Microsoft Word - RDFMP_revised draft 11-21-08

NORTH CAROLINA RED DRUM

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

AMENDMENT I

PREPARED BY THE

RED DRUM FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

AND THE

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA

November, 2008

NC red drum stock assessment completed April 2007

MFC approves FMP for public comment January 2008

Finalize RDAC and DMF recommendations March/April 2008

MFC selects preferred management options April 2008

Submitted to DENR for review May 2008

Submitted to JLCSA May 2008

Draft rules approved for notice to text June 2008

Public hearings on draft rules October 2008

MFC selects rules and adopts plan November 2008

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Amendment 1 to the North Carolina Red Drum Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was

developed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’

Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) under the direction of the North Carolina Marine

Fisheries Commission (MFC) with the advice of the Red Drum Public Advisory Committee.

Deserving special recognition are the members of the Red Drum Public Advisory

Committee and the Plan Development Team who contributed their time and knowledge to

this effort.

Red Drum Public Advisory Committee

Charlie Adams, co-chair

Dr. Fred Scharf, co-chair

Eugene Balance

George Beckwith

Frank Folb

Thomas Hardison

Sarah Jackson

William Mandulak

Tommy McArthur

Bernie McCants

Norman Miller

Ken Siegler

David Smith

Dr. Christopher Taylor

Red Drum Plan Development Team

Lee Paramore, co-lead

Fritz Rohde, co-lead

Chris Batsavage

Alan Bianchi

Dr. Scott Crosson

Ann Deaton

Eric Fitzpatrick

Jim Kelley

Helen Takade

iii

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... ii

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... iii

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................1

4. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................7

4.1 Legal Authority for Management.......................................................7

4.2 Goals and Objectives...........................................................................8

4.3 Sustainable Harvest.............................................................................9

4.4 Management Unit................................................................................9

4.5 General Problem Statement ................................................................9

4.6 Interim Measures.................................................................................9

4.7 Existing Plans, Statutes, and Rules...................................................10

4.7.1 Existing Plans ..............................................................................10

4.7.2 Statutes.........................................................................................11

4.7.3 Rules ............................................................................................12

5. GENERAL LIFE HISTORY................................................................................................16

5.1 Description and Distribution.............................................................16

5.2 Reproduction and Development .......................................................16

5.3 Diet and Food Habits.........................................................................18

5.4 Migration Patterns.............................................................................19

6. STATUS OF STOCKS ..........................................................................................................20

7. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES........................................................................................22

7.1 Commercial Fishery..........................................................................22

7.2 Recreational Fishery..........................................................................28

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

FISHERY....................................................................................................................................32

8.1 Economic Aspects of the Fishery .....................................................32

8.1.1 Ex-Vessel Value and Price ..........................................................32

8.1.2 Participants and Trips ..................................................................34

8.1.3 Economic Impact of Commercial Fishery...................................36

8.1.4 Recreational Fishery Economics .................................................37

8.2 Social Aspects of the Fishery............................................................38

8.2.1 Commercial Fishermen................................................................38

8.3.1 Recreational Fishery ....................................................................41

8.4 Research Recommendations.............................................................42

8.5 Definitions and Acronyms ................................................................42

9. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS........................................................................................43

9.1 Habitat................................................................................................43

9.1.1. Water column...............................................................................43

9.1.2. Wetlands ......................................................................................45

9.1.3. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation...................................................46

9.1.4. Soft bottom...................................................................................48

9.1.5. Shell bottom.................................................................................49

9.1.6. Nursery habitat preference...........................................................50

9.1.7. Habitat condition..........................................................................51

9.2 Water Quality.....................................................................................59

9.2.1 Water quality status .....................................................................60

9.2.2 Water quality stressors.................................................................62

9.3 Habitat and Water Quality Protection...............................................66

9.4 Recommended Management Actions...............................................71

9.4.1 Environmental Factors.................................................................71

10. PRINCIPAL ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS..............................................72

10.1 Identification of Issues ......................................................................72

10.1.1 Issues Addressed in this Plan.......................................................72

10.2 Issues and Management Strategies...................................................72

10.2.1 Adult Harvest Limits ...................................................................72

10.2.2 Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum ................................80

10.2.3 Recreational Bag and Size Limits................................................87

10.2.4 Commerical Harvest Limits.........................................................94

10.2.5 Red Drum Discarded Bycatch in the Estuarine Gill Net Fishery103

11. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .........................................................................................169

11.1 Data Needs.......................................................................................169

11.2 Management Strategies and Proposed Actions..............................171

11.2.1 Adult Harvest Limits .................................................................171

11.2.2 Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum ..............................171

11.2.3 Recreational Bag and Size Limits..............................................172

11.2.4 Commercial Harvest Limits.......................................................172

11.2.5 Bycatch in the Estuarine Gill Net Fishery .................................174

11.3 Habitat and Water Quality Management Recommendations........176

11.4 Research Needs Summary ..............................................................176

11.5 Review Cycle...................................................................................177

12. LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................178

Appendix 1 – Rule Changes Necessary to Implement Red Drum FMP Amendment One.192

Appendix 2. Active and Complete NC Red Drum FMP Management Issues...................197

Appendix 3 – Stock Status of the Northern Red Drum Stock………….…………….Attached

List of Tables

Table 1. Primary harvest limits for recreational and commercial fisheries within each of

the regulation periods.............................................................................................. 21

Table 2. Annual commercial landings (lb) of red drum by state along the mid-Atlantic

coast......................................................................................................................... 24

Table 3. Percentage of commercial landings of red drum in North Carolina by major

water bodies............................................................................................................. 27

Table 4. Red drum catches for recreational anglers (MRFSS), for 1989 - 2005. All

weights are in pounds. Commercial weights are included as a reference

with combined weights reported............................................................................. 29

Table 5. Recreational harvest (pounds of A + B1 fish) of red drum along the Atlantic

coast, 1981-2005 (NMFS, Office of Science & Technology)................................. 30

Table 6. The number of award citations issued on an annual basis for catches of red

drum. Citations are awarded for releases ≥ 40 in and weigh-ins* ≥ 45 lb............. 31

Table 7. Detail values of red drum landed, total value, deflated value, price per pound,

and percent change from year to year for red drum landed in North

Carolina, 1972—2005. DMF Trip Ticket Program................................................. 33

Table 8. Number of participants and the number of trips taken that landed red drum in

North Carolina, 1999 - 2005 (DMF Trip Ticket Program)..................................... 35

Table 9. Number of participants in the red drum fishery by value of landings and year

in North Carolina, 1999—2005. DMF Trip Ticket Program................................. 35

Table 10. Economic impact of the commercial red drum fishery in North Carolina,

2000—2005. DMF Trip Ticket Program, IMPLAN.............................................. 37

Table 11. Estimated number of red drum-related recreational fishing trips. MRFSS

Program................................................................................................................... 37

Table 12. Estimated expenditures of drum-related recreational fishing trips. MRFSS

Program................................................................................................................... 37

Table 13. Demographic characteristics of red drum commercial fishermen. DMF

Socioeconomic Program. ........................................................................................ 39

Table 14. Prevalent species targeted by red drum commercial fishermen. DMF

Socioeconomic Program. ........................................................................................ 39

Table 15. Fishing related issues considered most important to fishermen who landed

drum. DMF Socioeconomic Program. ................................................................... 40

Table 16. Demographic characteristics of red drum RCGL fishermen. DMF RCGL

Program................................................................................................................... 41

Table 17. DWQ 401 permitted wetland impacts (acres) in coastal river basins inhabited

by red drum, 2001-2006 (DWQ, unpubl. data, R. Ridings, 2007).......................... 52

Table 18. Impaired water ratings for Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvest Use Support

categories in six coastal river basins (DWQ 2002a,b, 2003, 2004, 2005,

2007)........................................................................................................................ 61

Table 19. Reported fish kills in coastal river basins supporting red drum, 1996-2006

(DWQ 2006)............................................................................................................ 64

Table 20. North Carolina red drum catches for recreational anglers (MRFSS), for 1989

– 2005 with PSE. All weights are in pounds. Commercial weights are

included as a reference, and combined weights are reported.................................. 88

Table 21. Average annual landings of red drum by fishing sector and management

period....................................................................................................................... 88

Table 22. Potential bag and size limit combinations that are projected by the bag and

size limit analysis to achieve the 40% SPR. ........................................................... 89

Table 23. Percent non-compliance (red drum harvested that were <18 or >27 inches

total length) and the percent of fish measured that would be illegal if

either a 19 inch minimum or a 26 inch maximum size limit were put into

place. Samples from MRFSS 1993 to 2006........................................................... 92

Table 24. Fate of legal size red drum (n=1,246) in the large mesh estuarine gill net

fishery. NCDMF observer data from 2001 to 2006 (n=1,470 trips

sampled) .................................................................................................................. 99

Table 25. Anchored estuarine gill net trips with the species of highest abundance

landed (target species) being used to define a trip................................................ 106

Table 26. Annual landings of major species in North Carolina’s anchored estuarine gill

net fishery.............................................................................................................. 106

Table 27. Large mesh (>

5 inch) gill net fishery parameters commonly associated with

the targeting of various species, 2001-2006.......................................................... 107

Table 28. Small mesh (< 5 inch) gill net fishery parameters commonly associated with

the targeting of various species, 2001-2006.......................................................... 108

Table 29. Observed estuarine gill net trips by month and year from the North Carolina

observer program................................................................................................... 115

Table 30. Estimated dead discards (number and weight) of red drum from the large

mesh estuarine gill net fishery............................................................................... 117

Table 31. Estimated dead discards (number and weight) of red drum from the small

mesh estuarine gill net fishery............................................................................... 118

Table 32. Estimated release mortalities (number and weight) of red drum from the large

mesh estuarine gill net fishery............................................................................... 119

Table 33. Estimated release mortalities (number and weight) of red drum from the

small mesh estuarine gill net fishery..................................................................... 120

vii

Table 34. Estimated number and pounds of red drum harvested and the number of red

drum discarded using the Recreational Commercial Gear License in North

Carolina................................................................................................................. 122

Table 35. Estimated dead discards from large mesh RCGL gill nets........................................ 123

Table 36. Summary of all estimated discard mortalities in pounds associated with the

anchored estuarine gill net fishery. ....................................................................... 124

Table 37. Summary of all estimated discard mortalities in numbers associated with the

anchored estuarine gill net fishery. ....................................................................... 124

Table 38. Estimated total takes from the red drum population by year from the

recreational hook and line fishery......................................................................... 124

Table 39. Independent gill net survey CPUE for sub-legal red drum (<18 inches TL)

captured in shallow (<6 ft) versus deep (>6 ft) sets from 2001 to 2005............... 126

Table 40. Sub-legal red drum CPUE from the NCDMF independent gill net survey

with percent reductions in CPUE based on establishing 50, 100, and 200

yard buffers from shorelines for gill nets.............................................................. 127

Table 41. Sub-legal red drum acute mortality from capture in small and large mesh gill

nets from the NCDMF independent gill net survey, 2001 to 2006. Based

on 12-hour soak time............................................................................................. 128

Table 42. CPUE of southern flounder captured in IGNS from 2001 to 2006 in gill net

sets made either less than or greater than 50 yards from shore............................. 130

Table 43. Average annual landings, trips and value of key species captured in the

estuarine gill net fishery before (1994-1998) and after (1999-2006) the

small mesh gill net rules were implemented. Species included are those

typically taken in the small mesh gill net fishery. These data include both

anchored and run-around gill net landings............................................................ 133

Table 45. Average monthly landings (pounds) for targeted small mesh gill net species

in the Neuse River, NC 2001 – 06, set nets only. ................................................. 145

Table 46. Average monthly landings (pounds) for targeted small mesh gill net species

in the Pamlico, Pungo rivers, NC 2001 – 06, set nets only................................... 145

Table 47. Species composition from Program 462, Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study,

Neuse River NC, October, 2005 - 06. ................................................................... 146

Table 48. Species composition from Program 462, Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study,

Neuse River NC, November - December, 2005 - 06............................................. 147

Table 49. Program 915 sampling effort and number of red drum by month in shallow

(<6ft) and deep (>6ft) water gill net sets. Data is combined for all river

systems sampled, Pamlico, Pungo and Neuse rivers. Set is defined as each

30 yard net (3 ½, 4, and 4 ½”)............................................................................... 148

Table 50. Neuse River species composition data from Program 915, Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey, October, 2005 - 06................................................. 149

viii

Table 51. Pamlico and Pungo rivers species composition data from Program 915,

Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey, October, 2005 - 06....................... 150

Table 52. Neuse River species composition data from Program 915, Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey, November - December 2005 - 06.......................... 151

Table 53. Pamlico and Pungo rivers species composition data from Program 915,

Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey, November - December 2005

- 06......................................................................................................................... 152

Table 54. Program 462 mortality estimates for red drum by mesh and month for Neuse

River, NC, 2005 and 2006 (N = Number captured).............................................. 155

Table 55. Program 915 mortality estimates for red drum by mesh and month for Neuse

River, NC, 2005 and 2006 (N = Number captured).............................................. 155

Table 56. Program 915 mortality estimates for red drum by mesh and month for

Pamlico Pungo rivers NC, 2005 and 2006 (N = Number captured). .................... 155

Table 57. Neuse River estimated red drum CPUE for commercial small mesh fishery

from October – December (2005-06 combined). Data from Program 915-

Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey, Program 462-Estuarine Gill

Net Selectivity Study and Program 461 – Estuarine Gill Net Sampling

were used to estimate commercial discards. ......................................................... 157

Table 58. Neuse River estimated number of red drum captured in commercial small

mesh gill nets based on mortality and month from October – December

(2005-06 combined). Data from Program 915- Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey, Program 462-Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity

Study, and Trip Ticket Program were used to estimate commercial

mortality. ............................................................................................................... 158

Table 59. Pamlico - Pungo river estimated red drum CPUE for commercial small mesh

fishery from October – December (2005-06 combined). Data from

Program 915- Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey, Program 462-

Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study, and Program 461 – Estuarine Gill

Net Sampling were used to estimate commercial discards. .................................. 159

Table 60. Pamlico - Pungo estimated number of red drum captured in commercial

small mesh gill nets based on mortality and month from October –

December (2005-06 combined). Data from Program 915- Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey and Trip Ticket Program were used to

estimate commercial mortality.............................................................................. 159

