log books replace the current for-hire survey then yes. Current guessing at what my clients catch and keep are over estimated and give the impression that I and other guides effect the resource more than is accurate. Better booking might help the resource better.”
33
Miscellaneous
“When NC did away with the requirement to have a commercial license to operate a charter boat, we raised holy hell up here! …everyone got into it and diluted the quality of charter boats. There are many, and I mean many, so called captains out there that have falsified their sea time in order to get a captains license…”
“The DMF needs to handle the Blanket license in the same way it does the commercial, ie. add additional boats to the CRFL Blanket to keep costs down.”
“The permit sticker should change color each year to make it easier for the officers on the water to enforce.”
“I think the charter fleet should be put back where it was and you would be covered by your commercial license.”
“ It costs me $500 for the blanket permit and if I want o fish off another boat I have to go buy a salt water license. I know these licenses will never go away but for what we are paying we should be covered personally wherever we are in NC salt water.”
“I am not in favor of the state creating another license, the current arrangement offers choices for the operators and I think it should stay the way it is.”
“If we make any changes - across the board - Commercial should have to have insurance, Captains license, use Log Books and anything else MFC is wanting of the few guides fighting to keep going. Then it may be a money maker for state if that's the angler but I doubt that coming from the MFC. If it is to weed out part timers, what is a part timer. Number of trips required would shut all down with current trip trends - and based on what?”
“…as a full time inshore guide, and think would be reasonable road-blocks to limit those who do guide to a reasonable level would be 1) Insurance 2) Requiring, for the blanket or what not, CPR/First Aid and drug constortium membership. 3) A restructuring of the blanket license that would benefit different business models. 4) Log books – sure. I guess. But what good is data that is not independently certified?”
34
Recommendations and Proposal
License structure recommendations included herein were derived from comments received from the for-hire industry with due consideration given to administrative and data requirements of the Division. There would be no reason to consider restructuring the current for-hire license program without believing there is room for improvement. Given acceptance that there is room for improvement, the goals of these recommendations are as follows:
Maintain professionalism in fleet
NC’s current and traditional for-hire fleet is highly professional and provides exceptional service to their customers. However, the fleet size has quadrupled in 20 years leading to more competition among participants and reports of trip cost undercutting. In order to ensure only highly professional guides and charter captains are operating, certain basic qualifications such as USCG licensing and adequate liability insurance should be required. Licensing fees should also be applied to all participants and the free for-hire permit should be eliminated, ie. pay to play. These are all items that the professional guide or captain has and they should be expected of part time and new entrants into the industry. The industry should consider establishing a professional organization which could require higher standards than DMF has authority to require.
Increase flexibility to license holders
One comment frequently heard was that guides and captains with more than one vessel were hampered by their inability to transfer their blanket permit to another vessel in the event of the unavailability of the primary vessel. This is a result of the current permit or blanket license being vessel-based as opposed to individual-based. One of the goals of the recommendations in this proposal is to allow for transfers of the blanket license so that a license holder has the ability to use his/her blanket license on other vessels.
Ensure equity in fees among various segments of the industry
Many inshore guides have two or more vessels they use to run for-hire trips, usually a small inshore flats boat and a larger near coastal V-hull boat. Because the current structure is vessel based, they necessarily have to obtain multiple blanket licenses or rely on the free permit for the additional vessels and not offer the licensing coverage to their patrons. The main argument is that the owner or captain can only run one boat at a time, so it’s unfair that they should have to purchase more than one blanket license when single vessel owners or Captains of head boats or large sport fishing boats (that sometimes are worth millions of dollars) only have to purchase one
35
license. A structure whereby the blanket license can be used on more than a single vessel is recommended as the way to improve on this inequity in license fees.
Furthermore, NC resident guides and captains have some expectation that nonresidents should pay more than residents because they do not pay NC income and personal property taxes, or vessel registration fees, which help fund management of fishery resources. Increasing nonresident fees is common in other states and is recommended herein.
Maintain current revenue stream from license sales while minimizing new fees
It was made abundantly clear during the meetings and from written comments that no new license fees should be considered as the industry is currently suffering from the recent economic downturn. Due consideration will be given to offsetting any fee reductions to address the inequity issue with multiple vessel owners with higher nonresident fees, elimination of free for-hire permit, and minimal fees to license additional vessels.
Maintain or improve database of participants and vessels
This database is currently populated with permit and blanket license information. It is imperative that the participant and vessel database be complete and for that reason some form of license must be required of all participants and/or vessels used in the industry. The most flexibility comes with having separate licenses, one for individuals and one for vessels. If commercial registration of for-hire vessels is adopted, then each vessel should declare via an endorsement whether they are engaged in for-hire fishing, commercial fishing or both. There should be no extra cost for this endorsement.
Enhance catch and discard data through the use of logbook reporting
For-hire logbooks are becoming the industry standard in the nation and are being supported by the Marine Recreational Information Program and the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. Logbooks will replace the current For-Hire Survey and provide a census of for-hire catch and effort rather than a survey. Adequate validation, along with tracking and compliance enforcement methodology will be necessary.
Consolidate licensing and catch reporting as much as possible
The for-hire industry in NC is subject to multiple licensing, permitting and reporting requirements from the State of NC and the federal government. Every effort will be made to eliminate duplication and consolidate licensing requirements. Duplication
36
and redundancy with the NMFS Southeast and Northeast catch and economic logbook reporting requirements will be eliminated with cooperative agreements.
Proposed For-Hire License Structure
The following presents in bullet format the basics of the proposed for-hire license structure.
Each vessel or operator engaged in for-hire fishing must have one of the following licenses:
1) Blanket For-hire Captains License - $250 <= 6 or $350 >6 passengers
Nonresident fees add $100
o USCG license required to purchase license o Anglers are covered o Licensee can run for-hire trips on any commercially registered vessel with For- Hire endorsement
2) Blanket For-hire Vessel License - $250 <=6 or $350 >6 passengers
Nonresident fees add $100
o USCG license required to obtain license o Anglers are covered o Any USCG licensed captain can operate the vessel o Affirm adequate liability insurance on certification form o Affirm knowledge of USCG vessel inspection requirements on certification form (USCG safety requirements will be distributed to licensees)
3) Non-Blanket For-hire Vessel License - $50
Nonresident fees add $50
o Anglers must purchase their own license, this is not a blanket license o Intended for dive boat captains and folks who want a lower cost alternative to blanket license and don’t care to provide the licensing service to customers. o Affirm adequate liability insurance on certification form o Affirm knowledge of USCG vessel inspection requirements on certification form (USCG safety requirements will be distributed to licensees) 37
In addition:
o All vessels engaged in for-hire fishing must be commercially registered with a For-Hire endorsement or hold the blanket or non-blanket vessel license.
Commercial Fishing Vessel Registration Rates Less than 18 feet 5 inches $1.00 per foot 18 feet 6 inches to 38 feet 5 inches $1.50 per foot 38 feet 6 inches to 50 feet 5 inches $3.00 per foot 50 feet 6 inches or more $6.00 per foot
*Vessels with the Blanket or Non-Blanket For-hire Vessel License do not have to be commercially registered.
*The vessel registration will have commercial and for-hire endorsements, separate or both, under this proposal. This is to license vessels that are engaged in both activities while at the same time ensuring we can identify the intended use of the vessel for sampling activities.
o All vessels with a Commercial Registration and For-Hire endorsement or a Blanket Vessel Licenses must have: Adequate liability insurance (sign an affirmation stating so) Knowledge of USCG vessel requirements(sign an affirmation stating so) o The free for-hire permit will be eliminated o A Mandatory logbook (paper, electronic or mobile app) to be submitted monthly will be required of all for-hire license holders
Advantages of the Proposal
This proposal was developed to correct some of the known deficiencies of the current for-hire license program in NC. It will increase flexibility to the inshore guides who will be able to operate multiple vessels with one personal license while offering the blanket angler license privileges. It will also increase flexibility to charter and head boat owners who will be able to license their vessel and hire any USCG licensed captain to run the vessel. It improves the current fee inequity between the inshore and offshore fleets. It will improve catch and effort data by instituting a census, like the trip ticket program, in the for-hire industry to obtain accurate and timely catch and discard data from the for-hire fleet. And finally, this proposal will achieve these improvements with reductions in user fees for multiple vessel owners with minimal increases to some segments of the fleet, by assessing higher user fees on nonresidents and by eliminating the free for-hire permit.
38
A commercial registration is a necessity for the Division to fully and accurately tabulate the number of for-hire vessels. Developing endorsements to the commercial registration will eliminate the need for an additional license, prevent for-hire vessels from giving up their commercial registration and minimize costs.
39
Statute and Rule Changes Necessary to Implement Proposal
The proposed restructuring radically changes the current structure as implemented by various statutes and rules and for that reason consideration will need to be given to rewriting specific statutes and rules that refer to For-Hire licensing and Permitting.
Statutes
N.C.G.S. 113-168.6 Commercial Fishing vessel registration governs the registration of all vessels used in a commercial fishing operation, establishes fees based on length of vessel and sets requirements for vessel transfers. Changes to the statute will be required to:
o establish for-hire vessels as commercial vessels o establish a for-hire vessel endorsement to the Commercial Fishing Vessel Registration so that the Division can separate for-hire vessels from typical commercial vessels.
N.C. G.S. 113-174.3 (see page 23) For Hire Blanket CRFL is the governing statute implementing the CRFL for-hire blanket license. It establishes where the license is valid (coastal waters only) and fees for the two levels (six or fewer passengers and more than six passengers). Changes to this statute will be required to:
o establish a Blanket For-Hire Captains license o establish a Blanket For-Hire Vessel license o establish a Non-blanket For-Hire Vessel license o establish fees for the three licenses o increase non-resident fees to $100 more than resident fees o (ideally) allow for the use of the license in joint waters o modify effective dates to coincide with the fiscal year to accommodate commercial fishing vessel registration effective dates o allow use of blanket license in joint fishing waters o implement for-hire logbooks.
Rules
15A NCAC 03O .0101 Procedures and Requirements to Obtain Licenses, Endorsements and Commercial Fishing Vessel Registrations, part (13) (see page 24) requires that applicants for a For-Hire Blanket CRFL shall provide valid vessel documentation or registration papers and a valid USCG Operators or Masters license. Changes to this rule will be required to:
o require that applicants for the Blanket For-Hire Captains, For-Hire Vessel License or non-blanket For-Hire Vessel license show proof of a USCG license o establish that all vessels operated by a holder of a For-Hire Captain licensee have a valid Commercial Fishing Vessel Registration (CFVR)with a For-Hire endorsement
40
o require that applicants for the For-Hire Vessel license show proof of documentation or NC Wildlife Commission vessel registration.
15A NCAC 03O .0112 For Hire Coastal Recreational Fishing is the primary rule describing specific requirements for operating a for-hire vessel in NC. It establishes that all for-hire vessels must have a Blanket For-Hire CRFL or For-Hire Permit to operate as a for-hire vessel. It further requires holders of the license or the permit to have a valid USCG license, have the license in hand while operating and having picture identification on hand and ready for inspection. This rule also stipulates that for-hire license holders must participate in Division sampling and surveying programs and that for-hire vessels display a current For-Hire Blanket CRFL or For- Hire Permit sticker on the port side of the vessel. Changes to this rule will be required to:
o require either a Blanket For-Hire Captains license, a For-Hire Vessel license or a Non-Blanket For-Hire Vessel license to operate a for-hire vessel in NC o delete reference to the For-Hire Permit o require a USCG license to obtain a Blanket For-Hire Captains license or Non-Blanket For-Hire Vessel License, license must be suitable for passenger capacity of vessel identified. o require a CFVR with For-Hire Endorsement or a For-Hire Vessel license on all for- hire vessels o stipulate that holders of a Blanket For-Hire Captains license can operate any vessel with a CFVR with For-Hire endorsement and cover the anglers licensing requirements o require submittal of For-Hire Logbooks (this could be added to Record Keeping Requirements 03I .0114 but not recommended) on form provided by the Division or electronic file submittal from Division approved software, webtool or mobile application submit reports by tenth of the following month failure to comply will lead to suspension or revocation of license according to 15A NCAC 03O .0114
15A NCAC 03O .0501 Procedures and Requirements to Obtain Permits, (g) For Hire Fishing Permit, states that applicants for a For-Hire Fishing Permit must have a valid USCG license and show proof of vessel registration or documentation. Since this permit is suggested for elimination, this portion of the rule can be repealed.
15A NCAC 03O .0503 Permit Conditions Specific, (k) For-Hire Fishing Permit, establishes specific permit conditions for the free For-Hire Permit. Since this permit is suggested for elimination, this portion of the rule can be repealed.
41
Financial Costs and Benefits of the Proposal
The proposed for-hire license structure is designed to provide flexibility to all participants in the for-hire industry while trying to control costs. Many within the industry are likely to spend far less on a license or registration, however there are some that will end up facing higher costs. All funds collected will be added to the Marine Resources Fund and commercial license receipts. Proceeds from the sales of blanket licenses are deposited into the Marine Resources Fund while registration fees collected through the commercial registration of vessels go to commercial license receipts. The Marine Resources Fund is used to fund recreational access sites as well as projects meant to conserve and restore the state's marine resources. Commercial license receipts are used to fund the NCDMF operations.
Costs and Expanded Revenues
Under the proposed changes in the for-hire licensing structure, the burden of increased costs will be placed upon non-residents and individuals who obtain the currently free for-hire permit. Non-residents in the for-hire industry will face increased costs of $100 per license or permit under the new structure. There were 130 blanket licenses held by out of state residents in 2010. The $100 dollar increase per license will result in $13,000 in increased revenue to the Marine Resources Fund. The 142 for-hire permit holders that only have one boat in 2010 will pay $50 per year, leading to a $7,100 increase to the Marine Resources Fund. Furthermore, captains currently purchasing more than one blanket license will have fees from registering their boats as commercial vessels, however these fees will be more than offset by not having to purchase multiple blanket licenses. Total commercial vessel registration fees collected under the new proposal are estimated to be $7,713.
Benefits and Savings
There will be considerable savings for many within the for-hire industry under the proposed structure. In 2010, there were 61 individuals with more than one blanket license. Under the new plan, these individuals will have the ability to forgo having to purchase a second license, thereby saving $250 per year. This will lead to an estimated savings of $15,250.
Net Outcome
Based on the blanket licenses and permits issued in 2010, it is estimated that the overall revenue collected will increase. It is expected that there will be $7,713 in commercial fishing vessel registration fees collected and transferred to commercial license receipts. An estimated net $7,350 in license and permits fees will be collected and deposited into the Marine Resources Fund. This leads to an overall estimated net increase of $15,063 over the current for-hire licensing and permitting structure.
42
Summary and Approach
The current licensing system for the for-hire industry in North Carolina has been in place since January 1, 2007 with the deployment of the Coastal Recreational Fishing License and associated for-hire blanket licenses. In 2004, 3 years prior to the CRFL, the free for-hire permit was developed in order to obtain details about the for-hire fleet. The purpose of this project was to review the current state of affairs and obtain comments from the industry to determine if changes were needed to the for-hire licensing structure. Constructive comments were received, a proposal developed and again submitted to select members of the industry for comments. The proposal (Table 4) addresses many of the perceived problems with the current structure, provides additional flexibility and equity to the fleet and does so with a nearly revenue neutral impact.
Table 4_. Summary of current and proposed for-hire license structure.
Current Proposed For‐hire permit Non‐blanket For‐hire Vessel license Cost=free Cost= $50 residents, $100 nonresidents Non‐blanket permit Non‐blanket license USCG License required USCG License required Blanket CRFL Blanket Captains and Blanket Vessel license Applies to vessel only separate Cost=$250 for six or less passengers, $350 for more Blanket captains license allows captain to use than six passengers blanket license on any vessel with commercial Blanket license that covers anglers registration and for‐hire endorsement USCG license required Blanket vessel license allows any USCG licensed captain to operate vessel Cost=$250 resident, $350 nonresident for six or less passengers. $350 resident, $450 nonresident for more than six passengers USCG license required Commercial Vessel registration not required Commercial vessel registration with for‐hire endorsement required unless vessel has either the Blanket or the Non‐blanket vessel license Commercial liability insurance not required Applicant required to affirm he has adequate commercial liability insurance USCG vessel safety examination not required. Vessel Applicant required to affirm he is aware of USCG must be in compliance with all USCG safety vessel safety requirements. Vessel must be in requirements. compliance with all USCG safety requirements.