Table 61. Percentage of reported trips in the Neuse River using various types of gill

nets before the attendance rule was implemented (1994 - 1998), and after

it was implemented................................................................................................ 160

Table 62. Percentage of reported trips in the Pamlico/Pungo river complex using

various types of gill nets before the attendance rule was implemented

(1994 -1998), and after it was implemented. ........................................................ 161

Table 63. Percent contribution (landings) of targeted species for small mesh gill net

fisheries by gear type (set nets, and run around), pre and post small mesh

attendance rules, Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers landings data

combined. 1994 – 2006, trip ticket data............................................................... 162

List of Figures

Figure 1. Red drum spawning sites identified in the Bay River and Ocracoke Inlet areas

through acoustic sampling (Luczkovich et al., 1999). ............................................ 17

Figure 2. Summary of the stock status for the northern region red drum stocks during

the early (1987 – 1991), mid (1992 – 1998) and late (1999 – 2005)

regulatory periods.................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3. Annual commercial landings of red drum in North Carolina....................................... 25

Figure 4. Length frequency of red drum sampled from the North Carolina commercial

harvest (all gears combined) for the periods 1987-1991, 1992-1998, and

1999-2005................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 5. Percent landings of red drum by gear type for each harvest period............................. 26

Figure 6. Value of red drum landings in North Carolina, 1972 – 2005. DMF Trip

Ticket Program........................................................................................................ 32

Figure 7. Average price per pound of red drum landings in North Carolina, 1972 -

2005. DMF Trip Ticket Program. .......................................................................... 34

Figure 8. Number of dealers who purchased red drum from 1994—2005. DMF Trip

Ticket Program........................................................................................................ 36

Figure 9. Reported conflicts of Commercial Fishermen (DMF Socioeconomic Progam).......... 40

Figure 10. Perceptions of Recreational Commercial Gear License Holders. (DMF

RCGL Program)...................................................................................................... 42

Figure 11. Location of esturarine and riverine wetlands in coastal North Carolina,

based on 1994 DCM mapping data (Street et al. 2005).......................................... 46

Figure 12. Distribution of known submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in North

Carolina (Street et al. 2005). ................................................................................... 48

Figure 13. MFC designated fishery nursery areas....................................................................... 58

Figure 14. Location of North Carolina river basins (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide) ......... 61

Figure 15. Reported annual fish kill events in coastal river basins supporting red drum,

1996-2006. Includes Pasquotank, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, White Oak, Cape

Fear, and Lumber river basins................................................................................. 64

Figure 16. Cumulative percent frequency at size for adult red drum tagged in Ocracoke

Inlet from the NCDMF Red Drum Volunteer Tagging Program during the

early (1986-1991), mid (1992-1997) and late (1999-2005) management

periods..................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 17. Length frequency distributions of red drum from the commercial estuarine

gill net fishery during the early (1986-91), middle (1992-98) and late

(1999-04) management periods............................................................................... 74

Figure 18. Length frequency distribution of adult red drum from the NCDMF

Volunteer Tagging Program, 1984-2006. ............................................................... 76

Figure 19. Average, minimum and maximum ages for adult red drum per one inch size

class, 37-56 in TL.................................................................................................... 76

Figure 20. Probability of success for anglers targeting red drum recreationally.

Successful trip defined as a trip that targeted and landed red drum........................ 90

Figure 21. Recreational fishing effort (number of trips) from 1981 to 2006. Source

MRFSS.................................................................................................................... 91

Figure 22. Number of participants in North Carolina recreational fishery (coastal, non-

coastal and non-resident)......................................................................................... 91

Figure 23. Length frequency distribution of red drum observed in MRFSS survey by

region from 1993 to 2006........................................................................................ 92

Figure 24. Annual commercial landings of red drum from 1950 to 2006................................... 95

Figure 25. Proportion of commercial red drum ladings by gear type from 1987 to 2006........... 96

Figure 26. Percentage of estuarine gill net trips that did or did not capture the seven

fish bycatch allowance. Given for all trips sampled and for all trips

sampled where red drum were present.................................................................... 98

Figure 27. Monthly landings by region for common species targeted in the large mesh

estuarine gill net fishery........................................................................................ 111

Figure 28. Monthly landings by region for common species targeted in the small mesh

estuarine gill net fishery........................................................................................ 112

Figure 29. Map of Pamlico Sound and associated rivers showing the sample strata and

locations of individual samples taken in the NCDMF independent gill net

survey from 2001 to 2006. .................................................................................... 126

Figure 30. Sub-legal red drum (<18 inches TL) CPUE by month and region from the

Pamlico Sound independent gill net survey from 2001 to 2005........................... 127

Figure 31. Mean water temperature (

F) and percent acute mortality (at the net) for sub-

legal red drum captured in small and large mesh gill nets by month.................... 128

Figure 32. Potential impact of large mesh gill nets per unit of effort based on the

availability of sub-legal red drum (CPUE from IGNS) and the % acute

mortality associated with capture in a gill net by month. Based on

samples collected from 2001 to 2006.................................................................... 131

Figure 33. Potential impact of small mesh gill nets per unit of effort based on the

availability of sub-legal red drum (CPUE from IGNS) and the % acute

mortality associated with capture in a gill net by month. Based on

samples collected from 2001 to 2006.................................................................... 132

Figure 34. Program 462 gill net sampling areas........................................................................ 140

xii

Figure 35. Independent gill net (Program 915) sampling grids for the Neuse, Pamlico,

and Pungo, rivers................................................................................................... 141

Figure 36. Reported landings for targeted small mesh gill net species. River includes

Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers; other includes all other estuarine

waters of the state. Targeted species are bluefish, red drum, kingfish,

Spanish mackerel, Atlantic Menhaden (bait), striped mullet, white perch,

spotted seatrout, spot, and weakfish...................................................................... 142

Figure 37. Numbers of trips for targeted small mesh gill net species. River includes

Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers; other includes all other estuarine

waters of the state.................................................................................................. 142

Figure 38. Numbers of participants targeting small mesh gill net species. River

includes Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers; other includes all other

estuarine waters of the state. ................................................................................. 143

Figure 39. Red drum length frequency from October - December 2005 and 2006 from

Neuse River, NC. Samples taken from NCDMF Program 462 independent

Estuarine Gill Net Sampling. ................................................................................ 153

Figure 40. Red drum length frequency from October-December 2005 and 2006 from

Neuse River, NC. Samples taken from NCDMF Program 915 Pamlico

Sound Independent Gill Net Survey...................................................................... 154

Figure 41. Red drum length frequency from October-December 2005 and 2006 from

Pamlico, Pungo rivers, NC. Samples taken from NCDMF Program 915

Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey. ...................................................... 154

Figure 42. Neuse River small mesh gill net trips (all gears combined), and overall trend

for gill net trips in this river, 1994 – 2006. ........................................................... 160

Figure 43. Pamlico, Pungo rivers small mesh gill net trips (all gears combined), and

overall trend for gill net trips in this system, 1994 – 2006. .................................. 161

Figure 44. Map of the current gill net attendance area along the Outer Banks. The

black-dashed line denotes the modified attended gill net area (AGNA)

along the Outer Banks of Pamlico Sound. Proposed changes to “Area 1”

near Rodanthe and “Area 2” behind Hatteras would allow for additional

deep water areas to be fished outside the attendance area. ................................... 166

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Goals and Objectives

The goal of Amendment 1 to the North Carolina Red Drum Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) is to prevent overfishing in the red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) stocks by allowing the

long-term sustainable harvest in the red drum fishery. To achieve these goals, it is recommended

that the following objectives be met:

1. Achieve and maintain a minimum overfishing threshold where the rate of juvenile

escapement to the adult stock is sufficient to maintain the long-term sustainable

harvest in the fishery.

2. Establish a target SPR to provide the Optimum Yield (OY) from the fishery in order

to maintain a state FMP that is in compliance with the requirements of the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Red Drum FMP.

3. Continue to develop an information program to educate the public and elevate their

awareness of the causes and nature of problems in the red drum stock, its habitat and

fisheries, and explain the rationale for management efforts to solve these problems.

4. Develop regulations that while maintaining sustainable harvest from the fishery,

considers the needs of all user groups and provides adequate resource protection.

5. Promote harvest practices that minimize the mortality associated with regulatory

discards of red drum.

6. In a manner consistent with Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP), restore, improve

and protect essential red drum habitat and environmental quality to increase growth,

survival, and reproduction of red drum.

7. Improve our understanding of red drum population dynamics and ecology through the

continuation of current studies and the development of better data collection methods,

as well as, through the identification and encouragement of new research.

8. Initiate, enhance, and continue studies to collect and analyze the socio-economic data

needed to properly monitor and manage the red drum fishery.

Stock Status

The current stock status of red drum in North Carolina waters indicates that the stock is

currently not undergoing overfishing. More restrictive management measures in place as a result

of the 2001 North Carolina Red Drum FMP have effectively reduced fishing mortality. The

primary benchmarks in determining the stock status, spawning potential ratio (SPR) and

escapement are currently at or near target levels. It is critical to note that reaching the target is

only the first step in maintaining this fishery. In order for the red drum stock to be considered

healthy and viable, the 40% SPR target must be maintained continuously over time. Increases in

the harvest rates (relaxation of current regulations) of red drum should only be allowed if those

increases are not anticipated to lower the SPR values below the overfishing definition.

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

While landings typically peak in the fall, red drum are harvested commercially and

recreationally on a year round basis throughout North Carolina’s estuarine and nearshore coastal

waters. Commercially, red drum are harvested using a variety of gears and have traditionally

been harvested as bycatch in fisheries targeting other species. A directed fishery using run-

around gillnets did develop in the mid-1990’s. Regulations implemented through the 2001 Red

Drum FMP prohibit the targeting of red drum and restrict commercial harvest to a daily trip

limit. As a bycatch fishery, anchored gill nets account for the vast majority of the commercial

landings. The commercial dockside value of the red drum fishery is seasonally variable but has

shown an upward trend since the 1970’s. The average price paid per pound has steadily

increased from $0.12 per pound in 1972 to $1.34 per pound in 2005.

Recreational anglers account for about 60% of the annual harvest of red drum. Red drum

are consistently rated as one of the top target species by shore based recreational anglers. Over

time, the practice of catch and release fishing has become an increasingly larger component of

the recreational fishery due both to angler preference and further bag and size limit restrictions.

Economic data on the recreational red drum fishery are occasionally collected through add-on

surveys through the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey. The most recent data

estimates that total expenditures of red drum related recreational fishing trips totaled

approximately $50 million in 2004.

Habitat and Water Quality

Red drum utilize a variety of estuarine and oceanic habitats throughout their life cycle.

Each habitat type provides ecological services that aid in maintaining and enhancing the red

drum population, and also influences the functioning of the ecosystem overall. The South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council has recognized areas of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for red drum. In North Carolina the primary EFH

areas include flooded salt marsh, fresh and brackish marsh, tidal creeks, submerged rooted

vascular plants (sea grass), oyster reefs and shell banks, soft sediment bottom, ocean high

salinity surf zones and artificial reefs. HAPC are those areas that are known to be critical to a

particular life history stage for red drum, including spawning areas and nursery grounds. These

areas include all coastal inlets, state-designated nursery habitats known to be important to red

drum, currently known spawning sites and any future designated sites of spawning activity and

areas supporting submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).

At the state level, North Carolina has developed a strategy to protect and restore habitats

critical to North Carolina’s coastal fishery resources through the implementation of the Coastal

Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP). This plan recognizes those habitats that have been identified to

provide critical habitat functions or that are particularly at risk due to imminent threats,

vulnerability or rarity. Areas meeting these criteria are to be designated as “Strategic Habitat

Areas” (SHAs) and given the highest priority for protection. In addition to its overall goals, the

CHPP has specific recommendations that will benefit habitat used by red drum. Additional red

drum habitat research needs identified in the Red Drum FMP are:

• Determine juvenile habitat preference and examine if recruitment is habitat limited.

• Examine ecological use and importance of shell bottom to red drum.

• Identify coastal wetlands and other habitats utilized by juvenile red drum and assess

relationship between changes in recruitment success and changes in habitat conditions.

• Assess cumulative impact of large-scale beach nourishment and inlet dredging on red

drum and other demersal fish that use the surf zone.

• Determine location and significance of spawning aggregation sites throughout the coast.

• Determine if navigational dredging between August and October significantly impacts

spawning activity.

• Determine if designation of spawning areas by MFC is needed, and if specific protective

measures should be developed.

Management Issues and Proposed Actions

In the development of Amendment 1 to the Red Drum FMP, management options were

developed for identified key issues through the FMP process. These issues and options were

developed by the NCDMF through the cooperation and advice solicited from the Red Drum

Advisory Committee (RDAC), MFC, Finfish and Regional Advisory committees, public, as well

as the scientific community. The MFC selected preferred management strategies for each of the

key issues at their November 6-7, 2008 business meeting. A summary of the key issues along

with the selected MFC management strategies are listed in the following table (Any

changes/additions to current rules or proclamations are underlined and italicized in the table):

ISSUE

MFC SELECTED MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY

OBJECTIVES

ADDRESSED

REGULATORY

ACTION

Adult Harvest Limits Status quo (no harvest over 27 inches TL) 1 & 2 No action required

Recreational

Targeting of Adult

Red Drum

It is unlawful to use any hook larger than 4/0

from July 1 through September 30 in the

internal coastal fishing waters of Pamlico

Sound and its tributaries south of the

Albemarle Sound Management Area as

defined in 15A NCAC 03R .0201 and north of

a line beginning at a point 34° 59.7942' N -

76° 14.6514' W on Camp Point; running

easterly to a point at 34° 58.7853' N -

76° 09.8922' W on Core Banks while using

natural bait from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

unless the terminal tackle consists of:

(1) A circle hook defined as a hook with the

point of the hook directed perpendicularly

back toward the shank, and with the barb

1, 2 & 5 Rule change

3J .0306

either compressed or removed.

(2) A fixed sinker not less than two ounces in

weight, secured not more than six inches

from the fixed weight to the circle hook.