43
By way of this document, the proposal for structural changes to the for-hire license system is now presented to the Marine Fisheries Commission for their review. Once the MFC has reviewed the proposal and depending on the support as written or if suggested changes are made to it, the MFC or select members of the MFC could submit the proposal to the legislative study committee (HB 773, Part XLVIII(7))for consideration. Most changes to licenses or development of new licenses and fees will require legislative changes to current general statutes or changes to existing statutes. If and when these statutory changes are made, the MFC will direct DMF to draft rules reflecting these changes and the normal rulemaking process will proceed.
44
Recreational Fishing Discard Mortality Workgroup
Submitted to the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission
October 18, 2011
Introduction
At its November 2010 business meeting, the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission voted to establish a task force to consider ways to reduce unintended catch in the recreational fishery. The action followed heated debate over regulatory changes in the commercial fishery associated with the Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan. During the debate, those representing the commercial industry asserted that there is a high discard mortality rate in the recreational spotted seatrout fishery.
The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) set up an in-house Recreational Fishing Discard Mortality Workgroup to consider this issue and recommend actions to the Marine Fisheries Commission in 2011. It was led by Socioeconomics Program Manager John Hadley and included Carole Willis, with the N.C. Saltwater Fishing Tournament, Chris Wilson, with the Recreational Statistics Program, Kevin Brown, gear specialist, Patricia Smith, public information officer and Kelly Odom, education coordinator. The workgroup met four times over the course of one year to discuss the issue.
Release Mortality Estimates
A number of factors determine whether a fish will survive being caught and released including species, hook placement, handling of fish, size of fish, water temperature, water salinity, and time out of the water. As a result, mortality estimates vary greatly among species and release mortality studies. Table 1 contains release mortality estimates commonly used for several popular recreationally caught species in North Carolina.
Table 1. Release mortality estimates for bluefish, spotted seatrout, flounder, red drum, gray trout, and striped bass.
Species Release Mortality Estimates Bluefish 15% Spotted Sea Trout 9.8% Flounder 10% Red Drum 8% Gray Trout 10% Striped Bass 6.4% Estuary 8% Ocean
While release mortalities vary greatly, there are actions that can be taken that generally reduce the mortality of released fish including minimizing the time out of the water and the handling of a fish, utilizing barbless and circle hooks, minimizing the use of treble hooks (especially with natural bait), and avoiding catching species when they are the most stressed such as times when water temperatures are outside of a fish's tolerance range.
Education and Outreach
The DMF has several outreach and education programs that seek to educate the public on ethical angling habits that reduce discard mortality. There are currently several angler education documents in publication that are distributed through a wide variety of venues including public events and expos, school programs, news and online media, visitor centers, citation weigh stations, bait and tackle shops, and DMF recreational creel agents. These outreach documents and programs target an assortment of audiences, from children to the elderly and beginners to seasoned pros. In fiscal year, 2010-2011, DMF public outreach participated in 69 programs and exhibits with a combined audience of 223,614. DMF public outreach also distributed approximately 31,000 brochures on Ethical Angling: A Guide to Responsible Fishing, approximately 42,000 North Carolina Coastal Recreational Angler’s Guide’s and approximately 140,000 North Carolina Coastal Recreational Fishing Digests. These materials all contain information regarding ethical angling. Posters emphasizing ethical angling were also created and distributed to 106 citation weigh stations.
In the coming year, DMF will survey anglers concerning their attitudes about ethical angling to gauge effectiveness of programs and current angling practices. There are also plans for continued expansion of outreach under a federal Sport Fish Restoration Grant. Additional money from the Marine Fisheries Commission Conservation Fund would allow further outreach efforts and possibly provide a required match to receive federal funding in future fiscal years.
Regulations in Place In and Around North Carolina
While education is a major component of reducing post release fish mortalities, there are regulations in place that target the reduction of recreational discard mortality. There are currently federal and state regulations in place that require the use of circle hooks when using live or natural bait under certain circumstances. Federal regulations require the use of non- stainless steel circle hooks when using natural bait while fishing for snapper-grouper species in federal waters. North Carolina has specific regulations requiring the use of circle hooks during certain times of the year when fishing natural bait in the waters or tributaries of Pamlico Sound for spawning red drum. The state also has rules in place that prohibit the gigging, spearing, or gaffing of red drum at anytime.
Conclusions
The task force concluded that the Marine Fisheries Commission should continue to encourage the practice of catch and release while focusing on actions and regulations that help minimize discard mortality. The task force urges the Commission to endorse the release of money from the Marine Fisheries Conservation Fund for education and outreach programs targeting ethical angling and practices that reduce recreational discard mortality. The Commission should also consider building upon and expanding regulations already in place regarding the use of circle hooks under certain conditions (times, seasons, species, location) and the prohibition of gaffing or gigging certain species.
2011 NCDMF SEA TURTLE OBSERVER PROGRAM * Data are prelimary *
2011 2011 2011 PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT OBSERVED TAKES BY SPECIES 2010 2011 TRIPS 2011 OBSERVATION OBSERVED OBSERVED COVERAGE OBSERVER OBSERVER LIVE DEAD LIVE DEAD LIVE DEAD ACTUAL COVERAGE EFFORT WEEK TRIPS ESTIMATED TRIPS EFFORT TRIPS YARDS (LM) ESTIMATED ACTUAL ACTUAL KEMP'S KEMP'S GREEN GREEN L'HEAD L'HEAD 3-Jan 79 69 75 41 1 100 59.3 1.3 2.4 10-Jan 130 120 64 38 0 0 31.7 0.0 0.0 *17-Jan 194 191 53 69 1 250 36.1 1.9 1.4 24-Jan 200 197 50 59 1 165 29.9 2.0 1.7 31-Jan 242 237 122 46 7 1,604 19.4 5.7 15.2 7-Feb 204 197 190 35 4 1,832 17.8 2.1 11.4 14-Feb 297 292 251 55 4 5,090 18.8 1.6 7.3 21-Feb 390 387 229 43 6 1,810 11.1 2.6 14.0 28-Feb 559 556 332 46 7 2,150 8.3 2.1 15.2 7-Mar 825 821 362 48 14 6,138 5.8 3.9 29.2 14-Mar 800 794 406 38 2 525 4.8 0.5 5.3 21-Mar 775 769 456 47 5 1,270 6.1 1.1 10.6 28-Mar 709 698 326 31 3 150 4.4 0.9 9.7 4-Apr 712 406 447 50 7 1,120 12.3 1.6 14.0 11-Apr 430 396 445 38 13 475 9.6 2.9 34.2 ^18-Apr 263 176 129 47 21 2,505 26.7 16.3 44.7 25-Apr 133 83 85 40 17 2,600 48.2 20.0 42.5 2-May 144 87 129 45 17 4,788 51.7 13.2 37.8 1 1 9-May 229 139 197 50 25 13,850 36.0 12.7 50.0 16-May 184 113 229 59 40 11,800 52.2 17.5 67.8 2 23-May 176 107 235 53 33 7,655 49.5 14.0 62.3 2 30-May 221 136 270 50 29 8,815 36.8 10.7 58.0 SUMMER 6-Jun 312 194 288 50 27 9,675 25.8 9.4 54.0 1 13-Jun 271 170 316 40 23 14,100 23.5 7.3 57.5 1 20-Jun 273 175 282 43 24 14,590 24.6 8.5 55.8 27-Jun 209 133 307 48 34 16,370 36.1 11.1 70.8 4-Jul 278 180 274 46 23 13,780 25.6 8.4 50.0 11-Jul 186 123 350 66 62 32,080 53.7 17.7 93.9 5 1 1 18-Jul 173 110 352 45 19 11,250 40.9 5.4 42.2 1 25-Jul 273 172 355 49 26 20,550 28.5 7.3 53.1 1-Aug 306 202 184 53 26 20,357 26.2 14.1 49.1 8-Aug 292 188 161 58 31 20,112 30.9 19.3 53.4 1 1 15-Aug 375 244 189 62 33 23,555 25.4 17.5 53.2 1 1 22-Aug 463 306 94 33 17 11,840 10.8 18.1 51.5 29-Aug 365 257 59 49 26 12,162 19.1 44.1 53.1 FALL 5-Sep 573 401 21 48 28 23,565 12.0 133.3 58.3 1 1 1 12-Sep 627 443 28 44 25 20,025 9.9 89.3 56.8 1 19-Sep 852 593 160 50 34 25,400 8.4 21.3 68.0
TOTALS 2011 2011 2011 PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT OBSERVED TAKES BY SPECIES 2010 2011 TRIPS 2011 OBSERVATION OBSERVED OBSERVED COVERAGE OBSERVER OBSERVER LIVE DEAD LIVE DEAD LIVE DEAD COVERAGE EFFORT WEEKS TRIPS ESTIMATED TRIPS EFFORT TRIPS YARDS ESTIMATED ACTUAL ACTUAL KEMP'S KEMP'S GREEN GREEN L'HEAD L'HEAD 41 13,724 10,862 8502** 1812 715 364,103 16.7 8.41** 39.5** 11 6 2 1 4 0 Obs Trips/ Obs Trips/ Actual Trips Obs Effort * Beginning of shad season ^ End of shad season **Trip data through end of August (awaiting updated Trip ticket data for September)
10/11/2011
NC DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES OBSERVER PROGRAM
BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES
PROTECTED RESOURCES SECTION – 2011/2012 BUDGET ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$807,909
MARINE PATROL EXPENSES – Observer Program 05/15/2010 – 12/01/2010*‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$243,235
SOUTHERN FLOUNDER 2010 LANDINGS – INSIDE GILL NET FISHERIES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐958,207 POUNDS
SOUTHERN FLOUNDER 2010 VALUE – INSIDE GILL NET FISHERIES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$2,066,934
*No Marine Patrol observer activity 12/01/2010 – 05/15/2011.
FHM – 10/17/2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr. Louis B. Daniel III Dee Freeman Governor Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Division of Marine Fisheries Director W. Robert Bizzell, Marine Fisheries Commission Chairman
FROM: Michelle Duval
DATE: September 19, 2011
SUBJECT: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Meeting (September 12 – 16, 2011)
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council met in Charleston, South Carolina on September 12 – 16, 2011. Actions taken by the council are discussed below.
Snapper/Grouper Regulatory Amendment 11: The purpose of this amendment is to remove the deepwater closure (depths greater than 240 feet) that was put in place through Amendment 17B. The council approved this document at its August 9, 2011 meeting in Charleston. Council staff indicated that internal review of the document was almost complete, and it would be sent to the Secretary of Commerce for approval by the end of the following week. The amendment should be approved in time for the beginning of the 2012 fishing season.
Blueline Tilefish Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP): NC DMF received approval for an EFP for the blueline tilefish fishery on August 2, 2011. This permit allows 11 vessels to fish for the remainder of 2011 in the area that will be opened upon secretarial approval of Regulatory Amendment 11. Vessels are required to carry observers and NC DMF is obligated to achieve 20 percent observer coverage. Fishermen are also required to bring all species caught to the dock for sampling (with the exception of sharks) to collect much needed biological data. Fishermen are allowed to sell all legal fish in conformance with existing size, species and trip limits. At this time, 41 trips had occurred.
Amendment 18A: This amendment includes actions to manage the black sea bass fishery. It will limit participation in the trap fishery, limit the total number of traps a fisherman may use, require that traps be brought back to the dock at the end of a trip, and implement a trip limit. Several alternatives were added for analysis that may expand the total number of fishermen eligible to participate in the fishery. Public hearings for this amendment will be held in November 2011 and at the next council meeting in December 2011.
Amendment 18B: This amendment considers actions to manage the golden tilefish fishery. It will limit participation in the longline fishery, establish an allocation for the hook-and-line fishery, change the trip limits for the commercial fishery and adjust the fishing year. The council will continue work on this amendment at its December 5 – 9, 2011 meeting in Raleigh.
Amendment 20A: This amendment considers actions to manage the wreckfish Individual Transferrable Quota (ITQ) fishery. It includes actions to define and revert inactive shares, redistribute inactive shares to current shareholders, define a cap on the total percentage of shares one entity may own, and establish an appeals process. Public hearings for this amendment will be held in conjunction with those for Amendment 18A (black sea bass). Future Amendment 20B will also pertain to this fishery and will include actions to keep the ITQ program in compliance with the Magnuson Act.
Amendment 24: This amendment considers actions for management of red grouper as required by the Magnuson Act and will establish a rebuilding schedule, annual catch limits and accountability measures. Based on the stock assessment completed last year, no additional management measures should be required to rebuild the stock. The council will consider final approval for submission to the Secretary of Commerce at its December 2011 meeting.
Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment: This amendment establishes Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) as required by the Magnuson Act for all species under council jurisdiction that are not currently undergoing overfishing. The council previously approved this amendment for submission to the Secretary of Commerce at its August 9, 2011 meeting in Charleston. However, internal review revealed errors in the calculations used to establish allocations for the commercial and recreational sectors, requiring that the council review and re-approve the amendment for submission.
While the corrected calculations did not result in significant changes to most allocations, the allocation for blueline tilefish was affected. The corrected numbers allocate 47 percent of the total ACL to commercial sector, and 53 percent to the recreational sector. There was a significant upswing in recreational landings from 2006 through 2008 that impacted the allocation. A motion to consider another alternative that would have allocated the ACL 53 percent to the commercial sector and 47 percent to the recreational sector was defeated. The full council approved the amendment for submission to the Secretary of Commerce.
SEDAR The SEDAR assessments for black sea bass and golden tilefish are almost complete and will be reviewed by the council at its December 2011 meeting. Species of interest to North Carolina that will be assessed in 2013 include blueline tilefish, snowy grouper, gag and a possible update to the red grouper assessment in order to incorporate updated information from the shallow water grouper closure.
Mackerel The council voted to direct staff to evaluate a prohibition on bag limit sales of coastal migratory pelagic, as well as investigate permitting issues between the Gulf and South Atlantic for possible inclusion in Amendment 19. The council further directed staff to discontinue consideration of a Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPP) in Amendment 20 and to instead consider allocation of the king mackerel quota and other possible issues such as an allowance for undersized Spanish mackerel in pound nets during a limited time of year in North Carolina.
Ecosystem-based Management Possible measures for inclusion in Comprehensive Ecosystem-based Amendment 3 were discussed and include: potential expansion of the Snowy Wreck MPA for coral protection; bangsticking in North Carolina; additional protections for mid-shelf species such as warsaw grouper and speckled hind; and refining boundaries for coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs).
The next council meeting will be December 6-10, 2011 in Raleigh, North Carolina at the Brownstone Hotel.
3441 Arendell Street, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 Phone: 252-726-7021 \ FAX: 252-726-0254 \ Internet: www.ncdmf.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s
SouthPublished for fishermen and others Atlantic interested in marine resource conservation Update issues Summer 2011 Council Approves Annual Catch Limits; Elimination of Deepwater Closure ACLs set for snapper grouper complex species, mackerel, and cobia plus removal of 240’ Closure
Council members met at a special one-day meeting Fishermen display on August 9, 2011 and took action to approve three a colorful female amendments. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, dolphin caught off the coast of Florida. new regulations may impact fishermen targeting species in the snapper grouper complex, as well as dolphin, wahoo, The Comprehensive king and Spanish mackerel, and cobia. The one-day meeting ACL Amendment focused on the Congressional mandates to establish annual would set the allocation for catch limits (ACLs; in pounds or numbers of fish that dolphin at 7.3% can be harvested) and accountability measures (AMs) for commercial and species under the Council’s jurisdiction not currently listed 92.7% recreational as undergoing overfishing. This includes the majority of based on historical landings. The sale snapper grouper comples species currently managed through of bag-limit dolphin the Council’s Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan, by charter captains such as greater amberjack, mutton snapper, scamp grouper, would be prohibited, gray triggerfish and wreckfish. These limits and measures and a 20-inch (fork length) minimum must also be set for species managed under different plans size limit would such as dolphin (mahi mahi), wahoo, king and Spanish be implemented mackerels, cobia, golden crab and Sargassum. Allocations for dolphin caught between commercial and recreational (includes for-hire/ in federal waters Courtesy of Richard DeLizza off the coast of charter) fishermen are also addressed in the amendments. South Carolina. Annual catch limits and targets would also be During the August meeting, the Council also approved an established. Read more on page 5. amendment for Secretarial review that would remove current restrictions for harvest or possession of deepwater species Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) (snowy grouper, blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, misty Amendment grouper, queen snapper, and silk snapper) in waters greater The Comprehensive ACL Amendment sets annual catch than 240 feet in depth. Commonly known as the “240’ limits for commercial and recreational fishermen, and closure”, the restrictions were implemented in January 2011 accountability measures if those limits are exceeded, for in order to help protect speckled hind and warsaw grouper. species in the snapper grouper complex, as well as dolphin, Regulatory Amendment 11 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery wahoo, and golden crab. The ACLs are based on scientific Management Plan would remove the restrictions. recommendations provided by the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). Similar measures for mackerel and cobia are addressed in a separate amendment. Do you fish for cobia or Spanish mackerel? (Continued page 4) Fishermen are needed for the 2012 stock assessment for these species. Get involved with the stock Inside This Issue: assessment process. See page 7 Council Appointments Announced ...... 2 for details. In The News...... 3 Spiny Lobster Measures Approved...... 3 Mackerel Amendment 18...... 6 Deepwater Closure...... 7 Next Council Meeting Blueline Tilefish and EFP...... 8 September 12-16 2011 Council Meeting CE-BA 2 Approved by Council...... 9 Charleston, SC Council Goes to Congress...... 9 See page 11 for details September 2011 Meeting Agenda ...... 11 Calendar...... 12
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; Telephone: (843) 571-4366 or Toll Free 866/SAFMC-10; FAX: (843) 769-4520; E-mail: [email protected] SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY Council Members Appointed MANAGEMENT COUNCIL The Secretary of Commerce recently announced appointments to the regional fishery management councils. Robert K. Mahood Gregg T. Waugh The Secretary selects council members to fill obligatory and Executive Director Deputy Director at-large seats on the councils based upon gubernatorial nominations. Members may be appointed or reappointed VOTING MEMBERS Designated State Officials by the Secretary to serve three-year terms, with a maximum Michelle Duval Jessica McCawley of three consecutive terms. The new terms begin August 11, Morehead City, NC Tallahassee, FL 2011. (252) 726-7021 (850) 487-0580 Council Chairman David M. Cupka of Charleston, South Carolina has been Doug Haymans Robert Boyles Brunswick, GA Charleston, SC reappointed to an at-large seat on the (912) 264-7218 (843) 953-9304 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Mr. Cupka has served on the Appointed Obligatory Members Council since 1993 and is the only Ben Hartig Tom Burgess Council member to serve three separate Hobe Sound, FL Sneads Ferry, NC times as the chairman. Prior to his (772) 546-1542 (910) 327-3528 retirement, Chairman Cupka served David Cupka Duane Harris Tom Swatzel as the Council representative for the St. Simons Island, GA Murrells Inlet, SC South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of (912) 638-9430 843/357-1673 Marine Fisheries where he worked as the division director. Mr. Cupka’s experiences also include serving on various Appointed At-Large Members management boards of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries John W. Jolley Charlie Phillips Boynton Beach, FL Townsend, GA Commission. Additionally, Chairman Cupka was on the Board (561) 346-8426 (912) 832-3149 of Directors for the National Coalition for Marine Conservation and previously served as the South Carolina representative David Cupka, Chairman Mac Currin, Interim Vice Chair on the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program Charleston, SC Raleigh, NC Committee. (843) 795-8591 (919) 881-0049 “We need to continue our efforts to further improve the SEDAR process and to increase the participation of NMFS Regional Administrator knowledgeable fishermen in the Council process,” said Roy Crabtree Chairman Cupka, referencing the Southeast Data, Assessment, St. Petersburg, FL (727) 824-5301 and Review stock assessment process. “It is also important that we strive to improve the data collection systems utilized Non-Voting Members in the management process, and that we complete the work ASMFC U. S. Fish & Wildlife to establish annual catch limits and accountability measures by Washington, DC Atlanta, GA the Congressionally mandated completion date for all species (202) 289-6400 (404) 331-3588 within the Council’s jurisdiction.” He adds that he is, “very glad U. S. Coast Guard State Department to be reappointed to the Council.” Miami, FL Washington, DC (305) 415-6768 (202) 647-2883 John W. Jolley has been appointed to the Council to fill an at-large seat for the state of Editor’s Note Florida. A resident of Boynton Beach, Florida, Mr. Jolley has a broad range of The South Atlantic Update is published by the South Atlantic fisheries’ experiences that include 56 Fishery Management Council. Its purpose is to report developments years of commercial and recreational in fisheries management that would be of interest to its readers. Please fishing and diving, operating a live credit the Council when reprinting articles used in this newsletter. bait business, and working as a senior Anyone wishing to submit information or articles pertaining to research scientist with the Florida fishing or fisheries management, or letters to the editor on a pertinent issue, is invited and encouraged to do so. Submissions may be mailed Marine Research Institute. He served to Kim Iverson, Editor, South Atlantic Update, 4055 Faber Place as a member of the Scientific and Dr., Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405, or may be sent via the Statistical Committee for the Gulf John Jolley internet; Email address: [email protected]. of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and currently serves as a scientific advisor to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. As a long-time A publication of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA05NMF44100012. member of the West Palm Beach Fishing Club, where he served as president for 30 years, Mr. Jolley states, “Many (Continued page 10)
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 2 In the News: New Control Date Proposed for FWC’s Colonel Buckson to Lead NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcment Wreckfish Commercial Fishery NOAA Fisheries has established a Bruce Buckson, a ies Enforcement employees, including new control date of March 11, 2011 to nationally-recognized special agents and enforcement officers, control future access to the commercial leader with 29 years working out of national headquarters, wreckfish sector of the snapper-grouper experience in natural six divisional offices, and 52 field offices fishery operating in the exclusive resource conservation throughout the United States and U.S. economic zone (EEZ) of the South law enforcement, has territories. Atlantic. If changes to the management been named the new Lt. Col. Buckson began his law regime are developed and implemented director of the NOAA enforcement career patrolling the waters under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Bruce Buckson Fisheries Office of of the upper Florida Keys and advanced Conservation and Management Act, Law Enforcement. to increasing levels of responsibility a control date could be used to limit He begins his new job on September within the Commission. Among his many the number of participants in this 4, 2011. A graduate of the FBI National career highlights, Buckson served as commercial sector. Academy, Buckson comes to NOAA the FWC’s law enforcement liaison to This control date is intended, in from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Con- regional Fisheries commissions and part, to promote awareness of potential servation Commission where he has councils and to federal agencies. He eligibility criteria for future access so served as the Deputy Director of the served on the South Atlantic Council’s as to discourage speculative entry into Law Enforcement Division since 2007. Law Enforcement Advisory Panel. this sector while the South Atlantic The Florida Fish and Wildlife Law “Colonel Buckson is an excellent Fishery Management Council and Enforcement Division is one of the larg- communicator with strong leadership NOAA Fisheries consider whether and est fish and wildlife law enforcement skills who is able to work with everyone how access to the commercial wreckfish agencies in the world with over 700 involved in the fishery management sector should be controlled. employees in a state with the nation’s process,” said Council Chairman David second longest coastline. In his new Cupka. “We look forward to continuing role at NOAA, Buckson will direct the to work with him and wish him well in his efforts of more than 200 NOAA Fisher- new role.” Council Approves Annual Catch Limits for Spiny Lobster Actions to designate area restrictions for traps, requirements for trap line markings delayed New management measures were ap- possession of spiny lobster proved for Caribbean spiny lobster during is limited to 2 per person/ a joint meeting of the Gulf of Mexico day for all fishermen. The and South Atlantic Fishery Management amendment would not es- Councils in Key West, FL this past June. tablish allocations between Amendment 10 will establish manage- commercial and recreational ment parameters such as Maximum fishermen. If the ACT were Sustainable Yield and set Annual Catch to be exceeded, the two Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Mea- councils would convene a sures (AMs) for the fishery that occurs review panel to determine in both the South Atlantic and Gulf of if any corrective action is Mexico. necessary. The amendment would set an ACL of The amendment would A commercial lobster boat heads out of Key Largo, Florida. 7.32 million pounds for the spiny lobster allow the use of undersized targeted including Spanish slipper lobster fishery with an Annual Catch Target of lobster or “shorts” as attractants not and spotted spiny lobster, and allow for 6.59 million pounds. Recent landings exceeding 50 per boat and 1 per trap the State of Florida to manage these have been under the target and averaged aboard each boat. This is consistent species. just over 5 million pounds. The stock is with state regulations and would make After considering public comment, not considered overfished or undergoing law enforcement more effective. The the councils removed actions in the overfishing. Spiny lobsters are harvested amendment also addresses tailing amendment that would have created primarily by commercial fishermen in permits specific to the commercial closed areas for lobster traps and southern Florida, although there is a fishery, and would require all Caribbean required gear markings on trap lines to popular recreational “sport” season that spiny lobster be landed all “whole” or protect threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn occurs each year. The recreational bag “tailed”. On long trips, the product (Acropora spp.) corals. The councils limit in Florida is limited to 6 per person quality is better if the tails are separated will revisit the restrictions after receiving per day and the season is closed from and iced or frozen. The amendment further input from stakeholders. April 1- August 5th off the coast of Flori- also addresses other management issues The amendment must be approved da with a special non-trap season in July. including derelict or abandoned traps by the Secretary of Commerce before Off the coast of Georgia, South Carolina, and removal of four species from the management measures are implemented. and North Carolina, the harvest and management unit that are not heavily Approval is expected by 2012. The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 3 Council Approves Amendments (continued from page 1) Tackling the responsibility to establish annual limits and grouper and smallmouth grunt). measures for the 73 species currently included in the Snap- The amendment proposes designating six species as per Grouper management unit has been no easy task for the ecosystem component species, including bank sea bass, Council. For those species listed as ocean triggerfish, and longspine porgy. While these species Management undergoing overfishing, such as red are not considered to be part of the fishery, they are species measures for a fishery snapper, golden tilefish, snowy grou- with which fishermen may occasionally interact (i.e., catch). should, on an annual per, and vermilion snapper, regulations Because ecosystem component species are not considered basis, prevent the have already been implemented to end “in the fishery”, specifying reference points, ACLs and AMs Annual Catch Limit overfishing and establish ACLs and is not required. However, under the guidance of the Mag- from being exceeded. AMs as directed by the Magnuson- nuson-Stevens Act, the Council should consider measures to Stevens Act. The Comprehensive ACL minimize bycatch of these species and protect their role in Amendment must deal with the remaining species, including the ecosystem. those not commonly targeted by fishermen, and in most cases Because stock assessments are not available for the other these species don’t have stock assessments. less commonly encountered species that would remain in Simplifying Snapper Grouper Management: Species the management complex, the amendment proposes moving groupings, designations and removal these species into six groupings based on life history, catch The Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan, estab- statistics, and fishery independent data (see side bar). The lished in 1983, includes 73 species of snappers, groupers, groupings would have an aggregate ACL. Should the ACL grunts, porgies, sea basses, jacks, and other species that share for the species grouping be met, accountability measures as similar habitat or biological traits. The Comprehensive ACL outlined in the amendment would be put into place. Amendment includes alternatives to remove some species Allocations from the management unit. Certain species, such as sheeps- In addition to setting ACLs and AMs, the Comprehensive head and crevalle ACL Amendment jack, are more com- DW Grouper and also specifies al- Grunts Jacks monly found near Tilefish locations for both reefs and near-shore commercial and rec- • blueline tilefish • white grunt • Almaco jack habitats in state reational fishermen, • silk snapper • sailors choice • banded rudderfish waters (inside of establishing ACLs • yellowedge grouper • margate • lesser amberjack for each sector. 3 nautical miles). • misty grouper • tomtate Accountability mea- Others, like the • sand tilefish sures include clos- tiger grouper, and • queen snapper smallmouth grunts • blackfin snapper ing the commercial are rarely encoun- • black snapper fishery if the ACL tered by fishermen. is met or projected Federal regulations to be met during the Shallow Water would no longer ap- Snappers Porgies fishing season and ply in federal waters Groupers limiting harvest to to species removed the bag limit. If a from the manage- • coney • cubera snapper • jolthead porgy species is overfished ment unit. State • graysby • gray snapper • knobbed porgy (or a species within • yellowmouth grouper • lane snapper • saucereye porgy regulations would the grouping is • yellowfin grouper • dog snapper • scup continue to apply overfished), the ACL • rock hind • mahogany snapper • whitebone porgy when caught in state would be reduced • red hind waters. by the amount of the
overage the fol- After consider- Species Groupings in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment: The amendment would ing public comment group species in the snapper grouper complex not commonly targeted by fishermen. The lowing fishing year. regarding concerns species groupings would have a cummulative Annual Catch Limit. If a group’s ACL is For the recreational that removing some exceeded, Accountability Measures would be implemented. sector, if the ACL species from federal management may leave them (and other is exceeded, the following year’s landings would be moni- co-occurring species) vulnerable to overfishing, the Coun- tored in-season for persistence in increased landings. NOAA cil modified its preferred alternative for species removal, Fisheries could reduce the length of the fishing season if keeping additional species within the management unit. As necessary. approved by the Council, the amendment would remove 13 The amendment would also modify the existing wreck- species from the snapper grouper management complex. fish fishery. Wreckfish, a deepwater species historically These include species with greater than 95% of landings in targeted by commercial fishermen, has been managed under state waters (e.g., sheepshead, crevalle jack), species man- an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system since 1991. aged under the Florida Marine Life Program such as queen The Comprehensive ACL Amendment includes measures to triggerfish, and those with zero landings reported (tiger allocate 5% of the wreckfish fishery to recreational anglers (Continued next page)
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 4 ACTs - Why set a “Target” when you already have a “Limit”? The Council chose to select an Annual Catch Target (ACT) in Total Recreational Landings addition to an ACL for the recreational sector. The target is set 16,000,000 lower than the limit and used when managers are uncertain in the 14,000,000 ability to control the catch at or below the ACL. The target could 12,000,000 act as a warning that landings were approaching the ACL and
10,000,000 serve as an indicator to put management measures in place in the
Rec Total future to keep landings near the ACT. Because recreational data 8,000,000 Rec ACL are less certain than commercial data, the Council has chosen to 6,000,000 Rec ACT use ACTs as an added precautionary measure. 4,000,000 Remember, if a sector exceeds its ACL in any given year, this
2,000,000 overage acts as a trigger to activate accountability measures in place for that species. The measures may include in-season 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 reductions, fishery closures, and paybacks the following year if the species is overfished. For example, accountability measures Historical dolphin landings illustrate the fluctuations around theACT and were implemented for the black sea bass fishery last year ACL. Ideally, landings should remain close to the target of 11,595,803 pounds and not exceed the ACL, triggering accountability measures. when ACLs were exceeded, closing both the commercial and recreational fisheries for the first time. Ideally, catches should fluctuate slightly above or below the target each fishing year, preventing overages of the ACL and subsequent accountability measures. The graph shows the recreational values for dolphin as proposed in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment. For dolphin, if the recreational ACL is exceeded, the following year’s landings would be monitored in-season to see if there is a continued increase in landings. If so, NOAA Fisheries would publish a notice to reduce the length of the fishing season as necessary.