(also continued education on fishing

methods that minimize risk to fish)During

July through September, unlawful to use J-

hooks larger than 4/0 while fishing natural

bait in Pamlico Sound and its tributraries,

excluding the ASMA and Core Sound, south

(also continued education on fishing methods

that minimize risk to fish)

Recreational Bag

and Size Limits

Status quo (one fish per day between 18 and

27 inches TL)

1, 2 & 4 No action required

Commercial Limits

Trip Limit and Bycatch Provision

Status quo (7 fish trip limit with 50% bycatch

provision). Director retains authority

modify trip limit and bycatch provision as

needed.

Allow the possession of up to 3 fish while

engaged in fishing without requiring that

they be subject to the bycatch provision.

Upon landing/sale all red drum possessed

would be subject to bycatch provision.

Commercial Cap

Continue 250,000 lb annual cap monitored

from

September 1 to August 31.

Implement a split season on the annual

commercial cap, capping the period of

September 1 to April 30 at 150,000 lb and

conserving the remaining portion of the cap

for the period of May 1 to August 31. Unused

cap in period one would be available for

period two. Any annual commercial harvest

limit that is exceeded one year will result in

the poundage overage being deducted from

the subsequent year’s commercial harvest

limit.

1, 2, 4 & 5

New proclamation

Rule Change

3M .0501

Estuarine Gill Net

Discarded Bycatch

of Red Drum

Small Mesh Attendance

(<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round Attendance

Expand year-round attendance within 200

yards of shore to include the area of the

lower Neuse out to the mouth of the river.

Seasonal Attendance

1) Modify the seasonal attendance

requirem

ents for small mesh gill nets

(currently May 1 to October 31) to include

the period of May 1 through

November 30

the following locations:

a) All primary and permanent secondary

nursery areas and modified no-trawl areas

b) Within 200 yards of any shoreline for

the areas of Pamlico, Pungo, Neuse and

Bay Rivers and bays

c) Within 50 yards of any shoreline in the

areas of Pamlico and Core Sound south to

the NC/SC line

d) Area Core Sound and south is excluded

from 50 yard shoreline attendance

requirement during October and

November

Modification to current small mesh

seasonal attendance area along the Outer

Banks (i.e. modified no-trawl area)

Modify attendance area between Rodanthe

and Gull Island to straighten out line and

allow for non-attended nets in area of deeper

water

Modify the current attendance line in the

area of Oliver Reef, near Hatteras to allow

for non-attended nets in area of deeper

water.

1, 2, & 5

Rule change

3R .0112

Rule change

3J .0103 &

3R .0112

Rule change

3R .0112

Estuarine Gill Net

Discarded By

catch

of Red Drum

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to

be set a minimum of 10 feet from any

shoreline from June through October

1, 2, & 5

Rule change

3J .0103

The use of gigs,

gaffs or spears to

take red drum.

Continue to prohibit and move Proclamation

FF-40-2001 into rule

1 & 2 Rule change

3M .0501

Rules in place during the development of the Red Drum FMP Amendment 1 are listed in Section

4.7.3. Rules necessary to implement the MFC selected management strategies as outlined in the

this table are provided in Appendix 1.

4. INTRODUCTION

4.1 Legal Authority for Management

Fisheries management includes all activities associated with maintenance, improvement,

and utilization of the fisheries resources of the coastal area, including research, development,

regulation, enhancement, and enforcement.

Many different state laws (General Statutes - G.S.) provide the necessary authority for

fishery management in North Carolina. General authority for stewardship of the marine and

estuarine resources by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(NCDENR) is provided in G.S. 113-131. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries

(DMF) is the arm of the Department which carries out this responsibility. General Statute 113-

163 authorizes research and statistical programs. The North Carolina Marine Fisheries

Commission (MFC) is charged to “manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect, and

regulate the marine and estuarine resources of the State of North Carolina” (G.S. 143B-289.51).

The MFC can regulate fishing times, areas, fishing gear, seasons, size limits, and quantities of

fish harvested and possessed (G.S. 113-182 and 143B-289.52). General Statute 143B-289.52

allows the MFC to delegate the authority to implement its regulations for fisheries “which may

be affected by variable conditions” to the Director of DMF who may then issue public notices

called “proclamations.” Thus, North Carolina has a very powerful and flexible legal basis

governing coastal fisheries management. The General Assembly has retained the authority to

establish commercial fishing licenses, but has delegated to the MFC authority to establish free

permits for various commercial fishing gears and activities.

The Fisheries Reform Act of 1997 (FRA 1997) and as ratified in 2004 establishes a

process for preparation of coastal fisheries management plans for North Carolina. The FRA

states: “the goal of the plans shall be to ensure the long-term viability of the State’s

commercially and recreationally significant species or fisheries. Each plan shall be designed to

reflect fishing practices so that one plan may apply to a specific fishery, while other plans may

be based on gear or geographic areas. Each plan shall:

a. Contain necessary information pertaining to the fishery or fisheries, including

management goals and objectives, status of the relevant fish stocks, stock assessments for

multi-year species, fishery habitat and water quality considerations consistent with

Coastal Habitat Protection Plans adopted pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.8, social and

economic impact of the fishery to the State, and user conflicts.

b. Recommend management actions pertaining to the fishery and fisheries.

c. 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.

d. Specify a time period, not to exceed 10 years from the date of adoption of the plan, for

ending over fishing and achieving a sustainable harvest. This subdivision shall only

apply to a plan for a fishery that is over fished. This subdivision shall not apply to a plan

for a fishery where the biology of the fish or environmental conditions make ending

overfishing and achieving a sustainable harvest within 10 years impracticable.”

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.”

Overfished is defined as “The condition of a fishery that occurs when the spawning stock

biomass of the fishery is below the level that is adequate for the recruitment class of a fishery to

replace the spawning class of the fishery.

Overfishing is defined as “Fishing that causes a level of mortality that prevents a fishery from

producing a sustainable harvest.”

4.2 Goals and Objectives

The goal Amendment 1 to the North Carolina Red Drum Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) is to prevent overfishing in the red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) stocks by allowing the

long-term sustainable harvest in the red drum fishery. To achieve these goals, it is recommended

that the following objectives be met:

1. Achieve and maintain a minimum overfishing threshold where the rate of juvenile

escapement to the adult stock is sufficient to maintain the long-term sustainable

harvest in the fishery.

2. Establish a target SPR to provide the Optimum Yield (OY) from the fishery in order

to maintain a state FMP that is in compliance with the requirements of the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Red Drum FMP.*

3. Continue to develop an information program to educate the public and elevate their

awareness of the causes and nature of problems in the red drum stock, its habitat and

fisheries, and explain the rationale for management efforts to solve these problems.

4. Develop regulations that while maintaining sustainable harvest from the fishery,

considers the needs of all user groups and provides adequate resource protection.

5. Promote harvest practices that minimize the mortality associated with regulatory

discards of red drum.

6. In a manner consistent with Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP), restore, improve

and protect essential red drum habitat and environmental quality to increase growth,

survival, and reproduction of red drum.

7. Improve our understanding of red drum population dynamics and ecology through the

continuation of current studies and the development of better data collection methods,

as well as, through the identification and encouragement of new research.

8. Initiate, enhance, and continue studies to collect and analyze the socio-economic data

needed to properly monitor and manage the red drum fishery.

*See ASMFC Red Drum FMP compliance requirements in Section 4.7.1 Existing Plans.

4.3 Sustainable Harvest

The FRA mandates that fishery stocks be managed to allow for sustainable harvest and

prevent overfishing. Sustainable harvest for the North Carolina red drum fishery will be defined

as the amount of harvest, including release and discard mortality, that can be taken while

maintaining a SPR at or above 30% the level that would result if fishing mortality did not exist

(F=0). The red drum fishery in North Carolina will be considered to be undergoing overfishing

when the SPR is below 30%.

4.4 Management Unit

The management unit for this FMP includes red drum and the various fisheries that

encounter red drum in all joint and coastal waters throughout North Carolina.

4.5 General Problem Statement

The 2007 stock assessment report indicates that the red drum stock in North Carolina is

currently not experiencing overfishing. The red drum stock was previously experiencing

overfishing from at least 1986 through 1998. No assessment data is available for years prior to

1986. Current management measures are the direct result of the 2001 NC Red Drum FMP and

were implemented at the beginning of FMP development as interim measures to divert

overfishing. The purpose of this plan is to recommend or maintain management measures that

prevent overfishing and provide the long-term sustainable harvest for the fishery. Areas to be

addressed in the management of North Carolina’s red drum fishery are: 1) management

strategies; 2) insufficient data and research needs; 3) habitat and water quality; and 4)

socioeconomic factors.

4.6 Interim Measures

The DMF is required, under the MFC guidelines, to recommend to the appropriate

standing committee(s) any preservation management measures necessary and appropriate to

maintain the well-being of the stock. These measures are intended to prevent further declines for

a stock that is overfished or for a stock that is experiencing overfishing at a level that may

jeopardize the long-term sustainable harvest for the fishery. Currently the red drum stock in

North Carolina is not experiencing overfishing and no interim measures are necessary.

4.7 Existing Plans, Statutes, and Rules

4.7.1 Existing Plans

Red drum along the Atlantic coast are managed jointly by the Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

(SAFMC). The ASMFC adopted an FMP for red drum along the Atlantic coast from Maryland

through Florida in 1984 (ASMFC, 1984), then revised the FMP in 1988 when the Interstate

Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP) Policy Board requested that all states from Maine

through Florida implement plan requirements to prevent development of northern markets for

southern fish. The SAFMC Red Drum FMP (SAFMC, 1990) was developed and passed in 1990

and was subsequently adopted as Amendment 1 to the ASMFC Red Drum FMP (ASMFC,

1991). This joint FMP, or Amendment 1, stated that intense fishing mortality on juvenile red

drum in state waters was resulting in reduced recruitment to the adult spawning stock; this

statement was supported by the 1990 stock assessment report which indicated that the red drum

stock was undergoing overfishing with extremely low SPR values ranging from 2-3 percent

(Vaughan, 1990). The plan recommended closing the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to all

harvest and possession of red drum to protect the adult stock and thereby placed further

regulatory responsibility with the states. Amendment 1 also required that states adopt measures

to prevent overfishing and rebuild the stock to a target of 30% SPR. Rebuilding was scheduled

to occur in steps, starting with an initial goal of 10% SPR. This initial step required states to

adopt one of two options: 1) 18-inch TL minimum, 27-inch TL maximum, and a five fish bag

limit with the option of one fish exceeding 27-inch TL; or 2) 14-inch minimum, 27-inch TL

maximum, and a 5 fish bag limit, with no fish exceeding 27-inches TL. North Carolina adopted

option 1 in 1992.

In 1998, the Council adopted new definitions of OY and overfishing for red drum. OY

was defined as 40% SPR and overfishing was defined as 30% SPR. The 2000 stock assessment

(Vaughan and Carmichael, 2000) showed that SPR increased to 18% in the Northern region for

the period of 1992-1997, indicating that the management measures imposed under Amendment 1

were successful in improving sub-adult recruitment to the adult stock. The initial step of 10%

SPR called for in Amendment 1 was achieved by all states although red drum stocks in both the

Northern and Southern region of the Atlantic coast were still experiencing overfishing. In 1998

North Carolina began the development of a state red drum FMP as a result of the 1997 FRA

which required the management of all recreationally and commercially important species in

North Carolina to be managed for Optimum Yield. North Carolina adopted the definition of

40% SPR to obtain OY as the goal of the state red drum FMP. As a result, North Carolina took

pro-active management measures for a federally managed species with the implementation of the

2001 North Carolina Red Drum FMP. Rules implemented by the state FMP were enacted as

early as October of 1998 as interim measures to prevent further overfishing while the state red

drum FMP was being developed. Harvest restrictions included: restricting all harvest of red

drum to fish between 18 and 27 inches total length, implementing a one fish recreational bag

limit; limiting the commercial fishery with a daily trip limit set by the Director; and maintaining

the previous 250,000 pound commercial cap. In addition, the commercial fishery for red drum

was designated as a bycatch fishery. The North Carolina Red Drum FMP was approved in

March of 2001 and maintained all the interim measures.

Amendment 2 of the ASMFC FMP was adopted in 2002 and required that all states

implement management measures projected to result in a 40% SPR by at least January of 2003.

Individual states must maintain these management strategies in order to ensure that overfishing

is not occurring and that OY in the red drum fishery can be obtained. Amendment 2 compliance

requirements to the states include:

• Implementing bag and size limits projected by bag and size limit analysis to

achieve the minimum 40% SPR.

• Establishing a maximum size limit of 27 inches or less in all red drum fisheries.

• Maintaining current or more restrictive commercial fishery regulations.

• Requires any commercial cap overages from one fishing year to be subtracted

from the subsequent years commercial cap.

As a result of the management measures enacted through the state Red Drum FMP of

2001, no new management measures were required for North Carolina in order to comply with

Amendment 2. Amendment 2 did, however, disallow the “sliding scale” commercial trip limit

implemented in the state FMP. In 2003, the NCDMF requested and received approval from the

ASMFC South Atlantic State-Federal Fisheries Management Board (ASMFC-SAB) to restore

the flexibility of the NCDMF Director to raise or lower the daily commercial trip limit provided

that those changes were done in response to preventing excessive discards. Any other future

regulatory changes by individual states require prior approval of the ASMFC-SAB or that state

will be deemed out of compliance. A state can request to implement alternative measures to the

compliance requirements only if that state can show to the Board’s satisfaction that its alternative

will have the same conservation value as the measure contained in Amendment 2. A more

detailed description of mandatory compliance requirements can be found in the ASMFC

Amendment 2 Red Drum FMP (ASMFC 2002).

4.7.2 Statutes

All management authority for North Carolina’s red drum fishery is vested in the State of

North Carolina. General authorities that are noted in Section 4.1 provide the MFC with the

regulatory powers to manage red drum. Although most red drum harvest is taken from coastal

waters, the limited harvest from inland waters falls under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina

Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).

4.7.3 Rules

The following rules have been enacted to manage red drum stocks in North Carolina

through the authority vested in the MFC. These rules were in place at the beginning of the Red

Drum FMP Amendment 1 development. Rules necessary to implement the selected management

strategies for this plan and selected by the NC MFC are listed in Appendix 1.