Council Approves Amendments (continued) and establishes a 1-wreckfish per vessel per day bag limit of Florida and Georgia northward to include South Carolina. with a 2-month recreational season (July-August). Based on No changes are proposed for the current bag limit of 10 fish recommendations from the Council’s SSC, the amendment per person/day not to exceed 60 per boat/day. Headboats are substantially lowers the total ACL for wreckfish from the allowed 10 dolphin per paying passenger/day. current Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 2 million pounds An ACL of 1,481,785 pounds (whole weight) would be to 250,000 pounds, and could have a negative impact on the set for wahoo, with a 4.3% commercial allocation and a small number of commercial vessels currently harvesting 95.7% recreational allocation. Recreational landings from wreckfish. 2005-2009 averaged 768,686 pounds. No changes are pro- posed to current regulations that include a bag limit of 2 per person per day and a commercial trip limit of 500 pounds. NOTE: As this issue of the newsletter goes to print, it has been determined that corrections are necessary to calculations The sale of bag limit wahoo is currently prohibited. Ac- used to determine sector allocations for species in the snapper countability measures similar to those for dolphin would be grouper complex. The corrections will be presented to the established. Council during its September meeting for review and approval before submitting the Comprehensive ACL Amendment to the Golden Crab and Sargassum Secretary of Commerce. The commercial golden crab trap fishery involves a relatively small number of vessels that primarily fish the deep waters off the coast of southeast Florida. The fishery is Dolphin and Wahoo closely monitored and the Council is considering the devel- The amendment also sets ACLs, AMs and allocations for opment of a catch share program for the fishery. An ACL of dolphin (mahi mahi) and wahoo, two popular species more 2 million pounds would be set for the fishery. The harvest commonly targeted by recreational anglers and managed of Sargassum, a free-floating seaweed that provides crucial under the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan. Based habitat for marine animals throughout the South Atlantic on recommendations from the Scientific and Statistical region, has been heavily restricted through the Council’s Committee, the ACL for dolphin is set at 14,596,216 pounds Sargassum Fishery Management Plan, implemented in 2003. (whole weight) with an allocation of 7.3% commercial and The Comprehensive ACL Amendment addresses parameters 92.7% recreational. The Annual Catch Target (ACT) for the for Sargassum, continuing the current restrictions in harvest recreational sector would be set at 11,595,803 pounds. If the and setting an ACL of 5,000 pounds. (Continued page 6) ACL is exceeded, the following year’s landings would be monitored in-season to see if there is a continued increase in landings. If so, NOAA Fisheries would publish a notice to reduce the length of the fishing season as necessary. In addition, the sale of bag limit caught dolphin by for-hire (charter) fishermen would be prohibited. The amendment would also extend the current minimum size limit of 20 inches (fork length) for dolphin off the east coast
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 5 Council Approves Amendments (continued) Mackerel Amendment 18 of 5.69 million pounds with an ACL equal to that amount, Because of their migratory nature, king mackerel, Span- based on total landings data from 1999 to 2008. The ish mackerel and cobia are managed jointly with the Gulf current Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Atlantic migratory of Mexico Fishery Management Council under the Coastal group Spanish mackerel is 7.05 million pounds. Under the Migratory Pelagic (Mackerel) Fishery Management Plan. amendment, the recreational allocation (45%) would be Mackerel Amendment 18 would establish management 2.56 million pounds and the commercial allocation (55%) parameters, including ACLs and AMs for both Gulf and would be 3.13 million pounds. With the reduced ACL, the Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel and Spanish commercial fishery would have exceeded their sector ACL mackerel, establish separate migratory groups of cobia (cobia in the last two years. The recreational allocation would not are currently managed as a single stock), and set ACLs and have been exceeded nor would the total ACL. No changes AMs for the newly designated Gulf and Atlantic migratory to current regulations for Spanish mackerel, including the groups of cobia. recreational bag limit of 15 per person/day are proposed in The amendment would remove cero mackerel, little tunny, the amendment. A benchmark stock assessment is scheduled dolphin and bluefish from the joint management plan. in 2012 for both Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of These species have never been managed through the Spanish mackerel. management plan, but were initially included more Cobia than 20 years ago for data collection purposes only. Cobia are targeted Dolphin is now managed under a separate fishery primarily by recreational management plan. Amendment 18 would also modify anglers, with current framework procedures to incorporate stock approximately 90% of assessments conducted through the Southeast Data, the harvest coming from Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process and to al- the recreational sector. low for adjustments to ACLs. Framework procedures A stock assessment was allow managers to take action more quickly, usually conducted for cobia within a single year, than through the development of Photo by Don DeMaria in the Gulf of Mexico Found in both the Gulf of Mexico and South in 2001 but did not plan amendments. Atlantic, cobia are a popular species with include the Atlantic. The King Mackerel recreational fishermen because they are Both the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of powerful and put up a good fight. They are assessment was able king mackerel were assessed through the SEDAR also good to eat. Separate migratory groups to conclude with some would be established through Amendment certainty that the cobia stock assessment process in 2008. The stocks were 18 and ACLs set for each group. No changes determined not to be overfished but it was uncertain if are proposed for the current bag limit of 2 per population had increased the stocks were undergoing overfishing. If overfishing person/day (Florida limits 1 per person/day). in abundance since the was occurring in the Atlantic, it was thought to be at a A benchmark SEDAR stock assessment is 1980s but little is known low level. Amendment 18 would set the ACL at 10.46 scheduled for cobia in 2012. about the Atlantic stock. million pounds for Atlantic migratory king mackerel with a Amendment 18 will establish a Gulf stock and Atlantic recreational allocation of 62.9% (6.58 million pounds) and a stock, using the jurisdictional boundary between the two commercial allocation of 37.1% (3.88 million pounds). Us- councils, located off the Florida Keys. The ACL for Atlantic ing these values, the recreational allocation would not have Migratory Group cobia would be set at 1,571,399 pounds been exceeded since 1986-87. The commercial allocation with an allocation of 8% commercial and 82% recreational. has never been exceeded but did come close in 2009-2010 Fishermen attending public hearings and addressing the with landings of 3.55 million pounds. The amendment Council have expressed some concerns about increases in includes alternatives for “paybacks” or reduction(s) in the the numbers of cobia being harvested in recent years. Based ACL for the following year for each sector if the sector ACL on statistics collected by NOAA Fisheries in 2010, the is exceeded and the stock is determined to be overfished. No recreational ACL would have been exceeded by June of last changes are proposed to current regulations. year. Spanish Mackerel Cobia form large aggregations, spawning during daylight Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel were also hours between June and August in the Atlantic Ocean near assessed in 2008 through the SEDAR process. The assess- the Chesapeake Bay, off North Carolina in May and June, ment determined Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel and in the Gulf of Mexico during April through September. stock was not undergoing overfishing, but it could not be The majority of landings occur in April, May, and June in determined if the stock was overfished. There was concern conjunction the spawning season in the South Atlantic. The about uncertainty in the assessment regarding historical Council discussed options for reducing the recreational bag recreational catches and the amount of mackerel bycatch in limit from 2 fish to 1 fish per person/day (Florida currently the shrimp fishery. has a 1 fish bag limit in place for state waters) and options Because the biomass for Spanish mackerel is unknown, to reduce harvest during the spawning season, but decided the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee, after to wait until a benchmark stock assessment is completed in discussing the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) at several 2012 through the SEDAR process before deciding to make meetings over the past two years, has recommended an ABC adjustments to current regulations. (Continued next page )
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 6 Council Approves Amendments (continued) Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 11 (240’ Closure) The Council chose to eliminate the current harvest restrictions in place for six deepwater species in waters greater than 240 feet (40 fathoms) through approval of Regulatory Amendment 11 in August. Regulations were implemented on January 31, 2011 to prohibit the harvest or possession of snowy grouper, blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, queen snapper, and silk snapper past depths of 240 feet. The restriction, known as the “240’ Closure”, was put into place through Amendment 17B to help end overfishing of speckled hind and warsaw grouper. Both species are extremely vulnerable to overfishing because they are slow growing, long-lived, and change sex from female to male with increasing size and age. The harvest of speckled If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Regulatory Amendment 11 would remove current restrictions in place that hind and warsaw grouper had been strictly regulated since prohibit the harvest of 6 snapper grouper comples species in 1992. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee waters greater than 240 feet deep. However, additional measures recently set an Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) of zero to protect speckled hind and warsaw grouper must be taken, and (landings only) for both species and harvest is now prohibited. the Council will begin reviewing management options during its September meeting. A decision regarding the current closure is The Council added the 240’ Closure to Amendment 17B to expected by the end of this year. account for the incidental catch of speckled hind and warsaw grouper as fishermen targeted other deepwater species. The The Council reviewed additional analysis during its June depth-related release mortality, estimated at 70%, is very high meeting regarding the effectiveness of the closure, including for species released in waters greater than 240 feet. the relatively low co-occurrence of speckled hind and war- The closure has been particularly difficult for commercial saw grouper with blueline tilefish and snowy grouper, and a fishermen that targeted blueline tilefish in deep waters off the possible increase in fishing mortality associated with a shift in coast of North Carolina. As restrictions for other deepwater effort to the shelf edge (131 to 262 foot depth). “We have the species increased, the landings of blueline tilefish have in- ability in a number of innovative ways to avoid catching these creased since 2005, with a rapid increase in landings between species,” said Council member Ben Hartig. “This [closure] is 2007 and 2008. As landings increased so did the value of the creating a lot more problems than it solves.” fishery, and in 2009 landings topped 472,609 pounds with a As Council members discussed options for eliminating re- value of $741,576. strictions in harvest for the 240’ Closure, they also focused on Recreational fishermen have also been impacted by the the need to begin looking at other ways to provide additional 240’ Closure, including both private anglers and charter cap- protection to speckled hind and warsaw grouper, stressing the tains that target snowy grouper and blueline tilefish by “deep need to move quickly to take action. Discussions included the dropping”. This specialty method of fishing usually includes possibility of expanding current deepwater marine protected electric reels, special gear and expertise to catch the deepwa- areas, the use of spawning area closures, and the need to work ter species, and has been growing in popularity, especially in with the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and other fishermen south Florida where deep water is closer to shore and more to help identify methods to protect the two vulnerable spe- easily accessed. The Council received numerous written cies in the near future. The Council will continue to discuss comments and public testimony from both commercial and options when it meets in September. It is the Council’s intent recreational fishermen regarding the negative impacts of the that Regulatory Amendment 11 be approved and the 240’ 240’ Closure. Closure eliminated by the beginning of 2012.
Cobia and Spanish Mackerel Fishermen Needed for Upcoming 2012 Stock Assessments If you are an avid fisher- Workshop, and Review Workshop. Representatives will be man with experience in fish- appointed to serve as panelists at the Data Workshop and ing for cobia and/or Spanish observers at the Assessment and Review Workshops. There mackerel, you may be eligible will also be "webinars" and conference calls held that would to participate in the upcom- require participation. Computer and internet access is required ing 2012 stock assessment in order to participate. for these species. The Please contact Kim Iverson at [email protected] or call Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) stock as- 843/571-4366 (toll free 855/SAFMC-10) if you are interested in sessment program is soliciting volunteers to participate in the applying to the SEDAR Pool and participating in this or other SEDAR 28 benchmark stock assessment currently scheduled stock assessment workshops. The Council will consider appoint- to begin in the spring of 2012. ments for the assessment during its September and December The assessment will consist of a Data Workshop, Assessment 2011 meetings.
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 7 Exempted Fishery Permit Allows Limited Commercial Fishery in North Carolina On-board observers collect data and record bycatch
Commercial fishermen fishing the deep waters off of North Carolina for blueline tilefish were especially impacted by the restrictions in harvest implemented with the 240’ Closure in January. The landings for blueline tilefish have increased in recent years following regulations that strictly limited the harvest of snowy grouper, another species found in deep waters. According to Benny O’Neal with O’Neal’s Seafood in Wanchese, NC, who has 3 vessels that fish for tilefish, the blueline tilefish fishery has been helpful in filling a void. “As prices for grouper have increased, gray tile [blueline A large blueline tilefish tilefish] has been a good economical substitute. The prod- is measured and then an uct is high quality and marketed fresh to local restaurants otolith extracted for aging. and retail stores as well as markets from Wilmington, NC The samples are sent to the NMFS Beaufort Lab to New York,” said O’Neal. “When the 240’ Closure hap- for processing. The size Courtesy of David Hoke pened, my boats had to stop fishing.” and age data may be used in a new stock The NC Division of Marine Fisheries requested an Ex- assessment for the species. empted Fishery Permit from NOAA Fisheries in May 2011 to allow commercial fishermen north of Cape Hatteras ac- closure put an unnecessary burden on fishermen when the cess to blueline data were there to show we don’t catch speckled hind and tilefish in order warsaw grouper,” said Hemilright. to collect data “We’ve had about 20 trips so far and and determine there haven’t been any catches of the absence these two species.” or presence of A SEDAR stock assessment is speckled hind scheduled for blueline tilefish in and warsaw 2013. The data collected through the grouper, the project will be considered for the Tilefish have become a favorite of local chefs. two species the assessment. area closure was originally designated to New Commercial Trip Limits in Place for help protect. Vermilion Snapper and Gag Grouper; The Council Greater Amberjack Trip Limit Increases reviewed the re- Effective July 15, 2011 Courtesy of David Hoke quest and NOAA A recently caught blueline tilefish off North Fisheries issued Regulatory Amendment 9 Commercial Actions: Carolina is held by NMFS Outer Banks Port the permit in Agent David Hoke. Most commercially August. The • Establish a vermilion snapper trip limit = 1,500 lbs. caught blueline tilefish in North Carolina are landed by longliners. permit allows a • Establish a gag grouper trip limit = 1,000 lbs. maximum of 11 • Increase the greater amberjack trip limit from vessels to participate and observer coverage is required for 1,000 lbs. to 1,200 lbs. (all lbs. are gutted weight) 20% of those vessels. As overfishing is ended for gag grouper, vermilion snap- According to David Hoke, a port sampler with NOAA per and black sea bass and biomass increases, their Annual Fisheries, vessels have begun to fish under the EFP and the Catch Limits are likely to be met earlier each fishing season. Increasingly restrictive regulations compound this problem as observer coverage is going smoothly. “Not all of the vessels fishermen shift from other more restricted fisheries and target are fishing for tilefish right now, some are still targeting tuna. these species. But we’re collecting basic biological data to learn more about Regulatory Amendment 9 was developed by the Council to the life history of blueline tilefish,” said David from his office help prevent the progressive shortening of fishing seasons by establishing commercial trip limits for vermilion snapper and in Manteo, NC. “With the state observers onboard we’ll also gag grouper and proposed a split season quota for the black get better data on bycatch associated with the fishery. This sea bass fishery. The split black season quota was not ap- is a relatively clean fishery.” proved by the Secretary of Commerce due to concerns about “We’re happy to be fishing again, but this closure possible interaction of black sea bass pots with right whales during their winter migration. In addition, the amendment in- shouldn’t have happened” said Dewey Hemilright, a com- creases the current trip limit for amberjack, a species that is not mercial fisherman from Wanchese, NC and Vice-Chairman overfished nor undergoing overfishing. of the Council’s Dolphin Wahoo Advisory Panel. “The
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 8 Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Black Sea Bass Amendment 2 Approved by Council Snapshot During its June meeting, the Council approved its second • Current stock status: Overfished Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment for submis- and Undergoing Overfishing sion to the Secretary of Commerce. CE-BA 2 encompasses a cross-section of fishery management plans, affecting a range • The stock is in Year 5 of a 10-year - rebuilding program and is scheduled to be rebuilt by the end of of fisheries issues including management of octocorals; har the 2015/2016 fishing year. vest limits for Special Management Zones in South Carolina; sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish release gear requirements, • Fishing Year - June 1st through May 31st and designation Essential Fish Habitat-Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPC) for the Snapper Grouper, • New recreational bag limit - 5 fish per person/day effective June 22, 2011. Coral and Sargassum management plans. The amendment is currently under review by NOAA • Recreational ACL = 409,000 pounds (whole weight) Fisheries Service. The Council will receive an update on the status of the review during it’s September meeting. • Commercial ACL = 309,000 pounds (whole weight) • The commercial fishery closed on July 15, 2011 after it was projected to meet the ACL. Actions in Comprehensive • The recreational fishery was closed for the first time ever in Ecosystem-Based Amendment 2 February 2011 after reaching the ACL during the 2010/2011 • Modify the Coral Fishery Management Plan to include fishing year. Recreational landings include headboat and octocorals in federal waters offshore of NC, SC and GA. charter vessels. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would assume management of octocorals off the coast of • Because the stock is overfished, if the ACL is exceeded within Florida in both state and federal waters, and the the fishing year, the overages must be deducted from the management plan would no longer extend into the Gulf following year’s ACL. This applies to both commercial and Council’s area of jurisdiction. recreational sectors.
• Set the Annual Catch Limit for octocorals in the South • NOAA Fisheries Service is responsible for monitoring landings Atlantic (north of Cape Canaveral to NC) at zero. and projecting when ACLs are met. Overages are currently • Restrict harvest of snapper grouper species, mackerel, being calculated for the 2010/2011 fishing year. and cobia to the recreational bag limit in SMZs off the coast of SC. • A benchmark stock assessment is underway for South Atlantic black sea bass through the Southeast Data, Assessment and • Modify sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish release gear Review (SEDAR) stock assessment program. requirements for the commercial snapper grouper fishery. • The stock assessment will be reviewed by the Council’s • Modify Essential Fish Habitat/Habitat Areas of Particular Scientific and Statistical Committee in November. The Council Concern designations. will receive the stock assessment results during its December 2011 meeting.
South Atlantic Council Invited to Testify at Congressional Hearing on NOAA’s Fishery Science Council member and past chairman Duane Harris testified on July 26, 2011 before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs during an oversight hearing titled, “NOAA’s “Improving the data Fishery Science: Is the Lack of Basic Science Costing Jobs?” on which stock The hearing focused on how NOAA’s National Marine Fisher- assessments are based, both fishery ies Service collects data necessary for the management and allocation of fishery resources, how the dependent and fishery amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act have affected independent data, is domestic fishery management, and how the agency plans to provide fishery managers with better and essential if we are to gain back the trust of more up to date information given increasingly tight budgets. Other invited panelists included As- the fishing public.” sistant Administrator of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Eric Schwaab, representatives Council Member from other regional management agencies, fishing organizations, and individual fishermen, including Duane Harris Council member George Geiger. A copy of the 5-minute testimony presented by Mr. Harris is avail- able from the Council’s website at www.safmc.net. Additional information on the hearings is available at: http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=252461.