SUBCHAPTER 3M-FINFISH

SECTION .0500 - OTHER FINFISH

.0501 RED DRUM

(a) The Fisheries Director, may by proclamation, impose any or all of the following restrictions on the

taking of red

drum:

(1) Specify areas.

(2) Specify seasons.

(3) Specify quantity.

(4) Specify means/methods.

(5) Specify size.

(b) It is unlawful to remove red drum from any type of net

with the aid of any boat hook, gaff, spear, gig, or similar

device.

(d) It is unlawful to possess more than one red drum per person per day taken-by hook-and-line or for recreational

purposes.

(e) The annual commercial harvest limit (September 1 through August 31) for red drum is 250,000 pounds. If the

harvest lim

it is projected to be taken, the Fisheries Director shall, by proclamation, prohibit possession of red drum taken

in a commercial fishing operation.

History Note: Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-182; 113-221; 143B-289.52;

Eff. January 1, 1991;

Amended Eff. March 1, 1996; October 1, 1992; September 1, 1991;

Temporary Amendment Eff. May 1, 2000; July 1, 1999; October 22, 1998;

Amended Eff. April 1, 2001;

Temporary Amendment Eff. May 1, 2001;

Amended Eff. August 1, 2002.

SUBCHAPTER 3J - NETS, POTS, DREDGES, AND OTHER FISHING DEVICES

SECTION .0100 - NET RULES, GENERAL

SECTION .0103 GILL NETS, SEINES, IDENTIFICATION, RESTRICTIONS

.0103 GILL NETS, SEINES, IDENTIFICATION, RESTRICTIONS

(a) It is unlawful to use gill nets:

(1) With a mesh length less than 2 ½ inches.

(2) In internal waters from April 15 through December 15, with a mesh length 5 inches or greater and less

than 5 ½ inches.

(b) The Fisheries Director may, by proclamation, limit or prohibit the use of gill nets or seines in coastal waters, or any

portion thereof, or im

pose any or all of the following restrictions on the use of gill nets or seines:

(1) Specify area.

(2) Specify season.

(3) Specify gill net mesh length.

(4) Specify means/methods.

(5) Specify net number and length.

recreational purposes, or any gill nets in internal waters unless nets are m

arked by attaching to them at each end two

separate yellow buoys which shall be of solid foam or other solid buoyant material no less than five inches in diameter

and no less than five inches in length. Gill nets, which are not connected together at the top line, shall be considered as

individual nets, requiring two buoys at each end of each individual net. Gill nets connected together at the top line shall

be considered as a continuous net requiring two buoys at each end of the continuous net. Any other marking buoys on gill

nets used for recreational purposes shall be yellow except one additional buoy, any shade of hot pink in color,

constructed as specified in this Paragraph, shall be added at each end of each individual net. Any other marking buoys on

gill nets used in commercial fishing operations shall be yellow except that one additional identification buoy of any color

or any combination of colors, except any shade of hot pink, may be used at either or both ends. The owner shall always

be identified on a buoy on each end either by using engraved buoys or by attaching engraved metal or plastic tags to the

buoys. Such identification shall include owner's last name and initials and if a vessel is used, one of the following:

(1) Owner's N.C. motor boat registration number, or

(2) Owner's U.S. vessel documentation name.

(d) It is unlawful to use gill nets:

(1) Within 200 yards of any pound net set with lead and either pound or heart in use, except from August

15 through Decem

ber 31 in Albemarle Sound, excluding tributaries, west of a line beginning at a point

36° 04.5184' N - 75° 47.9095' W on Powell Point; running southerly to a point 35° 57.2681' N - 75°

48.3999' W on Caroon Point, it is unlawful to use gill nets within 500 yards of any pound net set with

lead and either pound or heart in use;

(2) From March 1 through October 31 in the Intracoastal Waterway within 150 yards of any railroad or

highway bridge.

(e) It is unlawful to use gill nets within 100 feet either side of the center line of

the Intracoastal Waterway Channel south

of the entrance to the Alligator-Pungo River Canal near Beacon "54" in Alligator River to the South Carolina line, unless

such net is used in accordance with the following conditions:

(1) No more than two gill nets per vessel may be used at any one time;

(2) Any net used must be attended by the fisherman from a vessel who shall at no time be more than 100

yards from

either net; and

(3) Any individual setting such nets shall remove them, when necessary, in sufficient time to permit

unrestricted boat navigation.

(f) It is unlawful to use drift gill nets in violation of 15A NCAC 03J .0101(2) and Paragraph (e) of this Rule.

(g) It is unlawful to use unattended gill nets with a mesh length

less than five inches in a commercial fishing operation in

the gill net attended areas designated in 15A NCAC 03R .0112(a).

(h) It is unlawful to use unattended gill nets with a mesh length less than five inches in a com

mercial fishing operation

from May 1 through October 31 in the internal coastal and joint waters of the state designated in 15A NCAC 03R

.0112(b).

(i) It is unlawful to use more than 3,000 yards of gill net with a mesh length 5 1/2 inches or greater per vessel in internal

waters regardless of the num

ber of individuals involved.

History Note: Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-173; 113-182; 113-221; 143B-289.52;

Eff. January 1, 1991;

Amended Eff. August 1, 1998; March 1, 1996; March 1, 1994; July 1, 1993; September 1, 1991;

Temporary Amendment Eff. October 2, 1999; July 1, 1999; October 22, 1998;

Amended Eff. April 1, 2001;

Temporary Amendment Eff. May 1, 2001;

Amended Eff. September 1, 2005; August 1, 2004; August 1, 2002.

SUBCHAPTER 3R - DESCRIPTIVE BOUNDARIES

.0100 - DESCRIPTIVE BOUNDARIES

.0112 ATTENDED GILL NET AREAS

(a) The attended gill net areas referenced in 15A NCAC 03J .0103 (g) are delineated in the following areas:

(1) Pamlico River, west of a line beginning at a

point 35° 27.5768' N - 76° 54.3612' W on Ragged Point;

running southwesterly to a point 35° 26.9176' N - 76° 55.5253' W on Mauls Point;

(2) Within 200 yards of any shoreline in Pamlico River and its tributaries east of the line beginning at a

point 35° 27.

5768' N - 76° 54.3612' W on Ragged Point; running southwesterly to a point 35° 26.9176'

N - 76° 55.5253' W on Mauls Point; and west of a line beginning at a point 35° 22.3622' N - 76°

28.2032' W on Roos Point; running southerly to a point at 35° 18.5906' N - 76° 28.9530' W on

Pamlico Point;

(3) Pungo River, east of the northern portion of the Pantego

Creek breakwater and a line beginning at a

point 35° 31.7198' N - 76° 36.9195' W on the northern side of the breakwater near Tooleys Point;

running southeasterly to a point 35° 30.5312' N - 76°35.1594' W on Durants Point;

(4) Within 200 yards of any shoreline in Pungo River an

d its tributaries west of the northern portion of the

Pantego Creek breakwater and a line beginning at a point 35° 31.7198' N - 76° 36.9195' W on the

northern side of the breakwater near Tooleys Point; running southeasterly to a point 35° 30.5312' N -

76° 35.1594' W on Durants Point; and west of a line beginning at a point 35° 22.3622' N - 76°

28.2032' W on Roos Point; running southerly to a point at 35° 18.5906' N - 76° 28.9530' W on

Pamlico Point;

(5) Neuse River and its tributaries northwest of

the Highway 17 highrise bridge;

(6) Trent River and its tributaries;

(7) Within 200 yards of any shoreline in Neuse River and its tributaries east of the Highway 17 highrise

bridge

and west of a line beginning at a point 34° 57.9116' N - 76° 48.2240' W on Wilkinson Point;

running southerly to a point 34° 56.3658' N - 76° 48.7110' W on Cherry Point.

(b) The attended gill net areas referenced in 15A NCAC 03J .0103 (h) are delineated in the following coastal

and joint

waters of the state south of a line beginning on Roanoke Marshes Point at a point 35° 48.3693' N - 75° 43.7232' W;

running southeasterly to a point 35° 44.1710' N - 75° 31.0520' W on Eagles Nest Bay to the South Carolina State line:

(1) All primary nursery areas described in 15A NCAC 03R .0103, all perm

anent secondary nursery areas

described in 15A NCAC 03R .0104, and no trawl areas described in 15A NCAC 03R .0106 (2),(4),(5),

and (6);

(2) In the area along the Outer Banks, beginning at a point 35° 44.1710'

N - 75° 31.0520' W on Eagles

Nest Bay; running northwesterly to a point 35° 45.1833' N - 75° 34.1000' W west of Pea Island;

running southerly to a point 35° 40.0000' N - 75° 32.8666' W west of Beach Slough; running

southeasterly and passing near Beacon "2" in Chicamicomico Channel to a point 35° 35.0000' N - 75°

29.8833' W west of the Rodanthe Pier; running southwesterly to a point 35° 32.6000' N - 75° 31.8500'

W west of Salvo; running southerly to a point 35° 28.4500' N - 75° 31.3500' W on Gull Island;

running southerly to a point 35° 22.3000' N - 75° 33.2000' W near Beacon "2" in Avon Channel ;

running southwesterly to a point 35° 19.0333' N - 75° 36.3166' W near Beacon "2" in Cape Channel;

running southwesterly to a point 35° 15.5000' N - 75° 43.4000' W near Beacon "36" in Rollinson

Channel; running southwesterly to a point 35° 11.4833' N - 75° 51.0833' W on Legged Lump; running

southeasterly to a point 35° 10.9666' N - 75° 49.7166' W south of Legged Lump; running

southwesterly to a point 35° 09.3000' N - 75° 54.8166' W near the west end of Clarks Reef; running

westerly to a point 35° 08.4333' N - 76° 02.5000' W near Nine Foot Shoal Channel; running southerly

to a point 35° 06.4000' N - 76° 04.3333' W near North Rock; running southwesterly to a point

35°01.5833' N – 76° 11.4500' W near Beacon "HL"; running southerly to a point 35° 00.2666' N - 76°

12.2000' W; running southerly to a point 34° 59.4664' N - 76° 12.4859' W on Wainwright Island;

running easterly to a point 34° 58.7853' N - 76° 09.8922' W on Core Banks; running northerly along

the shoreline and across the inlets following the Colregs Demarcation line to the point of beginning.

(3) In Core and Back sounds, beginning at a point 34° 58.7853' N - 76° 09.8922' W on Core Banks;

running northwesterly to a point 34° 59.4664' N - 76° 12.4859' W on Wainwright Island; running

southerly to a point 34° 58.8000' N - 76° 12.5166' W; running southeasterly to a point 34° 58.1833' N -

76° 12.3000' W; running southwesterly to a point 34° 56.4833' N - 76° 13.2833' W; running westerly

to a point 34° 56.5500' N - 76°13.6166' W; running southwesterly to a point 34° 53.5500' N - 76°

16.4166' W; running northwesterly to a point 34° 53.9166' N - 76° 17.1166' W; running southerly to a

point 34° 53.4166' N - 76° 17.3500' W; running southwesterly to a point 34° 51.0617' N – 76°

21.0449' W; running southwesterly to a point 34° 48.3137' N - 76° 24.3717' W; running southwesterly

to a point 34° 46.3739' N – 76° 26.1526' W; running southwesterly to a point 34° 44.5795' N – 76°

27.5136' W; running southwesterly to a point 34° 43.4895' N – 76° 28.9411' W near Beacon "37A";

running southwesterly to a point 34° 40.4500' N – 76° 30.6833' W; running westerly to a point 34°

40.7061' N – 76° 31.5893' W near Beacon "35" in Back Sound; running westerly to a point 34°

41.3178' N -76° 33.8092' W near Buoy "3"; running southwesterly to a point 34° 39.6601' N – 76°

34.4078' W on Shackleford Banks; running easterly and northeasterly along the shoreline and across

the inlets following the COLREGS Demarcation lines to the point of beginning;

(4) Within 200 yards of any shoreline, except from

October 1 through October 31, south and east of

Highway 12 in Carteret County and south of a line from a point 34° 59.7942' N - 76° 14.6514' W on

Camp Point; running easterly to a point at 34° 58.7853' N - 76° 09.8922' W on Core Banks; to the

South Carolina State Line.

History Note: Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-173; 113-182; 113-221; 143B-289.52;

Eff. August 1, 2004.

5. GENERAL LIFE HISTORY

5.1 Description and Distribution

The red drum is one of twenty-two members of the drum family (Sciaenidae) that

includes many of North Carolina’s most important inshore commercial and recreational species.

Species in this family are typically known as the drums, and other common drum species landed

in North Carolina include weakfish, Atlantic croaker, spot, spotted seatrout, kingfishes (sea

mullet), and black drum. Red drum and many others in this family produce drumming sounds by

vibrating their swim bladders with special muscles. Other common names for red drum include

channel bass, redfish, spottail bass, and puppy drum. Red drum are common along the Atlantic

coast over a wide range of habitats from Chesapeake Bay to Key West, Florida. Historically,

landings reached as far north as Massachusetts and there was a moderate commercial fishery off

the coast of New Jersey in the 1930’s. There are few reports of landings from areas north of

Chesapeake Bay since the 1950’s suggesting a decline in red drum distribution along the Atlantic

coast.

5.2 Reproduction and Development

Red drum spawning has long been accepted to occur at night in high salinity areas in or

around the major estuarine passes and inlets (Pearson, 1929; Johnson, 1978). There is now

evidence that substantial spawning activity may take place inside the estuaries. Red drum have

been collected in spawning condition inside Hatteras and Ocracoke Inlets and near the mouths of

bays and rivers on the western side of Pamlico Sound (Ross et al., 1995). Researchers using

hydrophones to detect spawning sounds documented spawning activity of red drum near

Ocracoke Inlet and on the western side of Pamlico Sound near Bay River (Figure 1). Eggs

captured during this survey were identified as red drum eggs and provide further evidence of

spawning activity within the estuary (Luczkovich et al., 1999). In 2003 and 2004, additional

hydrophone surveys were conducted in the lower Neuse River estuary. Results for these years

found spawning aggregations of red drum occurring in the lower Neuse River in an area ranging

from Oriental to the river mouth (Barrios 2004).

Laboratory tests show optimal conditions for spawning are salinities ranging from 25-35

ppt and temperatures between 22-30 °C (Holt et al., 1981). Documented spawning activity in

Pamlico Sound during 2003 and 2004 occurred in salinities ranging from 20 to 25 ppt (Barrios

2004). The buoyant eggs are small (approximately 1 mm in diameter) and hatch within 24 to 36

hours of fertilization. Larvae, while found over a wide range of salinities (0-33 ppt) in North

Carolina (Ross and Stevens, 1992), have been shown in laboratory experiments to have optimum

growth and survival at salinity levels between 5-10 ppt (Neill, 1987). Larvae are distributed

throughout the estuary by tidal and wind driven currents. The majority are transported to the

upper reaches of the estuary where they settle out in shallow, low-salinity nursery areas with

Figure 1. Red drum spawning sites identified in the Bay River and Ocracoke Inlet areas through

acoustic sampling (Luczkovich et al., 1999).

abundant food supplies, such as coastal creeks, protected bays with sandy or muddy bottoms, and

grass beds (Mercer, 1984; Daniel; 1988; Wenner et al., 1990; Ross et al., 1992).

Red drum are eurythermal and have been collected over a wide range of temperatures

ranging from 2° C to 33° C (Simmons and Breuer, 1962). During extreme cold conditions in the

winter, small juvenile red drum leave the shallow water habitats for channels and other deep

water areas and then return to shallow water areas the following spring as water temperatures

rise (Wenner et al., 1990). The distribution of larvae and juveniles in the estuary varies

seasonally as the fish grow and disperse. In North Carolina, juvenile red drum are found year-

round over a wide range of salinity and habitats, although they generally prefer the shallow

shorelines of the various bays and rivers, and the shallow grass flats behind the barrier islands

(Ross and Stevens, 1992).

Red drum grow rapidly during their first year, reaching 9-10 inches TL by early summer

when they leave the shallow nursery grounds, and 12 to 14 inches TL by their first birthday in

September. The legal size limit of 18 inches TL is reached when they are around 20 months old

during the late fall and early spring (Daniel, 1988; Wenner et al., 1990; Ross et al., 1995), and

most grow beyond the maximum size limit of 27 inches TL during their second full year of life.

Red drum mature 1-2 years later at 3 to 4 years old and 30 to 36 inches TL (Ross et al., 1995).

Once mature, red drum tend to spend more time in the ocean but are still estuarine dependent as

they come inshore to feed, develop, and spawn. The oldest red drum aged was captured in North

Carolina waters and was 62 years of age (Ross et al., 1995).

5.3 Diet and Food Habits

The diet of red drum during various stages of development has been studied by Daniel

(1988), Music and Pafford (1984), and reported in SAFMC (1990). Stomach content analysis

shows that dominant food sources coincide with habitat changes. Early juveniles 0.2-0.6 inches

TL preyed on copepods, while mysids, small benthic shrimp common in salt marsh, were the

dominant food source for juveniles 0.6-1.2 inches TL. The diet preference shifts to fish for red

drum between 3.0-6.0 inches TL, coinciding with movement out of shallow marshes and into

deeper creeks in the winter. Decapod crustaceans, predominantly mud crabs and fiddler crabs,

comprise 96% of the diet of red drum between 7.9-11.8 inches TL. Red drum over 11.8 inches

TL depend on a more diverse food base, although they remain a predominately benthic feeder.

Overall, crustaceans comprised 72% of their prey, fish comprised 17% and plant matter

comprised 11%. Fiddler crab and mud crab were the overall predominant prey. Diet work

specific to red drum in North Carolina is currently lacking and any future life history studies

should attempt to fill this void.

5.4 Migration Patterns

The movements of juvenile and adult red drum were summarized by Mercer (1984) and

described from tagging studies conducted by NCDMF from 1986 through 1995 (Ross and

Stevens, 1992; Marks and DiDomenico, 1996; Burdick et al., 2007). Tagging studies in North

Carolina, consist of two segments: tagging of one-year old sub-adult red drum by Division staff,

and tagging of adult red drum by anglers participating in a state-sponsored volunteer tagging

program. More than 45,000 red drum have been tagged since the mid-1980’s with an overall

recapture rate of 11%. Recapture rates decrease with increasing fish size and are 18% for sub-

legal size fish (<18 inches), 13% for legal size (18-27 inches) and 2% for red drum over the slot

limit of 27 inches (Burdick et al. 2007).

Most of the DMF tagging effort has been concentrated from June through October in the

Pamlico and Neuse rivers and over grass flats behind the barrier islands of Pamlico Sound, while

tagging efforts by the volunteer participants have occurred year round throughout state coastal

waters. Late age 0 and age 1 red drum show limited movement for most of the year although

movement tends to increase in the fall. During 1991-1995, over 65% of tagged red drum under

18 inches were recaptured within 10 km of the release site. Late age 0 and age 1 red drum are

common throughout the shallow portions of North Carolina’s estuaries and are particularly

abundant along the shorelines of rivers and bays, in creeks, and over grass flats and shoals

common in many of the sounds. Tag returns indicate that in the fall a portion of the sub-adult

fish residing in the rivers move toward higher salinity areas such as the grass flats and shoals of

the barrier islands and inlets and the surf. Sub-adults residing near coastal inlets and barrier

islands during the summer likely enter the surf in the fall. Tag return rates are low during winter,

with most returns coming from sub-adults recaptured in the estuaries and a few taken in the surf

and inlets. During spring and summer, recaptures are common along the barrier islands, near

coastal inlets, and in the surf zone, with a large number of the sub-adults continuing to be

recaptured in the rivers. Red drum of age 2 to 3 have generally left the coastal rivers and are

recaptured along the barrier islands, the shallow water areas around the outer bars and shoals of

the surf, and in coastal inlets, over inshore grass flats, creeks or bays.

Movements of adult red drum have been documented through recreational and

commercial landings records and through the state-sponsored volunteer tagging program.

During the spring adult red drum occur along the beaches and inlets for one to two months as

they move from offshore wintering grounds and appear in recreational catches of surf fishermen

primarily from Cape Lookout to Cape Hatteras. Large aggregations have been observed around

Ocracoke, Hatteras, and Oregon inlets. A large portion of the population moves inside Pamlico

Sound during the summer months, while other schools of fish are reported to continue moving

north to the Chesapeake Bay and the Virginia barrier islands. Schools of adult fish are common

in coastal inlets and in Pamlico Sound, particularly in the mouth of the Pamlico and Neuse

rivers, during the spawning season in August and September. By late September most adult

drum are found around the coastal inlets and along the beaches where they remain through

November before moving offshore for winter. Mercer (1984) documented schools of large red

drum moving south from Virginia waters and along the coastal beaches of the Outer Banks

during the fall. Anglers have reported catches of large red drum during December around the

shoals and outer bars of the barrier islands and around submerged structures up to a couple of

kilometers offshore. By late December, most large red drum have moved offshore where they

are no longer available to near-shore fishing activity.

6. STATUS OF STOCKS

The most recent stock assessment indicates that the red drum stock in North Carolina is

no longer experiencing overfishing and that the current escapement level of juvenile fish to the

adult stock is near the target of 40% (Takade and Paramore 2007; see Appendix 2). Information

necessary to estimate abundance at age for adult red drum and calculate spawning stock biomass

(SSB) are lacking because slot limits restrict the age classes that may be harvested and fishery-

independent survey data are not available for the adult fish. Therefore, the primary benchmarks

used in determining the status of red drum are spawning potential ratio (SPR) and escapement or

survivability to age 4. It is important to note that due to the lack of information on the adult fish,

SPR values reported are not a reflection of the current spawning stock, but an estimate of the

SPR that would result if all sources of mortality (fishing and natural) present during the

assessment period continue to be static.

Although early assessments evaluated the Atlantic Coastal red drum population as a

single stock, recent assessments are divided into Northern (NC to MD) and Southern (SC to FL)

components to better account for the limited migration of the species (Vaughan 1996). Northern

region assessment results are largely representative of the North Carolina stock, since North

Carolina accounts for virtually all the commercial landings, the majority of the recreational

landings, and the only fishery-independent data that are available for the region.

The northern red drum stock was assessed using commercial, recreational, and

independent data from 1986 to 2005. Results were broken into three regulatory periods with

relatively uniform regulations [early: 1986-1991, mid: 1992-1998, and late: 1999-2005 (Table

1)]. A major assumption in this assessment was assigning an accurate length distribution to

released fish from the recreational fishery. While several assumptions on the length distribution

of recreational releases were calculated, the preferred matrix (Tagging) used length frequencies

estimated from modeling of North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) tag returns.

Late period age-3 selectivity was estimated to be 0.48 of fully selected fish (age-2), and was

estimated from modeling of NCDMF tag returns (Burdick et al. 2007). Two models were used: a

backward calculating virtual population analysis (VPA) and a forward calculating spreadsheet

catch-at-age model. Both models were updated from the Vaughan and Carmichael (2000)

assessment. Fishing mortality (F) estimated from FADAPT ranged from 0.50 to 0.49, with

escapement ranging from 40.6% to 41.0% and static spawning potential ratio (SPR) ranging

from 40.4% to 40.8%. The spreadsheet catch-at-age model F estimates ranged from 0.66 to 0.63,

with escapement estimated at 32.8% and static SPR estimated at 32.3%. All estimated runs

using the TAGGING matrix from both models were above the threshold of 30% static SPR and

the FADAPT estimates were above the target of 40% static SPR. All runs showed

improvements in escapement and SPR from the previous regulation period (1992-1998).

Table 1. Primary harvest limits for recreational and commercial fisheries within each of

the regulation periods

Regulation period Recreational regulations Commercial regulations

1987-1991 14 in TL minimum size limit

Only 2 fish over 32 in TL

14 in TL minimum size limit

1992-1998 18-27 in TL window limit

5 fish bag limit

1 fish >27 in TL allowed

250,000 lb commercial cap

18-27 in TL window limit

1 fish >27 in TL allowed (no sale)

1999-2005 18-27 in TL window limit

1 fish bag limit

18-27 in TL window limit

daily trip limit (7 fish since 2001)

The red drum stock in North Carolina has responded to increased regulations since the

early 1990’s (Figure 2). The current red drum assessment indicates that F has decreased and

escapement and static SPR have increased for the red drum northern stocks since the current

(1999 - 2005) management was implemented. Current estimates are all above 30% static SPR

and therefore, indicate that overfishing is not occurring. In contrast, during the earliest

assessment period of 1987 to 1991, SPR was estimated at only 1.2%. This low estimate was

primarily attributed to excessive fishing mortality on age-1 red drum. During the mid-period

(1992 – 1998) SPR estimates were 18%, an improvement, although, still well below the

overfishing definition of 30% SPR.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

Early Mid Late

Period

F rate

Escapement

SPR

F rate

SPR

Figure 2. Summary of the stock status for the northern region red drum stocks during the early

(1987 – 1991), mid (1992 – 1998) and late (1999 – 2005) regulatory periods.

In addition to traditional stock assessment techniques, the DMF has tagged red drum in

estuarine waters since 1983 to determine both migration patterns and estimate mortality of the

exploited age classes. Recent analysis and modeling by Bacheler et al. (2008) was conducted to

determine both the selectivity and fishing mortality at age from tagging data for red drum in each

of the regulatory periods. Results indicate that the increase in minimum size and reduction in the

recreational bag limit put into place after 1991 acted to lower the selectivity and substantially

reduce the fishing mortality rate on age-1 fish. Further harvest restrictions in 1998 acted to

further decrease selectivity and fishing mortality on age-1 fish. A significant drop in fully

recruited age-2 fish was not evident in this analysis. However, there was a reduction in the

overall fishing mortality for fish moving through the slot limit. Results of the tagging data were

consistent with the results of the 2007 North Carolina red drum stock assessment, indicating an

increase in escapement and spawning potential ratio from the mid to late regulation period.

It appears that the condition of the northern red drum stock has improved and that the

more restrictive management measures implemented during the late period (1999-2005) have

aided in that improvement. Quantitative assessment results, tag-based survival estimates, and

survey data all indicate that the conditions that led to overfishing during the prior management

periods of 1987 to 1998 are no longer occurring. The current stock status indicates that SPR and

escapement estimates have responded to regulatory changes and that the current level of fishing

mortality is sufficiently low to sustain the fishery. It is critical to note however, that reaching the

target is only the first step in maintaining this fishery. In order for the red drum stock to be

considered healthy and viable, the 40% SPR target must be maintained continuously over time.

Increases in the harvest rates (relaxation of current regulations) of red drum should only be

allowed if those increases are not anticipated to lower the SPR values below the overfishing

definition.

7. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES

7.1 Commercial Fishery

A directed red drum fishery does not exist in North Carolina today and historically red

drum made up only a small portion of North Carolina’s total commercial landings. Along the

Atlantic coast however, North Carolina’s red drum landings are highest for all states accounting

for 96% of red drum commercially harvested from 1999 to 2005 (Table 2). Commercial

landings of red drum

in North Carolina fluctuated annually from 1972 to 2005, averaging

161,433 pounds (lb) and ranging from 19,637 lb in 1977 to 372,942 lb in 1999 (Figure 3).

The first commercial fishery regulations were implemented in 1976 and included a

minimum size limit of 14 inches (in) total length (TL) and imposed a possession limit of two fish

greater than 32 in TL. Prior to this limit on adult fish, Outer Banks fishermen occasionally

targeted large red drum with long haul seines in Pamlico Sound (SAFMC 1990). Management

remained unchanged until the 1990’s. In 1990, a 300,000 lb commercial cap was established and

no more than one fish greater than 32 in TL could be harvested. The commercial cap was

originally implemented to prevent North Carolina’s commercial red drum fishery from

expanding beyond historical harvest levels. At the time, southern red drum markets (i.e. Florida)

were prohibiting the sale of red drum, increasing the demand from other areas. A stock

assessment conducted for the period of 1987-1991 indicated that overfishing was occurring. As

a result, North Carolina implemented an 18 – 27 in TL slot limit, with an allowance for

possession but no sale of one fish over 27 in TL and further reduced the annual commercial cap

to 250,000 lb. An updated assessment evaluated these changes and used data for the period of

1992-1998. Results indicated that, while showing marked improvement, the red drum fishery

continued to be overfished. In the fall of 1998 North Carolina began development of a state

FMP. The first action taken in the plan was to reduce harvest and divert overfishing. In October

of 1998 new management measures were put into place by the NCMFC. Daily trip limits were

established and possession of red drum over 27 in TL was prohibited. Daily trip limits originally

set at 100 pounds per day were later reduced due to annual cap overages and the current seven

fish per day limit has been in place since 2001. Additionally, targeting of red drum was

prohibited by requiring that the total weight of red drum make up no more than 50% of the total

marketable catch (excluding menhaden) for each trip. As a result of these regulatory changes,

North Carolina’s regulatory history can easily be summarized into three distinct management

periods from which data are available for assessments: 1987-1991, 1992-1998, and 1999-2005

(see Table 1 in Section 6).