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 9 New Staffers! There are some new faces around the Council office. We would like to welcome the following:
Mike Errigo recently came on board at Brian Cheuvront is the newest staff the Council as a Fisheries Scientist. Mike member at the SAFMC. Brian previously received his PhD in marine biology from the served as the Vice-chairman for the Council University of Maine and holds an MA from and the Council representative for the North Boston University. Mike participated in the Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NC Lobster Stock Assessment Committee in the DMF). Brian’s new position as a Fishery Dr. Mike Errigo Northeast and completed his postdoctoral Dr. Brian Economist for the SAFMC utilizes his fellowship at Virginia Tech. Mike’s postdoctoral work Cheuvront background as the socio-economic program included modeling issues involving weakfish and black sea manager for the NC DMF, where he worked for over bass. ten years. Brian holds a PhD from North Carolina State Kari MacLauchlin completed her PhD in University in social psychology. the Interdisciplinary Ecology program at the University of Florida. Her research focused on how fishermen adapted to the Florida spiny lobster trap certificate program. Previous to coming on board at the SAFMC Dr. Kari as the Fisheries Social Scientist, Kari worked MacLauchlin in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Policy as a Knauss Policy fellow. Andrea Grabman is the new Assistant Public Information Officer at the Council. Prior to coming to work for the SAFMC, Andrea worked as a biologist and educator for the South Carolina state park system. Andrea holds a MS in marine sciences from Here’s Looking at YOU! Andrea Stony Brook University and a BS in marine Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel chairman Don DeMaria snapped Grabman biology from the College of Charleston. this shot while diving off the coast of NC recently as part of a project to collect octocorals for use in biomedical research. The dives were made possible through an Exempted Fishery Permit. Can you find the flounder?
Council Appointments (Continued from page 2) of us at the West Palm Beach Fishing Club believe in giving Natural Resources (NCDENR). Dr. Duval replaces former something back for future generations. Decades of various Council member Dr. Brian Cheuvront. Dr. Cheuvront served scientific and fishery related associations make the SAFMC a on the Council for four years as the representative for the logical choice toward accomplishing this goal. My hope is to NCDENR and held the position as Council Vice-chairman play a positive role. Realistically there will be a steep learning since September 2010. Dr. Cheuvront recently took on a new curve to overcome, but I am up for it. Let’s go!” Mr. Jolley position as the staff economist for the Council. specializes in billfish research and continues to contribute to his numerous scientific publications on fisheries. He replaces Jessica McCawley, the Biological Council member George Geiger, who leaves the Council after Administrator III of the Florida Fish serving three consecutive terms. and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), replaces Mark Robson as the New State Agency Representatives agency representative on the Council. In addition to the appointments of David Cupka and John Jolley After serving on the South Atlantic to the Council, two new state agency representatives have Council for eight years, Mr. Robson recently retired from his position as recently been appointed to serve on Jessica McCawley the Council. the Director of Marine Fisheries with FWC. Council members and staff wish Mark a long and happy Dr. Michelle Duval, the Executive retirement at his new home in the NC mountains. Assistant for Councils at the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, serves as the new agency representative for the North Carolina Dr. Michelle Duval Department of Environment and
The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 10 Note! SAFMC Meeting Dates and Locations September Council Meeting 2011 Schedule Public Comment Sessions March 7-11, 2011 September 12-16, 2011 Sea Palms Conf. Center Charleston Marriott Hotel Wednesday, September 14 5445 Frederica Road 170 Lockwood Boulevard 5:30 pm St. Simons Island, GA 31522 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 1/800-841-6268 Informal Q&A with Regional Administrator Dr. Roy Phone: 1/800-968-3569 Crabtree and Council Chairman David Cupka June 13-17, 2011 Dec 5-9, 2011 Marriott Beachside Hotel Holiday Inn Brownstone Thursday, September 15 3841 N. Roosevelt Blvd. 1707 Hillsborough St. 2:00 pm Key West Florida 33040 Raleigh, NC 27605 SAFMC formal public comment on the corrected Phone: 1/800-546-0885 Phone: 1/800/331-7919 version of the Comprehensive ACL Amendment and August 9, 2011 any other agenda items. Charleston Marriott Hotel 170 Lockwood Boulevard Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 1/800-968-3569 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Meeting Acronyms September 12-16, 2011 ABC - Allowable Biological Catch Charleston Marriott Hotel ACCSP - Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program 170 Lockwood Blvd. Charleston, SC 29403 ACL - Annual Catch Limit Phone: 800/968-3569 or 843/723-3000 AM - Accountability Measure ACT - Annual Catch Target For a detailed agenda contact the Council office toll free at 1-866 SAFMC-10 or 843/571-4366. The agenda is also available on the AP - Advisory Panel Council’s web site www.safmc.net ASMFC - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission MEETING AGENDA BRD - Bycatch Reduction Device Monday 1:30 - 5:30 Joint Shrimp and Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel Meeting EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone Essential Fish Habitat EFH - Tuesday 8:30 - 12:00 Shrimp Committee Meeting EFH/HAPC - Essential Fish Habitat/ 1:30 - 3:00 Spiny Lobster Committee Meeting Habitat Area of Particular Concern 3:00 - 4:00 Law Enforcement Committee Meeting FMP - Fishery Management Plan 4:00 - 5:30 Ecosystem-Based Management Committee Meeting HMS - Highly Migratory Species ITQ - Individual Transferable Quota Wednesday 8:30 - 9:30 Executive/Finance Committees Meeting 9:30 - 10:30 Mackerel Committee Meeting LAPP - Limited Access Privilege Program 10:30 - 12:00 SEDAR Committee Meeting MSY - Maximum Sustainable Yield 1:30 - 3:30 Golden Crab Committee Meeting 3:30 - 5:00 Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting MRFSS - Marine Recreational Fishing Informal Public Q & A Session - 5:30 PM Statistics Survey NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service Thursday 8:30 - 12:00 Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting (continued) 1:30 - 5:30 - Council Session - OY - Optimum Yield Public Comment Session begins at 2:00 pm SEDAR - Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (stock assessment process) Friday 8:30 - 12:00 - Council Session -
SSC - Scientific & Statistical Committee Watch the Council meeting LIVE online! SFA - Sustainable Fisheries Act To watch the Council meeting live from Charleston, SC, choose a direct link for live video feed as the meeting occurs at www.safmc.net. TAC - Total Allowable Catch
VMS - Vessel Monitoring System The South Atlantic Update Summer 2011 11 Mark your calendar... October 5-6 SAFMC Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel Meeting N. Charleston, SC www.safmc.net
October 11-13 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Meeting Galloway, NJ www.mafmc.org
October 11-13 SEDAR 25 (black sea bass, golden tilefish) Review Workshop N. Charleston, SC Contact Kari Fenske 843/571-4366 South Atlantic Fishery October 13 SEDAR Steering Committee Meeting Management Council N. Charleston, SC Contact John Carmichael 843/571-4366 2011 2011 Meeting September 12-16, 2011 October 25-26 SAFMC Coral Advisory Panel Meeting N. Charleston, SC www.safmc.net Charleston, SC
October 25-26 SAFMC Information & Education Advisory Panel Meeting N. Charleston, SC www.safmc.net
October 24-28 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Meeting New Orleans, LA www.gulfcouncil.org
November 7-10 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 70th Annual Meeting Boston, MA www.asmfc.org
November 8-10 SAFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting N. Charleston, SC www.safmc.net
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE First Class National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration U.S. Postage PAID South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Charleston, SC 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201 Permit PI-25 North Charleston, SC 29405
www.safmc.net Printed on recycled paper
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kim Iverson October 18, 2011 Toll Free 866/SAFMC-10 or 843/571-4366 [email protected]
Public Hearings Scheduled for Black Sea Bass, Red Grouper and Wreckfish Fisheries The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a series of seven public hearings beginning November 14, 2011 to solicit public input on management measures impacting federal fisheries for black sea bass, red grouper, and wreckfish. Amendments are being developed to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan in order to: address overcapacity in the commercial black sea bass pot fishery and reduce the rate of harvest for both commercial and recreational sectors; end overfishing and rebuild the red grouper stock; and address the current Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) program for wreckfish.
Black Sea Bass Restrictions: Amendment 18A Annual Catch Limits (in numbers of pounds) have been established by the Council for black sea bass as mandated in the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act to end overfishing and help rebuild the stock. Increased restrictions on the harvest of other species in the snapper grouper complex have led to an increase in fishing effort for black sea bass. As a result, the catch limits have been reached earlier by both commercial and recreational fishermen, resulting in closures. The 2011/2012 fishing year for black sea bass began June 1, 2011. The commercial fishery met its ACL in just 45 days and the fishery was closed. After NOAA Fisheries Service accounted for overages in landings by the recreational sector during the 2010/2011 season, it was announced the recreational fishery had met its adjusted ACL of 341,747 pounds for this fishing year. The recreational black sea bass fishery closed on October 17, 2011 and reopens June 1, 2012. Amendment 18A is being developed to limit the commercial black sea bass pot fishery and reduce harvest rates for both commercial and recreational sectors. A new stock assessment for black sea bass is currently underway and the Council will receive the results of the assessment during its December 5-9, 2011 meeting in Raleigh, NC. Measures Included in Amendment 18A: For the commercial black sea bass pot fishery: limit participation through an endorsement program, limit the number of pots used during a permit year, and other measures to limit harvest and reduce bycatch Establish commercial trip limits (all gear types) Increase size limits (commercial and recreational) Establish a spawning season closure (for both commercial and recreational sectors) Modify the current rebuilding strategy to allow for an increase in the Annual Catch Limit as the stock continues to rebuild, based on the results of the most recent stock assessment. Improve commercial and for-hire data reporting requirements
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Red Grouper: Amendment 24 A stock assessment conducted in 2010 identified the red grouper stock in the South Atlantic region as overfished and undergoing overfishing. Amendment 24 will set Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures, establish a rebuilding plan, and revise certain population parameters for red grouper to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The amendment also establishes allocations between recreational and commercial sectors.
Wreckfish ITQs: Amendment 20A Wreckfish, a deepwater species in the snapper grouper management complex, is currently harvested through an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) program. With an anticipated reduction in the Annual Catch Limit for wreckfish, the Council is considering measures to adjust the distribution of wreckfish shares in order to remove inactive effort and allow the commercial sector’s ACL to be harvested effectively.
(Public hearing dates and locations on back)
(Continued)
Public hearings for the amendments will take place from 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM unless otherwise noted. Note: some hearings will be held on concurrent dates. Council staff will provide an overview of each amendment and be on hand to answer questions. Local Council representatives will take formal comments on the public hearing documents any time between those hours. The Council is accepting written and email comments from October 21, 2011 until 5:00 p.m. on November 21, 2011. Copies of the public hearing documents with details on how to submit written comments will be posted on the Council’s web site at www.safmc.net and available by contacting the Council office at 843/571-4366 or Toll Free 866/SAFMC-10.
Public Hearing Schedule
Monday, November 14 Tuesday, November 15 *Tuesday, December 6 Avista Resort Jacksonville Marriott Holiday Inn Brownstone 300 N. Ocean Boulevard 4670 Salisbury Road 1707 Hillsborough Street Myrtle Beach, SC 29582 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Raleigh, NC 27605 Phone: 843/249-2521 Phone: 904/296-2222 Phone: 919/828-0811
Monday, November 14 Wednesday, November 16 *Hearing in conjunction with the December 5-9 Hampton Inn Savannah/Midtown Radisson Resort at the Port Council meeting and begins at 5:30 PM 20 Johnston Street 8701 Astronaut Blvd. Savannah, GA 31405 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Phone: 912/721-3700 Phone: 321/784-0000
Tuesday, November 15 Thursday, November 17 (5:30 – 7:30 PM) Key Largo Bay Marriott Charleston Marriott Hotel 103800 Overseas Highway 170 Lockwood Boulevard Key Largo, FL 33037 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 305/453-0000 Phone: 843/723-3000
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional councils, conserves and manages fish stocks from three to 200 miles offshore of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and east Florida.
N.C. MARINE PATROL MFC COMMISSION REPORT OCTOBER 2011
Headquarters
Congratulations are in order for two officers receiving promotions this quarter. Sergeant Jerry Forbes was promoted to the vacant Lieutenant’s position in District I and Officer Dean Nelson was promoted to the vacant Sergeant’s position in District II.
Staff is in the process of filling three vacant officer positions and one telecommunicator position. The vacant positions are in District I. We are in the last phase of installing our new Viper radio system all units will be in installed by November 1, 2011. We purchased a total of 76 units using Federal Matching Grants. This radio system is operated by North Carolina Public Safety and Crime Control.
All officers attended a three day In‐service school in Morehead City. During this training, officers were shown an overview of Fisheries Management Plans, Marine Fisheries Commission duties, Trip Ticket Data and Resource Enhancement and how they related to the enforcement section of fisheries. Other training included Water Survival training and Rescue swimming. During the water training officers were run through different scenarios involving being overboard and relying on their safety equipment.
Sergeants Long, Nelson, Carter and Witten attended First Line Supervision classes at Wilson Tech during the last week of September.
During the time period of January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011 Marine Patrol Officers made 76,887 enforcement contacts, which resulted in 1,625 enforcement actions being taken.
District I
Over the past few months, District One has worked on its normal activities and special projects all while having dealt with Hurricane Irene and its devastating aftermath to local areas. Despite the tremendous hurricane, District One’s Officers were well with little to no loss to personal or state property. Before the hurricane, officers were busy for a week securing boats, vehicles, and other state property in anticipation of the storm. All this preparation proved to be well worth it, as no state equipment was damaged in the storm. We assisted Hyde County Emergency Management for a few days to help out with some security concerns around Ocracoke Island. There was a concern about non residents looting by boat on the island. No problems were reported by the officers. Officers have been on the lookout for lost gear and reporting to their local fishermen as they come across it. The hurricane did temporarily slow down the fishing activity in our district, but it is back on its way up now.
On the fishing front, recreational activity in the district was steady until the storm. It has now picked back up. A detail was worked in an area that was anonymously reported as being a problem area for people fishing without a CRFL. This detail spanned the course of three days and resulted in almost a dozen citations for NO CRFL. This area will continue to be inspected. We worked on several shark complaints that were either unfounded or involved no violations. These complaints normally occurred when it dealt with a large shark washing up dead on the beach or a large shark being landed on the beach by a fisherman. A littering investigation is underway dealing with a sunken boat, with the end goal of simply trying to get the owner to remove it from the water.
The normal activity during the summer has been monitored. The new commercial license year came into effect and officers were busy checking for new SCFL’s. Trawlers have had courtesy dockside examinations done on their BRD’s, TEDS’s, and other gear. They have also been regularly checked on the water along with tow times. The P/V Roanoke kept a good eye on the shrimp fleet this summer and checked them accordingly. Crabbing season has been steady along with pound net fishing in District One. Undersized crab details have been conducted in problem areas. Officers have continued doing sea turtle/gill net patrols within the necessary areas and times. Several charges have been made pertaining to gill nets in the Pamlico Sound areas. Officers have also spent time answering questions and explaining the gill net laws to fishermen in the affected areas. No major problems have been reported.
Other activities included us assisting with a triathlon in Dare County. We provided a boat and officer for two days for a few hours to keep other boaters away from the triathlon participants as they swam. Two officers were asked to go “chicken necking” for crabs with a group of about 25 4‐H’ers. This was a worthwhile event that the children and the officers both seemed to enjoy. One officer assisted CAMA with an issue they had with a landowner. We helped take a NC Aquarium employee out to gather information on a dead porpoise that was reported to us, so they could relay that information to the proper entity. One officer made an internal transfer out of District One to District Two.
District II
During the beginning of the period, officers were monitoring busy crab and shrimp fisheries. Catches of shrimp in Neuse River slowed quickly, but other areas such as Pamlico Sound and Adams Creek continued for several weeks. Good catches of crabs in most areas were observed and several size and gear violations were cited.
Gill net activity was busy with numerous hours spent by officers checking this activity in their area. During the first half of this reporting period alone, these checks resulted in five (5) proclamated violations (either M‐18 or M‐24) and five (5) other gill net / gear violations. The aircraft section also played a key role in locating / assisting with these violations.
Other activity such as flounder gigging and various recreational fishing was very active during this period. 16 Citations were written for not having the Coastal Recreational Fishing License. Over 30 citations and warnings were written for undersize violations.