With the changes in regulations over the years, the size structure of the commercial

harvest has also shif

ted towards larger fish (Figure 4). During the initial management period of

1987-1991 most red drum harvested were ~14 in TL and one year in age. Very few fish were

harvested at the upper end of the slot limit. When the size restrictions changed (18 – 27 in TL)

in 1992, the modal length for red drum harvested shifted to 19 in TL and two years in age. As a

result of decreasing the available sizes that can be retained within the slot limit, landings were

now primarily from a single year class of fish and dependent upon year class strength from a

single cohort. While the regulatory changes in 1999 did not change the legal size limits, the

reductions in harvest resulting from the daily trip limit did correspond with a shift in the modal

length of harvested fish from 19 to 23 in TL. In addition, fish at the upper end of the slot limit

that were once rare in the landings are now commonly encountered.

Table 2. Annual commercial landings (lb) of red drum by state along the mid-Atlantic coast.

Year RI NY NJ DE MD VA NC SC GA FL* Total

1972 -----5,900 42,919 1,200 3,400 128,400 181,819

1973 - - - 900 - 6,200 70,264 600 3,700 166,500 248,164

1974 -----15,700 142,437 2,300 3,100 137,300 300,837

1975 - - - 200 - 19,600 214,236 12,400 10,000 83,300 339,736

1976 -----18,600 168,259 2,600 7,300 106,000 302,759

1977 - - - 200 - 300 19,637 800 5,000 103,500 129,437

1978 - - - 300 - 2,100 21,774 4,325 328 104,696 133,523

1979 - - - - 100 1,900 126,517 1,767 935 92,684 223,903

1980 -----400 243,223 4,107 1,493 191,222 440,445

1981 -----200 93,420 - 261 258,374 352,255

1982 -----1,700 52,561 2,228 251 139,170 195,910

1983 - - - - 100 41,700 219,871 2,274 1,126 105,164 370,235

1984 -----2,600 283,020 3,950 1,961 130,885 422,416

1985 -----1,100 152,676 3,512 3,541 88,929 249,758

1986 - - - - 1,000 5,400 249,076 12,429 2,939 77,070 347,914

1987 -----2,600 249,657 14,689 4,565 42,993 314,504

1988 - - - - 8,100 4,000 220,271 -3,281 284 235,936

1989 - - - - 1,000 8,200 274,356 165 3,963 287,684

1990 ----29 1,481 183,216 -2,763 187,489

1991 - - - - 7,533 24,771 96,045 - 1,637 129,986

1992 - - - - 1,087 2,352 128,497 -1,759 133,695

1993 ----55 8,637 238,099 -2,533 249,324

1994 5,094 ---859 4,080 142,119 -2,141 154,293

1995 - 668 - - 6 2,992 248,122 -2,578 254,366

1996 - 8 - - 215 2,073 113,338 -2,271 117,905

1997 43 - - - 22 4,049 52,502 - 1,395 58,011

1998 165 57 311 - 336 6,436 294,366 -672 302,343

1999 - 47 241 6 504 12,368 372,942 -1,115 387,223

2000 - 1,215 --843 11,457 270,953 -707 285,175

2001 - 58 14 - 727 5,318 149,616 -- 155,7

2002 - 116 - - 1,161 7,752 81,364 - - 90,393

2003 - 43 - - 631 2,716 90,525 - - 93,915

2004 ----12 638 54,086 - - 54,736

2005 ----37 656 128,770 -- 129,4

Total 5,302 2,212 566 1,606 24,357 235,976 5,488,734 69,346 76,715 1,956,471 7,861,285

*Florida landings are for the East coast of Florida only.

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Year

Commercial Landings (lbs)

Figure 3. Annual commercial landings of red drum in North Carolina.

7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 55

Total Length (in)

Percent Frequency

1987-1991

1992-1998

1999-2005

Figure 4. Length frequency of red drum sampled from the North Carolina commercial harvest

(all gears combined) for the periods 1987-1991, 1992-1998, and 1999-2005.

Red drum have been harvested over the years using a variety of commercial gears.

Throughout the 1970’s long haul seines and common haul seines were generally the most

productive gears, while gill nets, pound nets and trawls were also commonly used (ASMFC

2002). Since the 1980’s, gill nets have become the dominant gear. In the years leading up to the

implementation of daily trip limits in 1999, nearly one-half of the total annual commercial

harvest of red drum was harvested by a small number of trips with high landings. Nearly half of

all red drum landings (48.5%) from 1994 to 1998 occurred in only 1.1% of the total number of

trips that harvested red drum. Runaround gill nets became a significant contributor to the red

drum commercial harvest during this time (Figure 5). The runaround gill net and long haul seine

fisheries typically had the largest individual trips of red drum

landings during this time because

of their effectiveness in encircling large schools of red drum. Participation in the runaround gill

net fishery increased in the mid-1990’s as fishermen actively pursued schools of red drum. The

largest landings occurred in the estuarine waters from Oregon Inlet to Ocracoke (Table 3).

During this time there were a few exceptional long haul seine catches of up to 10,000 lb. A

typical catch for a runaround gill net trip ranged from 100 to 1,000 lb per trip with several

catches up to 5,000 lb. Now that regulations prohibit targeting, red drum are most commonly

encountered as bycatch in the southern flounder estuarine gill net fishery but are also still

common bycatch in many of the gears in which they were traditionally captured.

100

Anchored

Gill Net

Runaround

Gill Net

Pound Net Long Haul

Seine

Beach

Seine

Shrimp

Trawl

Fish Trawl Other

Gears

Gear

Percent of Total Catch

1987-1991

1992-1998

1999-2005

Figure 5. Percent landings of red drum by gear type for each harvest period.

Table 3. Percentage of commercial landings of red drum in North Carolina by major

water bodies.

Year

Total

1972 0.70 40.39 20.07 0.23 34.32 4.04 0.24 - 100

1973 0.24 46.69 31.79 0.31 19.41 1.21 0.35 - 100

1974 0.65 24.87 29.06 5.61 36.57 2.22 1.02 - 100

1975 6.17 50.97 10.58 2.54 25.12 4.23 0.39 - 100

1976 18.22 16.56 3.01 2.46 32.57 26.28 0.89 - 100

1977 - 31.84 20.81 0.96 33.13 12.54 0.72 - 100

1978 - 71.69 8.97 - 14.97 4.37 - - 100

1979 0.08 21.06 39.47 0.40 27.86 10.87 0.27 - 100

1980 - 29.26 27.12 0.06 36.44 6.78 0.34 - 100

1981 - 29.85 12.97 - 53.39 3.41 0.39 - 100

1982 0.33 58.57 17.32 0.21 14.43 5.61 3.54 - 100

1983 0.82 31.54 26.87 0.53 24.27 3.33 12.65 - 100

1984 0.25 58.39 19.68 0.85 7.16 2.60 11.08 - 100

1985 0.03 47.78 21.47 0.02 9.45 0.76 20.48 - 100

1986 1.68 27.81 20.78 0.23 24.65 11.19 13.66 - 100

1987 13.03 16.78 19.51 2.17 28.85 8.26 11.41 - 100

1988 5.02 23.19 26.03 0.60 24.96 9.12 11.08 - 100

1989 3.57 19.31 23.02 1.50 35.68 7.14 9.77 - 100

1990 0.43 26.04 21.79 1.16 35.34 1.88 13.37 - 100

1991 5.56 13.95 22.44 1.03 36.94 1.57 18.51 - 100

1992 9.37 10.75 13.32 3.19 47.02 1.99 14.34 - 100

1993 19.07 15.08 6.65 5.75 41.23 2.54 9.68 - 100

1994 6.74 24.39 4.76 0.71 51.75 4.02 7.63 - 100

1995 1.75 10.73 8.51 1.33 63.39 6.73 7.56 - 100

1996 1.26 15.20 12.71 0.46 42.75 7.33 20.28 <0.01 100

1997 0.70 13.39 22.77 2.73 40.02 6.83 13.56 - 100

1998 6.94 2.27 3.39 5.29 76.40 2.84 2.87 - 100

1999 19.64 1.90 6.17 11.42 50.06 7.16 3.66 - 100

2000 9.38 10.40 5.92 15.73 46.14 7.65 4.77 - 100

2001 7.82 4.83 9.01 20.65 43.00 9.53 5.15 - 100

2002 9.68 2.68 10.28 14.09 32.02 20.01 11.24 - 100

2003 6.31 3.62 8.88 16.63 33.86 15.13 15.55 - 100

2004 3.09 5.73 10.48 12.71 47.16 6.35 14.47 - 100

2005 6.11 2.37 14.71 5.33 40.05 18.55 12.87 - 100

Pamlico

Sound

Pamlico/

Neuse

River

Bogue

Sound

south Unknown

Albermarle

Sound

Atlantic

Ocean

Core

Sound

Croatan

and

Roanoke

Sounds

7.2 Recreational Fishery

Red drum are targeted by recreational anglers year-round throughout the sounds, rivers,

and beaches of North Carolina. Angling methods used to catch red drum, include conventional,

spinning, and fly tackle; using live, dead, and artificial bait. Red drum are consistently reported

as one of the top target species by shore-based recreational anglers, and were the number one or

two target species in 1993, 1995, 1996 and every year from 1999 to 2003 (National Marine

Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, personal com

munication).

Recreational fishermen must adhere to the same slot limit (18 to 27 in TL) as commercial

fishermen and are allowed to harvest one fish per person per day. From 1992 to 1998 when there

was a five fish creel limit, recreational landings averaged 286,548 lb and accounted for

approximately 60% of the total red drum harvested in North Carolina. After the creel limit was

reduced to one fish per day, annual landings dropped to an average of 204,725 lb for the period

of 1999 to 2005, accounting for 56% of total red drum landed in North Carolina.

Similar to the commercial fishery, recreational landings vary annually in response to

changes in year-class abundance. For example, landings increased from 39,077 lb in 1997 to

591,428 lb in 1998 (Table 4). Unlike the commercial landings, North Carolina does not

dominate harvest of red drum in the recreational fishery along the Atlantic coast (Table 5).

North Carolina landings only accounted for 14% of the recreational harvest by weight for the

Atlantic Coast from 1999 to 2005. South Carolina (16%) and Georgia (14%) had a similar

average, while the east coast of Florida dominated with 50% of the catch, averaging 718,498 lb

per year.

Compliance with the 18 in minimum size limit varies by year, but has improved on

average in recent years. Undersized red drum accounted for 19% of the recreational harvest

from 1994 to 1998, ranging from 1% in 1998 to 35% in 1997. Undersized red drum accounted

for only 3.4% of the harvest from 1999 to 2005, ranging from a low of 0% in both 2003 and

2005 to a high of 5.5% in 1999.

Prior to the prohibition of red drum greater than 27 inches TL in 1999, North Carolina

offered award citations for red drum captured weighing 45 lb or greater. A citation could also be

received for the release of a captured red drum greater than 40 in TL. As of 1999, all award

citations are for the releases only. The NCDMF citation data show an increasing trend in the

number of release citations issued prior to 1999 indicating an increasing tendency by anglers to

practice catch and release ethics (Table 6). In addition, release citations have increased

substantially in 1999 and appear to be trending upward. While this trend appears encouraging, it

is difficult to ascertain if this trend is due to increases in availability of large fish, increases in

fishing effort or due to increased popularity of the citation program.

Table 4. Red drum catches for recreational anglers (MRFSS), for 1989 - 2005. All

weights are in pounds. Commercial weights are included as a reference with

combined weights reported.

Definitions of recreational catch type:

Recreational

Numbers

Weight (lb)

A + B1* B2*

A + B1 Commercial Total

Year # Landed # Released

Weight (lb) Weight (lb)

1989 62,359 7,566 214,849 274,356 489,205

1990 33,149 12,452 302,994 183,216 486,210

1991 38,658 121,178 108,268 96,045 204,313

1992 23,593 60,230 109,134 128,497 237,631

1993 49,493 182,301 266,459 238,099 504,558

1994 28,953 107,662 192,060 142,119 334,179

1995 88,593 164,520 405,620 248,122 653,742

1996 36,746 35,752 204,556 113,338 317,894

1997 8,749 259,570 39,077 52,502 91,579

1998 114,638 199,701 591,428 294,366 885,794

1999

64,739 247,146

326,303

372,942

699,245

2000

61,618 203,967

316,029

270,953

586,982

2001

23,142 238,552

132,578

149,616

282,194

2002

42,541 640,857

182,226

81,364

263,590

2003

25,481 75,561

118,808

90,525

209,333

2004

30,165 191,593

114,434

54,086

168,520

2005

53,268 319,322

242,078

128,770

370,848

*A = fish brought ashore in whole form which can be identified, enumerated, weighed, and

measured by interviewers.

*B = fish not brought ashore that can be separated into: B1 = fish caught used as bait, filleted, or

discarded & B2 = those released alive.

Table 5. Recreational harvest (pounds of A + B1 fish) of red drum along the Atlantic coast, 1981-

2005 (NMFS, Office of Science & Technology).

Year

VA NC SC GA

FLEC

Total

1981

4,370

347,939 31,519 50,230 9,442

317,963 761,463

1982

37,511 340,686 52,150

480,676 911,023

1983

3,018

51,299 109,540 222,691 67,298

675,924 1,129,770

1984

1,285 1,160,539 183,282 294,583

976,971 2,616,660

1985

70,677 1,532,316 185,887

414,176 2,203,056

1986

754,161

145,517 31,594 498,586 173,837

360,725 1,964,420

1987

44,332 200,729 913,639 250,795

227,222 1,636,717

1988

9,030 451,974 1,050,049 385,860

12,507 1,909,420

1989

2,348

27,236 214,849 396,771 127,245

146,064 914,513

1990

2,679

302,994 631,819 161,712

258,569 1,357,773

1991

5,635

30,582 108,268 284,290 337,207

516,999 1,282,981

1992

55,324 109,134 411,484 198,751

396,555 1,171,248

1993

45,505 266,459 282,614 328,245

290,930 1,213,753

1994

3,684 192,060 314,632 353,616

578,412 1,442,404

1995

66,270 405,620 417,595 300,337

525,231 1,715,053

1996

1,512 204,556 396,394 164,756

596,483 1,363,701

1997

1,810 39,077 296,155 129,836

345,390 812,268

1998

34,861 591,428 129,619 84,348

487,091 1,327,347

1999

92,794 326,303 103,777 166,630

540,310 1,229,814

2000

95,596 316,029 93,043 228,965

885,447 1,619,080

2001

860

51,890 132,578 188,198 155,854

853,714 1,382,234

2002

* 860

15,154

155,213 182,226 103,830 170,572

551,128 1,178,983

2003

57,214 118,808 449,399 234,865

729,445 1,589,731

2004

31,748 114,434 402,789 286,486

668,179 1,503,636

2005

7,463 242,078 310,586 190,411

754,756 1,505,294

Total

1,720

787,365

1,358,104 5,960,984 10,004,474 5,039,688

12,590,867

* Weight estimated from same number of fish (275) caught in 2001

Table 6. The number of award citations issued on an annual basis

for catches of red drum. Citations are awarded for releases

≥ 40 in and weigh-ins* ≥ 45 lb.

Year # Citations # Released % Released

1987 215 150 70

1988 324 266 82

1989 335 275 82

1990 419 374 89

1991 335 308 92

1992 451 427 95

1993 644 627 97

1994 876 868 99

1995 622 607 98

1996 685 655 96

1997 737 704 96

1998 515 483 94

1999 1073 1073 100

2000 1200 1200 100

2001 1156 1156 100

2002 1330 1330 100

2003 1030 1030 100

2004 1337 1337 100

2005 1520 1520 100

*Due to regulations all citations since 1999 are for release only.

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY

8.1 Economic Aspects of the Fishery

8.1.1 Ex-Vessel Value and Price

Red drum is currently a commercial bycatch fishery in North Carolina; as such,

its overall value is low relative to other species, though the price of red drum

is higher

than many targeted species. In terms of value, the fishery clearly had a high point in the

late-nineties, with landings sometimes nearing or exceeding $400,000. Landings for

2005 were less than half of that, and recent years have been even smaller (Figure 6).

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Year

Value

Inflated Value

CPI Deflated Value

Figure 6. Value of red drum landings in North Carolina, 1972 – 2005. DMF Trip Ticket

Program

The price fetched for red drum has steadily increased in recent years, even

accounting for inflation. Fisherm

en are now receiving the highest price on record ($1.34

per pound in 2005), probably because of the constricted supply of commercially available

red drum due to the ban on the sale of red drum in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana,

Alabama, and Texas (Figure 7). The states of Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and North

Carolina are the only sources of m

arketable red drum along the entire Atlantic and Gulf

coasts. Rising prices have restored some of the value of the red drum fishery, though it is

still smaller than its all-time highs (see Table 7, Figure 7).

As a bycatch fishery with a

strict trip limit, the steadily rising price of red drum should have a minimal impact on

fishermen’s behavior.

1 The consumer prices index (CPI) is a standard tool of adjusting value to account for

inflation over tim

e. Ex-vessel value of landings are inflation-adjusted to 1972 because

that is the first year that DMF began to have data for all state-managed species.

Table 7. Detail values of red drum landed, total value, deflated value, price per pound,

and percent change from

year to year for red drum landed in North Carolina,

1972—2005. DMF Trip Ticket Program.

Year

Inflated

Value Conversion

CPI

Deflated

Val

Change

Value

Inflated

Price per

Pound

CPI Price

per Pound

Change

per

Pound

1972 $5,228 1.0000 $5,228 --- $0.12 $0.12 ---

1973 $7,775 0.9414 $7,320 40% $0.11 $0.10 -14%

1974 $15,781 0.8479 $13,380 83% $0.11 $0.09 -10%

1975 $21,537 0.7770 $16,733 25% $0.10 $0.08 -17%

1976 $21,700 0.7346 $15,941 -5% $0.13 $0.09 21%

1977 $2,673 0.6898 $1,844 -88% $0.14 $0.09 -1%

1978 $2,480 0.6411 $1,590 -14% $0.11 $0.07 -22%

1979 $21,728 0.5758 $12,510 687% $0.17 $0.10 35%

1980 $47,133 0.5073 $23,910 91% $0.19 $0.10 -1%

1981 $18,817 0.4598 $8,653 -64% $0.20 $0.09 -6%

1982 $12,273 0.4332 $5,316 -39% $0.23 $0.10 9%

1983 $51,958 0.4197 $21,806 310% $0.24 $0.10 -2%

1984 $82,458 0.4023 $33,174 52% $0.29 $0.12 18%

1985 $50,384 0.3885 $19,573 -41% $0.33 $0.13 9%

1986 $106,808 0.3814 $40,735 108% $0.43 $0.16 28%

1987 $148,205 0.3680 $54,533 34% $0.59 $0.22 34%

1988 $125,289 0.3533 $44,269 -19% $0.57 $0.20 -8%

1989 $173,755 0.3371 $58,572 32% $0.63 $0.21 6%

1990 $106,450 0.3198 $34,044 -42% $0.58 $0.19 -13%

1991 $56,989 0.3069 $17,490 -49% $0.59 $0.18 -2%

1992 $86,859 0.2979 $25,878 48% $0.68 $0.20 11%

1993 $203,955 0.2893 $58,999 128% $0.86 $0.25 23%

1994 $102,326 0.2821 $28,861 -51% $0.72 $0.20 -18%

1995 $223,310 0.2743 $61,249 112% $0.90 $0.25 22%

1996 $112,881 0.2664 $30,073 -51% $1.00 $0.27 7%

1997 $56,939 0.2604 $14,829 -51% $1.08 $0.28 6%

1998 $288,397 0.2564 $73,957 399% $0.98 $0.25 -11%

1999 $398,282 0.2509 $99,929 35% $1.07 $0.27 7%

2000 $294,871 0.2427 $71,577 -28% $1.09 $0.26 -1%

2001 $170,548 0.2360 $40,253 -44% $1.14 $0.27 2%

2002 $89,192 0.2324 $20,724 -49% $1.10 $0.25 -5%

2003 $105,671 0.2272 $24,006 16% $1.17 $0.27 4%

2004 $69,753 0.2213 $15,435 -36% $1.29 $0.29 8%

2005 $173,040 0.2140 $37,036 140% $1.34 $0.29 1%

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Year

Price Per Poun

Inflated

CPI

Figure 7. Average price per pound of red drum landings in North Carolina, 1972 - 2005.

DMF Trip Ticket Program

8.1.2 Participants and Trips

The Division of Marine Fisheries keeps rigorous track of the commercial catch

levels of

all fishermen in the state. Information is captured at the point at which catch is

sold to the commercial dealer for every trip. This information can be broken down and

categorized for a closer look at the patterns of behavior of fishermen in any particular

fishery.

Table 8 shows the number of fishermen involved with the fishery since 1999,

broken down by the num

ber of individual trips that resulted in catching red drum in each

year. Notice that these trips are still relatively rare - less than a third of the fishermen

landed drum more than ten times in recent years. Red drum are generally landed as a

bycatch of the flounder and striped mullet estuarine gill net fisheries.

Table 9 breaks down participants in this fishery by annual income from drum.

The num

bers are relatively small, reflecting the bycatch nature of the fishery. From

2001-2005, an average of 6,881 trips per year included a red drum landing, with an

average value of $17.63 per landings. Those same trips averaged $148 in flounder

landings.

Table 8. Number of participants and the number of trips taken that

landed red drum in North Carolina, 1999 - 2005 (DMF Trip

Ticket Program).

Year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1 Trip 247 274 205 190 183 165 157

% within Year 27% 28% 26% 26% 27% 32% 23%

2 - 10 Trips 425 452 360 357 315 262 304

% within Year 47% 46% 46% 49% 46% 51% 44%

11 - 20 Trips 105 107 90 104 90 46 117

% within Year 12% 11% 12% 14% 13% 9% 17%

21 - 50 Trips 94 114 86 62 68 30 83

% within Year 10% 12% 11% 8% 10% 6% 12%

51 - 100 Trips 33 24 31 22 24 9 29

% within Year 4% 2% 4% 3% 4% 2% 4%

More than 100 Trips 5 5 7 1 2 0 5

% within Year 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total 909 976 779 736 682 512 691

Table 9. Number of participants in the red drum fishery by value of

landings and year in North Carolina, 1999—2005. DMF

Trip Ticket Program

Year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

$1 - $50 398 455 363 405 348 301 286

% within YEAR 44% 46% 47% 55% 51% 59% 41%

$51 - $100 110 131 113 125 108 75 102

% within Year 12% 13% 14% 17% 16% 15% 15%

$101 - $200 116 101 105 85 100 58 92

% within YEAR 13% 10% 13% 12% 15% 11% 13%

> $200 286 292 199 122 126 78 216

% within YEAR 31% 30% 26% 17% 18% 15% 31%

Total 910 979 780 737 682 512 696

As with any commercial fishery in the state, fishermen who land red drum may

only sell their catch to licensed dealers. The num

ber of dealers who handled red drum

has remained stable for the past decade, fluctuating between 134 and 168 dealers in any

single year (Figure 8.4). The dealers with the highest volume are in the areas that define

Pamlico Sound.

100

120

140

160

180

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of Dealer

Figure 8. Number of dealers who purchased red drum from 1994—2005. DMF Trip

Ticket Program.

8.1.3 Economic Impact of Commercial Fishery

Table 10 shows the economic impact of the red drum harvest to North Carolina’s

economy over the past six years. These impacts were calculated using IMPLAN, an

economic modeling software. Trip ticket data includes crew sizes (on average between

1.2 and 1.4 for drum-landing trips), so the number of fishermen actually involved is

slightly larger than the “participants” number the DMF uses to indicate the licensed

commercial fishermen who sell fish to dealers. As the fishermen spend their earnings,

these models project that additional economic impact until it leaves the state’s borders,

although the full impact is underestimated since there is no specific data available to

track the flow of dollars between different commercial fishing business, nor a way to

track the economic impact of business taxes for a particular species harvested. Since

trips than land red drum are mostly comprised of other fish, the red drum harvest is

essentially a “bump” that increases the value of other fisheries, and not a larger generator

of money by itself.

In 2005, sales of red drum accounted for roughly one quarter of one percent of the

total value of seafood landed com

mercially in North Carolina, which is not out of line

with historical landings; red drum sales have never exceeded .4% of the state’s total

seafood production.

Table 10. Economic impact of the commercial red drum fishery in North

Carolina, 2000—2005. DMF Trip Ticket Program

, IMPLAN.

Year Ex-Vessel

Val

Fishermen

(w/crew)

Total Statewide

Impact

Additional Job

Created

2000 $294,871 1234 $491,728 2.5

2001 $170,548 965 $284,333 1.5

2002 $89,192 964 $148,857 0.8

2003 $105,671 875 $175,617 0.9

2004 $69,753 664 $122,583 0.5

2005 $173,040 904 $307,347 1.3

8.1.4 Recreational Fishery Economics

The DMF collects data about recreational fishing in conjunction with the federal

governm

ent’s Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). MRFSS

estimates for red drum-targeting and red drum-landing recreational trips are in Table 11.

Table 11. Estimated number of red drum-related

recreational fishing trips. MRFSS Program

Year Trips

2000 322,873

2001 190,192

2002 361,688

2003 170,633

2004 251,184

2005 289,773

2006 495,430

MRFSS occasionally includes a socioeconomic add-on to generate spending estimates.

The m

ost recent data available is from 2004. The average and total estimated

expenditures per red drum-targeting and red drum-landing recreational trips in 2006 are

shown in Table 12. It should be noted that expenditures in the recreational fishery are

not com

parable to the unexpanded ex-vessel value reported for the commercial fishery.

Data necessary to determine the total economic impact of the red drum landings in the

commercial fishery are currently not available.

Table 12. Estimated expenditures of drum-related recreational fishing

trips. MRFSS Program

Trip Type Total Trips Mean expenditures Total Expenditures

Charter 17,908 $ 577.94 $ 10,349,709.06

Shore 132,445 $ 89.82 $ 11,895,856.52

Private 345,077 $ 80.45 $ 27,763,011.17

TOTAL

EXPENDITURES $ 50,008,576.75

Drum are also occasionally caught by holders of the Recreational Commercial Gear

License (RCG

L). RCGL fishermen use commercial gear (primarily gill nets and trawls)

to catch fish and shrimp, but cannot sell their catch. A 2004 survey revealed the average

expenditure for a drum-landing (but not necessarily drum-directed) RCGL trip to be

$87.35. There were 5,003 RCGL trips that year that caught red drum, which would

indicate $437,012.05 was spent overall, though most of that would have to be attributed

to other species (primarily flounder) caught in those same nets.

8.2 Social Aspects of the Fishery

8.2.1 Commercial Fishermen

The socioeconomic program at the DMF has been conducting a series of in-depth

interview-style surveys with com

mercial fishermen along the coast since 2001. Data

from these interviews is added to a growing database and used for fishery management

plans, among other uses. A total of 432 of the fishermen in the database have had

commercial landings of red drum according to the trip ticket program. That group is used

to provide a snapshot of North Carolina fishermen who catch red drum.

8.2.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Commercial Fishermen

Table 13 shows the demographic characteristics of the red drum-reporting

fisherm

en surveyed by the Socioeconomic Program over the past five years. Nearly all

were white males, with an average age of 50 and over 27 years of commercial fishing

experience. Two thirds of them had a high school diploma and 23% had at least some

college education. Half had $30,000 or less in household income when surveyed, with

24% bringing in $50,000 or more. Only 9% had less than $15,000 in annual household

income (Table 13).

Fishing accounted for 70% of the household income from these fishermen, and

48% reported that fishing was their sole source of income. They are least likely to fish

December through April, which is the slowest time of the year for most fishermen. They

own an average of 1.7 registered commercial fishing vessels.