During the week of August 11, 2011 three (3) citations were issued to a vessel for trawling in a closed area in Newport River. The seafood and gear were seized according to policy.
Officers and staff attended various committee meetings. These included Fisheries Management meetings, MFC Subcommittee meetings, and “Special Detail” meetings. The “Special Detail” meetings were for Marine Patrol’s participation in helping with the Crystal Coast Grand Prix boat race and the Blessing of the Fleet during the Seafood Festival weekend. These are good opportunities to work with other agencies and the public in ways that aren’t normally done.
This period also contained preparing for, enduring, and recovering from Hurricane Irene. Most officers’ residents were sparred major damage, though some did have flooding issues like many others in the communities they live in. This was especially true for those who live in Pamlico and Beaufort Counties.
All staff completed required Firearms training and In‐Water training as well. Several supervisors received specialized training out of town. Two new officers – Brian Gupton and Allen Williford joined District II during this period.
The second half of this period also saw an increase in net activity. Very good catches of Flounder were seen in the Neuse River area and others exempted as part of the reduced net restrictions from recent proclamations. In other areas, such as Core Sound, violations were discovered such as the confiscation of 2600 yards of gill net that resulted in 3 charges relating to M‐30‐11. This fisherman has been charged twice before with similar offenses – those cases are pending.
District III
Special Projects/Noteworthy Items for this Period: This quarter, Officers have been steadily working the summertime fishing activities with numerous inshore and offshore fishing tournaments. District Officers have set up details on inshore shrimping activities and have worked the openings in the New River and down through the ICWW to the Cape Fear. Shrimping activity has not been as active as in the past, but there were some violations found. Officers Blythe and Bishop made a presentation aboard Camp Lejeune and New River Air Station to approximately 300‐350 Marines reference Marine Patrol rules and regulations and boating safety. Officers Register, Kendrick and Weaver attended Officer Training School and successfully completed the class. Since that time, they have developed and presented several District‐wide classes, along with Officer Cornelius. They developed and presented a water safety training class that included how/what to do in case of emergency, what to do if they should fall out of a vessel or from a dock with their gear on, which was an eye‐opening experience. All three Districts completed the course. Officers throughout the District attended a 3‐day class for “Boating While Impaired”; all were successful in the completion of that course. Several Officers also participated in a joint enforcement effort with State and Federal agencies called “Operation Dry Water”; there were three arrests made from that operation. Brunswick County Officers participated in a joint detail with NC WRC, USCG, and SC WRC, checking fisheries violations. All Officers also prepared and assisted local agencies in preparation of Hurricane Irene before and after the storm. Warrant Officer Raynor responded to reports of old tires washing up on the beaches; he performed flights with Sergeant Walker to record and report for cleanup. District III Officers have been involved with the USCG, Wilmington Port Authority, and several other agencies in planning a mock disaster, the “simulated tanker collision/hazardous chemical spill in the Cape Fear River Basin”, which will be table‐topped here in Wilmington on November 2, 2011. Sergeant Jason Walker was selected as Officer of the Year for Marine Patrol, and subsequently for the State Officers of the year. He attended the Wildlife Federation banquet in Durham, where he received his award and certificate.
Violations worth noting for this period: Officers have been working undercover operations from citizen complaints regarding illegal sale of crabs. A case was made on a boater offering his services “for hire” without a permit. Several trip ticket violations have also been discovered and cited.
Ongoing: District III personnel have been performing all routine activities of dealer inspections, checking roadside vendors, restaurants, ocean pier license checks, as well as gill net patrols and polluted area patrols. Officers are now preparing for the upcoming oyster season and mechanical clamming activity. Administrative Staff have been involved with the new Civil Penalty process and working with other Division staff on the Blue Crab Management Plan, as well as the upcoming new Shrimp Management Plan.
Coastal Recreational Fishing License
Sales Update
Date of Release: October 01, 2011
Page 1 Marine Resources Fund Balance FY2007 2008 & Revenue or Expense Item 2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Total to Date Gross Revenue CRFL Only (Annual and 10-day) $ 10,908,400 $ 4,171,655 $ 4,304,585 $ 1,630,290 $ 21,014,930 Unified CRFL (Annual) $ 1,795,220 $ 900,615 $ 998,250 $ 395,250 $ 4,089,335 Blanket For Hire CRFL $ 498,925 $ 167,395 $ 178,689 $ 26,000 $ 871,009 Blanket Ocean Fishing Pier CRFL $ 161,828 $ 49,861 $ 53,456 $ - $ 265,145 Block of Ten-Day CRFL $ 150 $ 1,430 $ 750 $ - $ 2,330 Interest $ 518,508 $ 177,414 $ 122,003 $ 31,314 $ 849,239 Sales Commission $ 37,066 $ 14,349 $ 15,014 $ 4,577 $ 71,006 Subtotal (Gross) $ 13,920,097 $ 5,482,719 $ 5,672,747 $ 2,087,431 $ 27,162,994 Expense Agent Commission $ 810,289 $ 317,327 $ 335,608 $ 125,651 $ 1,588,875 Transaction Fee $ 1,908,988 $ 786,622 $ 822,752 $ 328,576 $ 3,846,938 Subtotal (Expense) $ (2,719,277) $ (1,103,949) $ (1,158,360) $ (454,227) $ (5,435,813) Total Net $ 11,200,820 $ 4,378,770 $ 4,514,387 $ 1,633,204 $ 21,727,181
Marine Resources Endowment Fund Balance FY2007 2008 & Revenue or Expense Item 2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Total to Date Gross Revenue Lifetime CRFL $ 936,300 $ 199,070 $ 187,630 $ 53,345 $ 1,376,345 Unified Lifetime CRFL $ 1,443,685 $ 457,265 $ 491,630 $ 136,985 $ 2,529,565 Subtotal (Gross) $ 2,379,985 $ 656,335 $ 679,260 $ 190,330 $ 3,905,910 Expense Agent Commission $ 142,884 $ 39,472 $ 40,871 $ 11,517 $ 234,744 Transaction Fee $ 142,878 $ 37,230 $ 36,709 $ 10,828 $ 227,645 Subtotal (Expense) $ (285,762) $ (76,702) $ (77,580) $ (22,345) $ (462,389) Non Capital Gifts $ - Interest From Sales and WRC Transfers $ 348,889 $ 92,403 $ 71,423 $ 20,267 $ 532,982 Subtotal Net $ 2,443,112 $ 672,036 $ 673,103 $ 188,252 $ 3,976,503 Transfers from WRC March 2006-2010 5 transfers of $680,000 each $ 3,400,000 Total Net $ 7,376,503 Note: Includes revenue generated from licenses sold through the Wildlife Resources Commission ALVIN system and the Division of Marine Fisheries FIN system. Projects Approved for Funding from the Marine Resources Fund (no obligations from Endowment Fund) Project Budgeted FY12 CRFL Sales and Data Support $ 517,458 Fisheries Independent Assessment Program $ 372,496 CRFL Implementation $ 397,767 Senior Stock Assessment Scientist $ 122,051 Coastal Fish/Oyster Reef Creation Roll over amount from FY 2009-10 $ 165,057 Coastal Fish/Oyster Reef Creation Roll over amount from FY 2010-11 $ 463,488 Coastal Fish/Oyster Reef Creation FY 2011-12 $ 463,488 Shallow Draft Barge Operations FY 2011-12 $ 17,000 CRFL Funds carried over from Previous RFP Projects $ 1,286,691 Subsequent Multi-Year Approved Funding $ 1,722,425 CRFL Funded Projects FY2011 - 12 $ 1,753,592 Total $ 7,281,513 SUMMARY Net Revenue from Marine Resources Fund $ 21,727,181 Spent Funds from Approved FY 11 Obligations $ (4,773,352) Spent Funds from Approved FY 10 Obligations $ (1,740,114) Spent Funds from Approved FY 09 Obligations $ (1,281,245) Spent Funds from Approved FY 08 Obligations $ (608,751) Payback to WRC $ (821,516) Commission Approved Projects for FY2011-12 $ (7,281,513) BALANCE IN FUND August 31, 2011 $ 5,220,690 Coastal Recreational Fishing License sales by calendar year through date of release of this report.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 License Type Annual Nonresident CRFL 23,793 19,222 19,398 20,254 15,939
Annual Resident CRFL 179,923 143,810 142,569 141,475 109,021
Annual Resident Unified Inland/CRFL 20,572 22,710 22,941 26,491 22,656
Annual Resident Unified Sportsman/CRFL 24,310 32,420 36,464 39,527 26,720
Infant Lifetime CRFL 133 49 60 47 56
Infant Lifetime Unified Sportsman/CRFL 2,829 2,729 2,736 2,758 2,135
Lifetime Unified Inland/CRFL 528 232 189 209 158
Nonresident 10-Day CRFL 131,105 125,564 132,193 137,066 111,911
Nonresident Adult Lifetime CRFL 34 18 8 17 12
Nonresident Adult Lifetime Unified Sportsman/CRFL 20 15 9 9 8
Resident 10-Day CRFL 40,255 39,110 45,724 47,619 34,194
Resident Adult Care Lifetime Unified Inland/CRFL 844 486 579 428 376
Resident Adult Lifetime CRFL 952 291 222 245 149
Resident Adult Lifetime Unified Sportsman/CRFL 1,116 624 532 520 375
Resident Age 65 Lifetime CRFL 20,768 8,280 7,572 6,658 4,733
Resident Age 65 Lifetime Unified Sportsman/CRFL 12,898 5,839 5,290 5,166 3,771
Resident Disabled Veteran Lifetime CRFL 687 433 675 610 487
Resident Disabled Veteran Lifetime Sportsman/CRFL 365 309 459 471 324
Resident Legally Blind Lifetime Unified Inland/CRFL 158 144 135 155 119
Resident Subsistence Unified Inland/CRFL Waiver 5,952 7,904 15,510 22,205 25,947
Resident Totally Disabled Lifetime CRFL 1,326 849 905 767 576
Resident Totally Disabled Lifetime Sportsman/CRFL 422 460 492 406 268
Youth Lifetime CRFL 87 48 56 60 36
Youth Lifetime Unified Sportsman/CRFL 444 334 370 356 247
Total 469,521 411,880 435,088 453,519 360,218
Page 3 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by North Carolina county of sale (location where license sales agent resides), excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Agent County No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Alamance 2,384 29 2,010 27 2,192 25 2,370 25 2,006 21 Alexander 238 80 230 77 299 77 358 77 405 70 Alleghany 110 90 88 92 102 91 95 91 68 96 Anson 325 73 340 72 443 70 570 64 432 68 Ashe 261 78 183 81 190 82 220 82 192 82 Avery 49 96 57 94 46 97 60 97 42 97 Beaufort 9,629 9 8,143 10 8,113 10 7,374 10 5,518 10 Bertie 1,104 43 709 51 572 60 710 57 659 51 Bladen 881 48 744 49 871 49 938 49 778 48 Brunswick 38,721 4 33,303 4 35,515 4 36,074 4 29,704 4 Buncombe 519 63 450 63 512 63 616 61 596 57 Burke 470 65 341 71 516 62 630 59 669 52 Cabarrus 2,634 25 1,924 28 1,905 30 1,976 29 1,394 31 Caldwell 529 62 611 54 1,244 40 1,846 32 2,320 19 Camden 609 57 472 62 502 64 369 76 310 77 Carteret 46,813 3 38,456 3 39,308 3 41,210 3 31,057 3 Caswell 133 88 117 87 149 85 166 85 161 84 Catawba 941 46 838 45 1,066 44 1,415 40 1,329 38 Chatham 808 51 755 48 743 54 737 56 590 55 Cherokee 74 93 34 95 60 95 90 93 115 88 Chowan 1,451 36 1,335 35 1,362 36 1,494 37 1,074 41 Clay 40 97 33 97 53 96 89 94 88 94 Cleveland 429 69 342 70 482 66 799 51 747 49 Columbus 2,626 26 2,294 23 2,444 22 2,649 20 1,923 23 Craven 8,838 10 9,950 8 10,022 8 10,779 8 8,289 8 Cumberland 5,530 13 4,575 13 4,664 13 4,925 13 4,009 13 Currituck 2,660 24 2,435 21 2,628 21 2,516 23 1,636 27 Dare 93,225 1 82,635 1 85,998 1 87,850 1 64,774 2 Davidson 2,191 31 1,592 32 1,702 31 1,993 28 1,594 28 Davie 605 58 490 61 497 65 565 66 391 67 Duplin 2,679 23 2,235 24 2,307 24 2,403 24 1,713 25 Durham 1,550 35 1,236 36 1,206 42 1,212 43 920 46 Edgecombe 1,707 34 1,481 33 1,618 33 1,798 33 1,467 30 Forsyth 4,068 16 3,154 17 3,135 18 3,332 17 2,228 18 Franklin 460 67 407 66 469 69 515 68 419 66
Page 4 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by North Carolina county of sale (location where license sales agent resides), excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Agent County No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Gaston 1,161 41 1,070 41 1,317 37 1,432 39 1,361 36 Gates 241 79 210 78 277 80 266 81 229 81 Graham 55 95 32 98 80 94 74 96 99 91 Granville 417 70 351 69 334 75 429 73 357 72 Greene 332 72 313 73 295 78 380 75 262 80 Guilford 3,731 17 3,155 16 3,557 15 3,655 16 2,888 16 Halifax 671 53 588 55 858 50 947 48 1,045 42 Harnett 2,351 30 1,849 29 1,943 29 1,917 31 1,385 33 Haywood 152 85 92 90 112 89 161 86 159 85 Henderson 144 87 132 85 113 88 129 89 153 86 Hertford 1,268 40 1,154 39 1,253 39 1,349 41 1,085 40 Hoke 315 74 245 76 408 73 489 70 525 62 Hyde 6,322 12 5,358 12 5,228 12 5,479 12 4,234 12 Iredell 1,314 39 1,158 38 1,170 43 1,145 45 996 43 Jackson 102 91 115 88 149 86 144 87 118 87 Johnston 4,422 15 3,363 15 3,379 16 2,981 18 2,147 20 Jones 159 84 151 83 170 83 194 84 163 83 Lee 1,069 45 900 43 1,040 45 1,169 44 819 47 Lenoir 10,318 8 8,308 9 8,698 9 8,869 9 6,058 9 Lincoln 534 60 534 59 604 58 686 58 536 59 Macon 71 94 90 91 82 92 88 95 104 89 Madison 28 99 34 96 22 99 30 100 28 100 Martin 2,857 20 2,685 19 2,758 20 2,594 22 1,960 24 McDowell 226 81 137 84 247 81 305 79 344 75 Mecklenburg 2,072 32 1,751 31 1,670 32 1,747 34 1,435 32 Mitchell 99 92 103 89 111 90 92 92 97 92 Montgomery 389 71 367 67 518 61 574 63 436 65 Moore 1,074 44 886 44 892 48 902 50 667 50 Nash 2,412 27 2,045 26 2,187 26 2,161 26 1,682 26 New Hanover 34,556 5 28,558 5 30,070 5 31,265 5 24,012 5 Northampton 312 75 304 75 473 67 570 65 474 64 Onslow 16,098 7 15,185 6 16,226 6 17,228 6 13,608 6 Orange 666 54 561 57 590 59 555 67 526 60 Pamlico 2,815 22 2,320 22 2,179 27 2,150 27 1,505 29 Pasquotank 2,991 19 2,796 18 2,937 19 2,816 19 2,505 17
Page 5 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by North Carolina county of sale (location where license sales agent resides), excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Agent County No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Pender 17,462 6 14,733 7 15,363 7 16,361 7 12,420 7 Perquimans 762 52 719 50 637 57 579 62 348 73 Person 485 64 417 65 471 68 461 71 323 76 Pitt 6,687 11 5,807 11 6,120 11 5,831 11 4,498 11 Polk 35 98 25 99 43 98 40 99 39 99 Randolph 1,439 37 1,107 40 1,375 35 1,580 35 1,393 34 Richmond 533 61 522 60 659 55 787 53 647 53 Robeson 3,379 18 2,625 20 3,338 17 3,826 15 2,949 15 Rockingham 864 49 686 52 801 52 751 55 493 63 Rowan 1,825 33 1,439 34 1,399 34 1,450 38 1,178 39 Rutherford 288 76 196 79 286 79 293 80 297 78 Sampson 2,387 28 1,804 30 1,953 28 1,976 30 1,246 35 Scotland 618 56 552 58 641 56 617 60 595 56 Stanly 1,124 42 972 42 1,270 38 1,527 36 1,325 37 Stokes 619 55 437 64 443 71 438 72 313 74 Surry 852 50 645 53 755 53 761 54 536 58 Swain 129 89 60 93 82 93 98 90 87 95 Transylvania 161 83 121 86 116 87 144 88 103 90 Tyrrell 1,326 38 1,227 37 1,233 41 1,214 42 512 61 Union 904 47 811 46 827 51 797 52 650 54 Vance 554 59 781 47 992 46 973 47 941 45 Wake 81,056 2 77,455 2 82,371 2 87,583 2 77,965 1 Warren 150 86 178 82 361 74 389 74 407 69 Washington 440 68 578 56 971 47 1,104 46 1,017 44 Watauga 282 77 309 74 315 76 335 78 296 79 Wayne 4,614 14 4,003 14 4,403 14 4,523 14 3,349 14 Wilkes 462 66 362 68 436 72 509 69 371 71 Wilson 2,829 21 2,197 25 2,361 23 2,613 21 2,175 22 Yadkin 200 82 195 80 164 84 196 83 86 93 Yancey 20 100 18 100 20 100 48 98 40 98 469,521 411,880 435,088 453,519 360,218
Page 6 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by North Carolina county of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 County No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Alamance 4,222 25 3,549 23 3,843 23 3,991 25 3,098 23 Alexander 566 84 539 79 609 78 690 77 645 76 Alleghany 214 91 192 91 228 90 238 89 140 94 Anson 397 86 418 85 535 84 611 81 475 84 Ashe 457 85 329 86 378 87 388 87 306 87 Avery 192 92 206 89 213 91 234 91 183 90 Beaufort 7,011 16 5,784 16 5,852 16 5,737 16 4,388 16 Bertie 1,887 45 1,552 48 1,579 53 1,735 47 1,408 44 Bladen 1,739 51 1,555 47 1,621 50 1,719 49 1,311 46 Brunswick 12,856 6 10,705 6 10,760 6 10,645 6 8,429 6 Buncombe 1,816 47 1,543 51 1,617 52 1,725 48 1,381 48 Burke 1,414 57 1,123 60 1,343 57 1,507 56 1,363 51 Cabarrus 3,290 31 2,637 31 2,938 31 2,926 33 2,233 35 Caldwell 1,227 63 1,150 57 1,795 45 2,436 36 2,816 30 Camden 960 71 825 73 868 73 823 74 632 75 Carteret 13,975 5 11,245 5 10,837 5 11,381 5 8,341 5 Caswell 599 81 519 81 576 82 568 84 470 81 Catawba 2,369 38 2,146 37 2,558 34 2,887 34 2,516 32 Chatham 1,972 44 1,632 45 1,805 44 1,809 46 1,321 52 Cherokee 86 99 118 98 109 98 136 96 152 93 Chowan 1,761 50 1,546 49 1,665 49 1,716 51 1,384 49 Clay 68 100 58 100 91 101 129 98 117 99 Cleveland 1,133 66 976 64 1,156 63 1,529 54 1,283 54 Columbus 2,956 33 2,565 33 2,835 32 2,961 32 2,306 34 Craven 10,096 7 9,123 7 9,025 8 9,478 7 7,565 7 Cumberland 8,048 11 6,616 11 7,070 11 7,494 11 6,000 11 Currituck 2,301 41 1,987 40 2,050 39 1,949 42 1,480 43 Dare 8,015 12 6,399 13 6,257 13 6,203 15 4,547 15 Davidson 5,567 18 4,501 18 4,687 18 5,120 18 3,661 19 Davie 1,377 58 1,127 58 1,182 61 1,272 61 867 65 Duplin 3,898 28 3,320 27 3,426 29 3,603 27 2,684 29 Durham 3,698 29 3,161 29 3,247 30 3,649 26 3,026 26 Edgecombe 2,259 42 1,903 42 2,035 41 2,229 39 1,824 39 Forsyth 7,370 13 6,009 14 6,151 14 6,514 13 4,633 14 Franklin 1,815 48 1,573 46 1,619 51 1,711 52 1,406 45 Gaston 3,378 30 3,035 30 3,435 28 3,560 29 2,994 27
Page 7 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by North Carolina county of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 County No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Gates 636 78 505 82 575 83 556 85 471 83 Graham 58 101 49 101 92 100 79 101 86 100 Granville 1,325 59 1,125 59 1,156 64 1,206 63 984 60 Greene 1,325 60 1,086 61 1,182 62 1,186 65 856 66 Guilford 8,681 10 7,366 10 7,875 10 8,295 10 6,555 10 Halifax 1,180 64 920 68 1,280 58 1,414 58 1,330 53 Harnett 4,587 22 3,793 22 3,825 24 4,068 24 3,159 22 Haywood 380 87 316 87 320 88 336 88 326 88 Henderson 625 79 572 78 533 85 570 83 472 80 Hertford 1,027 70 884 70 1,001 69 962 71 873 68 Hoke 1,239 62 1,055 62 1,251 59 1,329 60 1,160 57 Hyde 1,048 69 966 65 935 71 972 70 751 72 Iredell 2,707 34 2,220 36 2,334 37 2,379 37 1,876 38 Jackson 230 90 204 90 244 89 221 92 212 89 Johnston 9,631 9 7,979 9 8,534 9 8,725 9 6,609 9 Jones 1,063 68 909 69 987 70 1,075 68 757 70 Lee 1,880 46 1,544 50 1,728 48 1,718 50 1,162 56 Lenoir 4,714 21 3,932 19 4,162 20 4,278 21 2,935 24 Lincoln 1,488 54 1,301 54 1,357 56 1,427 57 1,108 58 Macon 169 95 187 92 158 94 175 93 161 91 Madison 175 94 126 96 143 95 132 97 131 96 Martin 2,309 40 2,020 39 2,100 38 2,103 41 1,628 41 McDowell 599 82 460 84 606 79 618 80 605 77 Mecklenburg 7,059 14 6,431 12 6,830 12 7,270 12 5,822 12 Mitchell 190 93 159 94 169 93 157 95 123 97 Montgomery 674 77 599 76 741 76 739 76 537 79 Moore 2,337 39 1,916 41 2,047 40 2,152 40 1,640 40 Nash 4,045 27 3,428 26 3,565 26 3,581 28 2,918 28 New Hanover 17,877 3 15,097 3 15,560 3 16,223 3 12,896 3 Northampton 589 83 535 80 776 75 812 75 682 73 Onslow 14,644 4 13,348 4 14,489 4 15,611 4 12,057 4 Orange 2,687 35 2,331 34 2,493 35 2,536 35 2,126 36 OUT OF STATE 42 102 11 102 3 102 3 102 8 102 Pamlico 2,445 37 2,044 38 1,907 42 1,874 43 1,362 47 Pasquotank 2,502 36 2,234 35 2,372 36 2,272 38 1,962 37 Pender 6,219 17 5,079 17 5,277 17 5,220 17 4,030 17
Page 8 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by North Carolina county of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 County No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Perquimans 1,456 55 1,265 55 1,229 60 1,231 62 979 62 Person 908 72 783 74 868 74 851 73 645 74 Pitt 9,837 8 8,851 8 9,137 7 9,180 8 7,247 8 Polk 140 98 123 97 117 97 125 100 125 98 Randolph 4,231 24 3,456 25 4,029 22 4,377 20 3,480 20 Richmond 1,084 67 942 66 1,125 65 1,194 64 972 63 Robeson 4,726 20 3,831 21 4,485 19 4,961 19 3,771 18 Rockingham 2,121 43 1,746 43 1,790 46 1,849 45 1,287 55 Rowan 4,989 19 3,877 20 4,104 21 4,072 23 2,853 25 Rutherford 612 80 501 83 586 81 653 78 555 78 Sampson 4,123 26 3,311 28 3,455 27 3,398 30 2,398 31 Scotland 885 73 848 72 869 72 917 72 820 69 Stanly 1,707 52 1,431 52 1,739 47 1,856 44 1,573 42 Stokes 1,653 53 1,383 53 1,561 54 1,512 55 976 59 Surry 1,427 56 1,216 56 1,425 55 1,405 59 955 61 Swain 143 97 89 99 96 99 127 99 81 101 Transylvania 279 89 167 93 196 92 238 90 156 92 Tyrrell 680 76 623 75 600 80 584 82 467 82 Union 3,058 32 2,620 32 2,834 33 3,086 31 2,405 33 UNKNOWN 155,201 1 145,575 1 152,792 1 159,325 1 129,888 1 Vance 722 74 849 71 1,092 67 1,075 69 991 64 Wake 23,348 2 20,088 2 21,150 2 22,154 2 17,881 2 Warren 367 88 312 88 508 86 524 86 457 86 Washington 1,778 49 1,658 44 1,828 43 1,677 53 1,370 50 Watauga 681 75 586 77 665 77 631 79 460 85 Wayne 7,048 15 5,806 15 6,120 15 6,259 14 4,701 13 Wilkes 1,162 65 987 63 1,088 68 1,152 66 825 67 Wilson 4,393 23 3,477 24 3,755 25 4,220 22 3,309 21 Yadkin 1,242 61 939 67 1,108 66 1,148 67 714 71 Yancey 145 96 143 95 135 96 161 94 122 95 469,521 411,880 435,088 453,519 360,218
Page 9 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by state of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 State No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Alabama 494 25 519 25 484 25 498 25 421 26 Alaska 96 48 109 45 82 49 88 48 67 48 Arizona 333 28 314 28 376 27 375 27 326 27 Arkansas 222 35 194 35 210 36 227 37 164 39 California 971 20 962 20 955 21 1,012 22 841 22 Colorado 627 23 579 23 633 23 705 23 610 23 Connecticut 1,170 18 1,128 18 1,210 18 1,210 18 1,074 18 Delaware 2,731 13 2,527 13 2,405 13 2,238 13 1,802 13 District of Columbia 279 31 296 29 348 29 368 28 232 32 Florida 3,643 10 3,128 10 3,306 10 3,407 11 2,598 11 Georgia 3,292 11 2,911 11 3,184 11 3,540 10 2,661 10 Hawaii 62 51 62 50 64 51 51 52 40 53 Idaho 87 50 73 49 92 48 71 51 79 47 Illinois 965 21 952 22 1,025 19 1,154 19 1,010 19 Indiana 1,281 16 1,256 15 1,249 16 1,328 16 1,171 17 Iowa 208 37 192 36 186 39 207 38 170 38 Kansas 196 38 189 37 194 38 238 36 217 34 Kentucky 1,696 14 1,668 14 1,713 14 1,895 14 1,438 14 Louisiana 258 33 181 38 216 34 279 33 209 35 Maine 246 34 222 33 239 33 256 34 216 33 Maryland 12,585 4 11,797 4 12,377 4 12,387 4 10,160 4 Massachusetts 979 19 972 19 992 20 1,117 20 977 21 Michigan 1,231 17 1,186 17 1,231 17 1,308 17 1,181 16 Minnesota 299 29 259 30 313 30 355 29 281 29 Mississippi 162 39 176 39 163 40 196 39 186 37 Missouri 581 24 558 24 623 24 653 24 533 24 Montana 102 47 121 43 116 44 100 46 83 46 Nebraska 114 44 108 46 141 42 127 44 103 42 Nevada 129 43 102 47 116 45 136 41 86 44 New Hampshire 374 27 375 27 374 28 352 30 283 28 New Jersey 6,529 7 6,313 7 6,299 7 6,486 7 5,185 8 New Mexico 109 45 82 48 123 43 105 45 94 43 New York 4,730 9 4,957 9 5,141 9 5,316 9 4,630 9 North Carolina 315,324 1 267,419 1 283,537 1 295,474 1 231,227 1 North Dakota 29 53 36 53 27 53 38 53 42 52 Page 10 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by state of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 State No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank Ohio 8,555 5 8,348 5 8,863 5 9,524 5 8,315 5 Oklahoma 220 36 204 34 197 37 249 35 191 36 Oregon 137 41 129 41 159 41 171 40 129 40 Pennsylvania 21,099 3 21,691 3 22,714 3 24,038 3 20,359 3 Rhode Island 106 46 123 42 105 47 134 42 107 41 South Carolina 7,954 6 7,407 6 8,256 6 8,166 6 6,309 6 South Dakota 59 52 58 51 44 52 79 49 54 50 Tennessee 3,096 12 2,765 12 2,877 12 3,101 12 2,460 12 Texas 1,386 15 1,227 16 1,324 15 1,464 15 1,293 15 Utah 133 42 121 44 106 46 129 43 90 45 Vermont 273 32 243 31 286 31 324 31 265 30 Virginia 56,482 2 50,224 2 52,402 2 54,375 2 42,848 2 Washington 290 30 238 32 276 32 280 32 257 31 West Virginia 6,064 8 5,601 8 6,047 8 6,421 8 5,595 7 Wisconsin 423 26 413 26 447 26 477 26 439 25 Wyoming 89 49 45 52 66 50 95 47 56 49 468,500 410,760 433,913 452,324 359,164
Page 11 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by country of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Country No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank ALBANIA 0 0 2 36 0 0 ANGOLA 1 40 0 0 0 0 ARGENTINA 0 1 37 1 45 2 35 0 AUSTRALIA 9 10 9 9 15 7 11 10 10 8 AUSTRIA 0 3 23 3 27 3 28 4 22 BAHAMAS 1 41 1 38 0 1 46 0 BANGLADESH 0 0 0 0 1 40 BARBADOS 0 0 0 0 1 41 BELARUS 2 25 0 2 37 0 1 42 BELGIUM 0 0 3 28 0 2 32 BELIZE 1 42 1 39 1 46 1 47 0 BERMUDA 0 0 1 47 0 0 BOLIVIA 0 0 1 48 0 0 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 1 43 1 40 0 0 0 BRAZIL 0 1 41 5 20 5 20 5 15 BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN 1 44 1 42 0 0 0 TERR BULGARIA 0 3 24 0 1 48 0 CANADA 499 2 600 2 569 2 643 2 550 2 CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 45 0 0 0 0 CHILE 2 26 0 3 29 0 1 43 CHINA 3 18 2 28 6 16 7 17 4 23 COLOMBIA 0 1 43 2 38 1 49 1 44 COSTA RICA 7 13 0 5 21 4 24 8 12 CROATIA 0 1 44 0 0 0 CZECH REPUBLIC 0 1 45 1 49 1 50 5 16 DENMARK 2 27 3 25 5 22 4 25 5 17 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 0 0 0 0 1 45 ECUADOR 0 0 1 50 1 51 0 EGYPT 2 28 0 0 0 0 EL SALVADOR 3 19 1 46 3 30 3 29 4 18 ESTONIA 0 1 47 0 1 52 0 FINLAND 3 20 1 48 0 4 26 3 27
Page 12 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by country of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Country No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank FRANCE 3 21 8 11 9 11 16 6 10 9 GERMANY 46 4 38 5 54 4 26 5 48 4 GREECE 0 0 0 1 53 1 46 GUAM 0 3 26 1 51 0 0 GUATEMALA 2 29 2 29 11 8 2 36 4 24 HAITI 0 1 49 0 0 0 HONDURAS 11 9 16 6 11 9 14 8 13 6 HONG KONG 1 46 0 3 31 2 37 1 47 HUNGARY 0 1 50 0 2 38 0 ICELAND 0 1 51 0 1 54 0 INDIA 0 2 30 0 2 39 1 48 INDONESIA 0 0 0 1 55 0 IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 0 0 0 1 56 0 IRELAND 8 11 5 16 7 13 4 27 2 33 ISRAEL 1 47 1 52 1 52 0 1 49 ITALY 1 48 6 13 7 14 10 11 4 25 JAMAICA 1 49 0 2 39 0 1 50 JAPAN 18 7 6 14 5 23 5 21 8 10 KAZAKHSTAN 0 2 31 0 0 2 34 KENYA 0 1 53 0 0 0 KOREA, DEMOCRATIC 0 0 2 40 0 0 PEOPLE' KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 2 30 1 54 6 17 6 18 2 35 KUWAIT 1 50 0 0 1 57 0 LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC 1 51 1 55 1 53 1 58 0 R LATVIA 0 0 1 54 1 59 0 LEBANON 0 1 56 0 0 0 LITHUANIA 0 0 1 55 5 22 3 28 LUXEMBOURG 0 0 0 0 1 51 MACEDONIA, THE FORMER 0 0 0 0 1 52 YUG MALAYSIA 0 1 57 0 0 0 MAYOTTE 0 2 32 0 0 0
Page 13 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by country of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Country No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank MEXICO 39 5 47 4 44 6 48 4 42 5 MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF 0 0 2 41 0 0 MOROCCO 2 31 0 0 0 0 NAMIBIA 0 1 58 0 0 0 NETHERLANDS 8 12 10 7 4 26 9 12 8 13 NEW CALEDONIA 0 0 0 1 60 1 53 NEW ZEALAND 3 22 4 19 3 32 3 30 5 19 NICARAGUA 1 52 0 0 0 0 NIGER 0 1 59 0 0 0 NORTHERN MARIANA 0 0 1 56 0 0 ISLANDS NORWAY 3 23 3 27 1 57 0 0 Other 14 8 10 8 11 10 16 7 3 20 PAKISTAN 0 0 3 33 0 0 PANAMA 1 53 0 1 58 0 0 PERU 1 54 2 33 1 59 3 31 2 36 PHILIPPINES 2 32 2 34 3 34 2 40 3 29 POLAND 2 33 2 35 3 35 2 41 3 30 PORTUGAL 0 0 2 42 0 0 PUERTO RICO 2 34 4 20 0 9 13 0 ROMANIA 0 0 2 43 3 32 0 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 6 14 4 21 8 12 3 33 4 26 SAUDI ARABIA 0 0 0 1 61 0 SINGAPORE 0 0 1 60 3 34 2 37 SLOVAKIA 2 35 0 1 61 0 0 SOUTH AFRICA 6 15 4 22 6 18 6 19 6 14 SPAIN 2 36 6 15 1 62 8 14 3 31 SRI LANKA 1 55 0 0 0 2 38 SWEDEN 6 16 5 17 5 24 8 15 12 7 SWITZERLAND 5 17 9 10 6 19 8 16 9 11 TANZANIA, UNITED 0 0 2 44 0 0 REPUBLIC THAILAND 2 37 0 7 15 1 62 0 54
Page 14 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by country of residence, excluding blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing licenses, by calendar year. (Continued)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Country No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank No. Sold Rank TOGO 0 0 0 2 42 0 TURKEY 1 56 0 1 63 2 43 0 TURKS AND CAICOS 1 57 0 0 0 0 ISLANDS UGANDA 0 0 0 0 1 55 UKRAINE 2 38 2 36 5 25 1 63 1 56 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 1 58 0 0 5 23 0 UNITED KINGDOM 100 3 99 3 112 3 79 3 67 3 UNITED STATES 468,647 1 410,918 1 434,047 1 452,483 1 359,327 1 UNITED STATES MINOR 1 59 1 60 0 1 64 0 OUTLY UNKNOWN 20 6 8 12 51 5 13 9 5 21 URUGUAY 0 1 61 1 64 0 0 VENEZUELA 2 39 1 62 0 2 44 0 VIET NAM 1 60 0 0 0 1 57 VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH 0 0 0 1 65 2 39 VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S. 3 24 5 18 1 65 2 45 0 ZIMBABWE 0 0 1 66 0 0 469,521 411,880 435,088 453,519 360,218
Page 15 Number of For Hire Blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by type and vessel size, by calendar year.
2007 For Hire Blanket Type 0 to 18 Feet > 18 to 38 Feet > 38 to 50 Feet > 50 Feet Total Sold % Sold 6 or fewer passengers 20 408 147 147 722 90% More than 6 passengers 0 9 37 38 84 10% 20 417 184 185 806 100%
2008 For Hire Blanket Type 0 to 18 Feet > 18 to 38 Feet > 38 to 50 Feet > 50 Feet Total Sold % Sold 6 or fewer passengers 19 336 103 105 563 90% More than 6 passengers 0 6 26 28 60 10% 19 342 129 133 623 100%
2009 For Hire Blanket Type 0 to 18 Feet > 18 to 38 Feet > 38 to 50 Feet > 50 Feet Total Sold % Sold 6 or fewer passengers 15 337 95 114 561 91% More than 6 passengers 0 6 22 30 58 9% 15 343 117 144 619 100%
2010 For Hire Blanket Type 0 to 18 Feet > 18 to 38 Feet > 38 to 50 Feet > 50 Feet Total Sold % Sold 6 or fewer passengers 17 354 100 135 606 91% More than 6 passengers 0 6 24 29 59 9% 17 360 124 164 665 100%
2011 For Hire Blanket Type 0 to 18 Feet > 18 to 38 Feet > 38 to 50 Feet > 50 Feet Total Sold % Sold 6 or fewer passengers 17 323 85 105 530 91% More than 6 passengers 0 4 20 26 50 9% 17 327 105 131 580 100%
Page 16 Number of For Hire Blanket Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by state of residence by calendar year.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 <= 6 > 6 <= 6 > 6 <= 6 > 6 <= 6 > 6 <= 6 > 6 State Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers
Delaware 3 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 Florida 6 1 1 1 6 1 8 1 2 3 Georgia 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Massachusetts 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Maryland 15 11 9 4 12 4 14 5 12 5 North Carolina 623 49 492 41 482 40 498 36 451 33 New Jersey 6 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 6 0 New York 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 Pennsylvania 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 South Carolina 17 9 15 9 17 7 19 6 20 5 Tennessee 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Virginia 49 14 36 5 33 5 56 11 33 4 Total 722 84 563 60 561 58 606 59 530 50 Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by sales outlet by calendar year.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sales Outlet No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold
License Agents 387,935 82.62 331,740 80.54 343,760 79.01 351,359 77.47 260,307 72.81
Online 55,365 11.79 53,601 13.01 57,745 13.27 59,522 13.12 55,394 15.49 WRC Helpdesk (Telephone) 13,918 2.96 13,848 3.36 13,987 3.21 16,463 3.63 13,119 3.67 DSS * 5,952 1.27 7,904 1.92 15,510 3.56 22,205 4.90 25,947 7.26 DMF Agent 4,234 0.90 3,155 0.77 2,696 0.62 2,555 0.56 1,825 0.51 WRC Front Counter 1,647 0.35 992 0.24 1,066 0.25 1,123 0.25 738 0.21 WRC Education Center 470 0.10 634 0.15 312 0.07 282 0.06 177 0.05 469,521 411,880 435,088 453,519 357,507 * DSS - Department of Social Services issues free subsistence waivers. Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold by Division of Marine Fisheries offices, excluding blanket CRFL, by calendar year.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 DMF Sales Office No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold No. Sold % Sold
Morehead City 2,197 51.89 1,627 51.57 1,338 49.63 1,284 50.25 919 50.36
Manteo 684 16.15 535 16.96 397 14.73 369 14.44 291 15.95 Wilmington 610 19.33 356 11.28 336 12.46 331 12.95 259 14.19 Columbia 286 6.75 276 8.75 273 10.13 261 10.22 160 8.77 Washington 243 5.74 143 4.53 119 4.41 116 4.54 12 0.66 Elizabeth City 214 5.05 218 6.91 233 8.64 194 7.59 184 10.08 4,234 3,155 2,696 2,555 1,825
Note: Blanket licenses are only sold at DMF offices. Blanket license sales by office are not available.
North Carolina Coastal Angling Program (CAP) Marine Fisheries Commission Progress Report
October 17, 2011
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fishery continues to implement the Coastal Angling Program (CAP). All programs scheduled for implementation are on track. These include:
1. Flounder Gigging Survey. Flounder gigging data has been collected since July 2010. During 2010, staff delivered 5,073 surveys, of which 48.8% (2,474) were returned. Through October 2011, nearly 5,957 gigging surveys were mailed, of which 54.9% (3,276) were returned. The response rates remain very high. The estimation programs are going through final review and preliminary results are available. The preliminary data seems credible and the methodology and results for 2010 and 2011 are still being tested for precision and bias [email protected] or 252-948-3913.
2. Increasing Sample Size. Increasing sample size (the number of interviews we collect annually) was one of the primary objectives of the Coastal Recreational Fishing (CRFL) proposal; six new port agents were hired to accomplish this task. During 2010, port agents conducted 21,878 interviews exceeding the CRFL project goal of 20,000. A total of 16,254 angler interviews have been conduct through September of 2011. Hurricane Irene had a negative impact on data collection. For additional information contact Beth Egbert at [email protected] or 253-948-3901.
3. Using the CRFL Contact Information to Collect Effort Data. The Division continues to work with NOAA in developing methodology for using telephone numbers from the CRFL license database to contact anglers to produce estimates of fishing trips. Preliminary results indicate that this method is more efficient than the old Coastal Household Telephone Survey. The problems with North Carolina’s license exemptions are being resolved. The CRFL license data was transmitted in December of 2010 to fulfill a partial requirement of the National Angler Registry MOA. NOAA is also using the CRFL license database of angler addresses to conduct mail surveys to contact anglers to produce estimates of fishing trips and to account for exempted anglers. The testing using CRFL contact information, both mail and phone, will continue throughout 2011.
4. Anglers Using Private Access. Current sampling methodologies exclude sampling catches from anglers using private access (shore-based dwelling, locked marinas, etc.). While these individuals are included in the effort surveys, a potential exists for bias related to the catch data. The Division is currently involved with NOAA working on a Marine recreational Information Program (MRIP) project to identify potential bias and determine if methods can be developed to adjust for any problems identified. The private access survey will be conducted by establishing a group or panel of anglers that use public or private access. These individuals will be asked to keep logs of fishing trips and catch. At the end of the project the data from both groups will be compared and tested for differences. Recruitment of panelists began in North Carolina on 8/1/2011. Panelists were recruited via a short screening questionnaire that was sent to samples of licensed anglers and residential addresses. The recruitment/screening questionnaire identified eligible anglers and asked if respondents were willing to participate in the follow-up panel study. As of 9/15/2011, 269 panelists were recruited in North Carolina. Data collection for the panel study begins this month (October). Paper trip logs and cover letters were mailed at the beginning of the October and data collection via telephone and web will begin within the next few days. Updates will be provided as the data is received.
5. Recreational Shellfish Surveys. When anglers purchase their license through the Internet or at a Division or Wildlife point of sale they are asked whether or not they participate in specialized fisheries such as recreational shellfish activities. The Division now has a means to contact and survey these individuals to characterize their participation and estimate recreational shellfish harvest. The first recreational shellfish survey was implemented in November 2010. During 2011, 5,966 recreational shellfish surveys were mailed of which 53.4% (3,184) were returned. Staff continues evaluation of estimation procedures. For more information contact Kerry Anderson at [email protected] or 252-948- 3913.
6. Evaluating Characteristics of Grandfathered License Holders. The existence of grandfathered license holders generates a set of problems when included in the complete list of CRFL holders used for surveying purposes. A certain portion of theses individuals do not fish in coastal waters and those that do may not behave in a manner similar to those who specifically purchased a CRFL. In July 2010 the Division conducted a survey of grandfathered license holders in order to determne what percentage fished in coastal waters and to characterize their fishing activities in order to examine what types of bias, if any, exist between the two groups. A second survey to evaluate activities of grandfathered license holders was conducted in May 2011. The survey results have been evaluated and the findings indicated that no significant differences, in regard to age, gender, and residency, exist between anglers in the general license population and those holding a grandfathered license. Grandfathered lifetime license holders will be surveyed as often as possible to evaluate the validity for expanding the results from gigging and shellfish survey efforts to the whole population of license holders (including those with grandfathered privileges). For more information contact Kerry Anderson at [email protected] or 252-948- 3913.
7. Electronic Reporting System. Fishery management agencies both state and federal have begun using the Internet and specialized webtools to collect commercial and recreational fishing statistics. The Divison launched a multipurpose electronic reporting system that is used to conduct surveys and provide anglers a journal for recording their fishing trip information that can be used for future reference. Thus far in 2011, the number of unique visitors of the reporting site is 8,817. Over 400 anglers have registered to participate in the angler journal and more than 400 fishing trips have been recorded. Recreational field agents are distributing brochures concerning the utility and uses of the electronic reporting system as well as promotional key chains with the site's address. The web tool continued to be used an optional reporting mechanism for those participating in other Division surveys including gig, shellfish, and pier surveys. Twenty percent of those surveyed have opted to use the electronic format. Staff has developed additional data entry and quality control screens for internal Division use. For additional information contact Chris Wilson at [email protected] or 252-948-3885.
8. Pier Reporting. The MOA exempting North Carolina from having to participate in the National Angler Registry has been completed and signed by the Director and NOAA. One of the provisions of the MOA required North Carolina to provide data on the number of anglers taking trips on fishing piers each month. North Carolina was given several options but chose to require pier owners or operators to complete monthly logbooks by recording daily participation (number of anglers fishing on the pier each day). The Division developed several options to report participation. An option has been provided to allow Internet reporting or using logbooks similar to commercial trip tickets, which could be picked up or mailed. A total of 282,284 anglers have been reported during 2011 through the end of September. Staff continues working with pier owners and operators to ensure compliance with this program. If you are interested in the pier reporting process, contact Beth Egbert at [email protected] or 253-948-3901.
9. Building Confidence in Recreational Fishing Statistics. One of the primary and most difficult objectives of CAP is to build angler confidence in recreational statistics. Outreach for CAP continues through distribution of laminated posters to tackle shops, boat ramps, kiosks, and marinas throughout the state. In addition to materials relating directly to CAP, field agents have also been distributing ethical angling brochures and the new recreational angler guide booklets. Agents are also required to wear shirts, caps, and have magnetic vehicle signs that clearly identify them as an employee of the NCDMF.
A complete description of CAP in North Carolina is available on the Division’s website at www.ncfisheries.net/ncrecfish. The Division will expand its recreational fishery statistics outreach efforts during 2011 as implementation becomes complete and more results are available. For information regarding the overall program contact Doug Mumford at [email protected] or 252-948-3876.
Red Drum Landings 2010 - 2011
Landings are complete through July 31, 2011 2011 landings are preliminary
2008-2010 Year Month Species Pounds Conf Average 2010 9 Red Drum 28,367 28,844 2010 10 Red Drum 36,521 45,207 2010 11 Red Drum 18,680 16,840 2010 12 Red Drum 3,517 3,546 2011 1 Red Drum 4,183 11,866 2011 2 Red Drum 2,143 16,295 2011 3 Red Drum 1,361 21,742 2011 4 Red Drum 2,101 8,323 2011 5 Red Drum 4,616 15,470 2011 6 Red Drum 5,620 13,890 2011 7 Red Drum 8,318 15,607 2011 8 Red Drum 4,038 22,991 2011 9 Red Drum 5,677 28,844
Fishing Year (Sept 1, 2010 - Aug 31, 2011) Landings 125,141
Southern Flounder Landings 2010-2011
Landings are complete through July 31, 2011 2011 landings are preliminary
2008-2010 Year Month Species Pounds Conf Average 2010 1 Southern Flounder 4,367 7,080 2010 2 Southern Flounder 3,050 4,305 2010 3 Southern Flounder 15,987 18,247 2010 4 Southern Flounder 36,315 58,315 2010 5 Southern Flounder 51,427 106,255 2010 6 Southern Flounder 81,710 146,926 2010 7 Southern Flounder 69,016 155,978 2010 8 Southern Flounder 113,015 193,092 2010 9 Southern Flounder 267,275 411,268 2010 10 Southern Flounder 671,986 801,363 2010 11 Southern Flounder 375,306 318,908 2010 12 Southern Flounder 38 7,601 2011 1 Southern Flounder 2,473 7,080 2011 2 Southern Flounder 3,214 4,305 2011 3 Southern Flounder 9,153 18,247 2011 4 Southern Flounder 10,413 58,315 2011 5 Southern Flounder 56,183 106,255 2011 6 Southern Flounder 86,662 146,926 2011 7 Southern Flounder 100,309 155,978 2011 8 Southern Flounder 51,652 193,092 2011 9 Southern Flounder 58,031 411,268
*partial trip ticket landings only ***landings are confidential
2011 Striped Bass Landings Update‐MFC Meeting November 2011
2011 Albemarle Sound Management Area Fall Commercial Fishery‐ Annual TAC = 275,000 pounds Fall season opened October 1 with 163,786 pounds remaining of the 275,000 pound TAC
# Days Pounds Landed Pounds Remaining 13 1,277 162,509
2011 Albemarle Sound Management Area Fall Recreational Fishery‐ Annual TAC = 137,500 pounds Fall season opened October 1 with 118,042 pounds remaining of the 137,500 pound TAC
# Days Pounds Landed Pounds Remaining 13 1,964 116,078
2010/2011 Atlantic Ocean Commercial Fishery‐ TAC = 480,480 pounds (160,160 pounds/gear type) 237,994 pounds remain for the 2010/2011 fishery Gear # days Pounds Landed Pounds Remaining Beach Seine 7 3,761 156,399
Gill Net 16 137,526 22,634
Trawl 23 101,199 58,961
Total 242,486 237,994
All commercial data based on quota monitoring reports