8.2.1.2 Historical Importance of the Commercial Fishery

A historical overview of the red drum fishery can be found in Section 7.0,

Description of the Fisheries. The socioeconom

ic interviewers asked fishermen how

important commercial fishing has historically been in their communities. Almost all of

them felt it had been vital, giving it a 9.4 on a 10-point scale. Perceptions of current

community support were lower, at 7.1. The statement “fishing is important economically

in my community” drew an 8.5.

2 The refusal rate on the household income question was 4%.

Table 13. Demographic characteristics of red drum commercial

fisherm

en. DMF Socioeconomic Program.

Variable n = 432 Average or %

Years Fishing 27.3

Age 50.2

Gender Male 97%

Female 3%

Race White 98%

Black 1%

othe

Education Level Less than HS 32%

HS Grad 45%

Some College 17%

College Graduate 6%

Marital Status Married 78%

Divorced 10%

Widowed 3%

Never Married 1%

Separated 8%

Total Household Income Less than $15,000 9%

$15,001 - $30,000 41%

$30,001 - $50,000 24%

$50,001 - $75,000 17%

More than $75,000 7%

8.2.1.3 Community Reliance on the Commercial Fishery

Given its status as a bycatch fishery, no commercial fishermen in North Carolina

rely prim

arily on red drum to make a living; drum fishermen are instead mostly flounder

and striped mullet fishermen who land the occasional red drum in their nets, and target

other species as well such as blue crabs, clams, and shrimp (Table 14)

Table 14. Prevalent species targeted by red drum commercial

fisherm

en. DMF Socioeconomic Program.

Species % who land

Flounder 59.5%

Blue crabs 36.8%

Clams 25.2%

Shrimp 24.3%

Striped Mullet 23.1%

Perch 22.0%

Spot 18.9%

Sea Mullet 15.1%

Striped Bass 14.8%

Shad 14.8%

8.2.1.4 Perceived Conflicts

Fishermen were asked about conflicts in the previous year with recreational users

and with other com

mercial fishermen. Conflicts with other users of a public resource are

to be expected, and part of the job of the DMF is to balance the needs of different user

groups. Less than a third of fishermen reported conflicts with other commercial

fishermen. A slightly larger percentage reported having had conflicts with recreational

fishermen, with two-thirds reporting no conflict in the previous year (see Figure 9).

Perceptions of conflicts with federal regulations were stronger, with a quarter

entioning 20+ conflicts over the previous year, though the overall numbers were still

relatively low. Reported conflicts with state regulations are quite different: more than a

third reported “daily” conflicts with the state, and more than half had 20+ conflicts.

Figure 9. Reported conflicts of Commercial Fishermen (DMF Socioeconomic Progam).

8.2.1.5 Perception of Important Issues

The fishermen were also asked to rate the seriousness of a number of issues

facing them

selves and their businesses. State regulations were the most important issue,

followed by the related issues of imported seafood and low prices (Table 15).

Table 15. Fishing related issues considered most important to fishermen

who landed drum

. DMF Socioeconomic Program.

Ranking Issue

1 State Regulations

2 Imported seafood

3 Low prices for seafood

4 Keeping up with regulations

5 Size limits

6 Federal regulations

7 Costs of doing business

8 Gear restrictions

8.3.1 Recreational Fishery

The DMF has no information about hook-and-line red drum fishermen, or the

issues that they find m

ost important, though presumably regulations would be important

to them as well. The survey of RCGL holders did reveal some demographic and

attitudinal statistics comparable to those of the commercial fishermen; in age and sex, the

RCGL holders are nearly identical to SCFL holders, but the RCGL holders have

generally higher education and household incomes (see Table 16).

Table 16. Demographic characteristics of red drum RCGL

fisherm

en. DMF RCGL Program.

Variable n = 91 Average or %

Age 75% over 40

Gender

Male 96%

Female 4%

Race

White 96%

Black 4%

Education Level

Less than HS 8%

HS Grad 27%

Some College 30%

College Graduate 35%

Marital Status

Married 78%

Divorced 9%

Widowed 2%

Never Married 10%

Separated 1%

Total Household Income

Less than $15,000 12%

$15,001 - $30,000 11%

$30,001 - $50,000 22%

$50,001 - $75,000 22%

More than $75,000 33%

RCGL holders were also surveyed on conflicts with other fishermen and asked their

opinions about the am

ount of gear in the water. Those results are shown below in Figure

10.

Figure 10. Perceptions of Recreational Com

mercial Gear License Holders. (DMF RCGL

Program).

8.4 Research Recommendations

The most pressing socioeconomic research issue is for data about the hook-and-

line recreational red drum

fishery. Unlike commercial fishermen, recreational anglers

can and do target red drum, and it is a popular fish for catch-and-release fishermen.

Annual surveys of recreational anglers, modeled on the already-proven commercial

fishermen survey, would be the best approach for gathering the necessary social and

economic data.

8.5 Definitions and Acronyms

CPI (Consumer Price Index)

– The CPI measures the price paid by consumers for a fixed

group of goods and services. Changes in the CPI over time constitute a common measure

of inflation.

Deflated (Inflation-adjusted) price and value

– Inflation is a general upward price

movement of goods and services in an economy, usually as measured by the Consumer

Price Index (CPI). Ex-vessel prices and values can be adjusted (deflated) according to

the CPI to remove the effects of inflation so that the value of a dollar remains the same

across years. Inflation adjusted values allow for easier understanding and analysis of

changes in values. Some products allow for a Producer Price Index (PPI). The PPI

measures inflation in wholesale goods. It is considered a more reliable indicator than

CPI because it is related to a specific product or group of products. The PPI is related to

the CPI in that PPI is considered a precursor to CPI because fluctuations in production

costs are usually associated with general measures of inflation.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

9.1 Habitat

As described in the life history section of the plan, red drum utilize a variety of

estuarine and oceanic habitats throughout their life cycle. Each habitat provides

ecological services that aid in m

aintaining and enhancing the red drum population, and

also influences the functioning of the ecosystem overall. Protecting the integrity of the

entire system is therefore necessary to manage this species. The South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council recognizes several habitats as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for red

drum from Virginia to Florida. In North Carolina, these natural communities include

tidal freshwater, estuarine emergent vegetated wetlands (flooded salt marsh, brackish

marsh, and tidal creeks), submerged rooted vascular plants (sea grass), oyster reefs and

shell banks, unconsolidated bottom (soft sediment), ocean high salinity surf zones, and

artificial reefs (SAFMC, 1998).

Of the designated EFH, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) have been

recognized for red drum

by the SAFMC. Areas which meet the criteria for HAPC in

North Carolina include all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular

importance to red drum, documented sites of spawning aggregations, other spawning

areas identified in the future, and areas supporting submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)

(SAFMC, 1998). These HAPC include the most important habitats required during the

life cycle of the species, including spawning areas and nursery grounds. Other areas of

concern are barrier islands, since these geological formations are vital to maintain

estuarine conditions needed for larval and juvenile stages. Information on the ecological

value of each of these habitats to red drum and their current condition is provided below.

9.1.1. Water column

Red drum depend on the water column throughout their life history for spawning,

larval transport, feeding, and m

igration. In North Carolina, large concentrations of red

drum occur around Ocracoke, Hatteras, and Oregon Inlets and along adjacent beaches

and shoals in the spring prior to entering Pamlico Sound for the summer (Ross and

Stevens 1992; Luczkovich et al. 1999). In August adult drum will concentrate around

inlets and the mouths of some rivers to spawn and remain in the vicinity through October.

Gravid and spent adults have been documented by DMF in the vicinity of Hatteras,

Ocracoke, and Drum inlets, as well as in the mouth of the Pamlico, Neuse, and Bay

rivers, and other bays in that vicinity, indicating spawning activity in those areas (Ross

and Stevens, 1992). Luczkovich et al. (1999) confirmed that spawning occurred in these

areas using hydrophone surveys to detect characteristic spawning knocks and

ichthyoplankton surveys to locate sciaenid eggs. Red drum spawning was detected on

the east (Ocracoke and Hatteras Inlet areas) and west (Bay River) sides of Pamlico Sound

in August, September, and October, with the greatest amount of activity occurring in

September. Luczkovich et al. (1999) concluded that areas near the mouth of Bay River

appear the most critical for spawning red drum within their study area.

In 2003 and 2004, hydrophone surveys were conducted in the lower Neuse River

estuary, to locate and assess the significance of spawning aggregations in that area

(Barrios 2004). The surveys found that red drum

spawning aggregations occurred in the

lower Neuse River estuary from approximately Oriental to the mouth of the river, and

were most concentrated in August and September. The location of spawning activity was

positively related to water depth (> 4.5 m), oxygen levels (> 2.5 mg/l) and proximity to

river mouth (salinity approx. 20-25 ppt). Spawning occurred over mud bottom and

subtidal shell bottom. By spawning closer to the nursery grounds, the probability of

successfully reaching the nursery grounds and surviving could be greater than for eggs

spawned at ocean inlets.

Currently, a large hook and line recreational fishery exists at some of these known

spawning aggregations in Pam

lico Sound. There is concern that the act of capturing and

releasing these large gravid fish could potentially have a negative impact on spawning

success due to stress or post-release mortality. Catch and release mortality studies in this

fishery have found that J-hooks result in significantly greater incidence of deep hooking

and as a result, have release mortality rates that are higher than for fish captured using

circle hooks. Requiring the use of circle hooks in Pamlico Sound during the spawning

season could alleviate some of the impacts of this fishery. This issue is further addressed

in Section 10.2.2 Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum.

In areas south of Pamlico Sound, collection of gravid adults, larvae, and early

post-settlement juveniles has indicated localized spawning activity. Red drum larvae

have been documented in low numbers in the vicinity of Beaufort and Barden inlets

(Hettler and Chester 1990; Powell and Robbins 1998). Aggregations of ripe adult

females near New River and Cape Fear River inlets and the presence of larvae and post

settlement juveniles in adjacent estuaries indicated spawning in those areas. (DMF

unpub. data; Stewart 2006). The extent that other inlets in North Carolina are utilized for

spawning has not been documented.

Fertilized eggs and larvae are transported through the water column from the

spawning sites to shallow bays and estuaries (W

einstein 1980; Holt et al. 1989; Peters et

al. 1995). Larval transport studies in North Carolina have found that ocean and inlet

spawned larvae are dependent on the appropriate wind and current conditions to occur so

that larvae can pass into and be retained in the estuary (Hare et al.1999). Because of this,

recruitment success of red drum in North Carolina, Texas, and Florida appears to be

highly influenced by local nearshore wind-driven currents, tidal flow patterns, as well as

estuarine flush rates (Peters and McMichael 1987; Scharf 2000; Brown et al. 2005;

Stewart 2006). In the Neuse River estuary and other western Pamlico Sound tributaries,

northeast winds will enhance recruitment into adjacent shallow tributaries (Barrios 2004).

In a study conducted in estuaries further south, the greater relative abundance of juvenile

red drum in the New River estuary compared to the Cape Fear River system was

attributed to hydrologic differences that result in greater retention of larvae in the New

River system (Stewart 2006). While the New River is shallow, broad, and has reduced

tidal exchange, the Cape Fear River is deep, connects directly to the ocean, and has a

shorter flush time.

In addition to its role in spawning and larval transport, the water column provides

food and oxygen critical for survival and growth of red drum

populations. Inlets are also

very important for their role in mixing of sea water and fresh water, which is critical for

maintaining salinity and current regimes, dispersing nutrients and pollutants, and

providing m

igratory corridors for juvenile and adult fish and invertebrates. There are

currently 20 inlets in North Carolina that connect estuarine waters to the sea. Unnatural

or human-induced changes that reduce or increase flow into estuaries may result in

environmental stress in organisms (SAFMC, 1998).

Red drum populations are affected by water quality conditions wherever they

occur in the system

. In North Carolina and other areas, year class strength of red drum is

variable and highly dependent on large-scale processes and environmental conditions that

effect recruitment success, such as temperature, salinity, currents, predation, and growth

rates (Scharf 2000). Predation and growth rates are affected by habitat as well as water

column conditions. More information on water quality is in Section 9.2. The use of

various habitats by red drum and their status are described below.

9.1.2. Wetlands

Wetlands are one of several important nursery habitats for red drum. Tidal marsh

wetlands generally occur along the edge of estuaries and sounds in polyhaline and

esohaline waters. The combination of shallow water and thick vegetation provides

excellent nursery and foraging habitat for red drum and many other fish species (Graff

and Middleton 2003). Shallow wetlands also provide refuge from large fish predators

and provide a safe corridor for migration to other habitats within the system (Mitsch and

Gosselink 1993; Rozas and Odum 1997). It is estimated that over 95% of commercially

harvested finfish and invertebrates in the United States are wetland dependent, a strong

indication of their high habitat value (Feierabend and Zelanzy 1987). Riparian wetlands

are also highly effective and well recognized for their ability to trap and filter pollutants

from upland runoff, and store, spread, and slow stormwater runoff prior to entering

surface waters (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).

Juvenile red drum have been primarily collected in tidal creeks and embayments

adjacent to tidal m

arsh wetlands in both high and low salinity waters. Studies have

shown that juvenile red drum in vegetated areas suffer significantly less predation

mortality than those in unvegetated areas (Rooker et al., 1998). Also, laboratory

experiments found that red drum grew significantly faster in marsh and seagrass habitats

compared to shell and nonvegetated bottom (Stunz et al 2002). However field

experiments comparing growth rates of red drum from the same habitats did not find

significant differences in growth, perhaps a reflection of movement among and use of

multiple habitats within the estuary.

Coastal wetlands were mapped by NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)

in 1994 and are shown in Figure 11. There are estimated to be approximately 254,000

acres of fresh, brackish, and salt m

arsh in North Carolina (Sutter, 1999). Pamlico, Core,

and Bogue sounds, and estuaries south of Bogue Sound, have the highest percentages of

estuarine wetlands. The largest acreage of salt/brackish marsh is in the Pamlico Sound

region (Street et al. 2005).

Figure 11. Location of esturarine and riverine wetlands in coastal North Carolina,

based on 1994 DCM mapping data (Street et al. 2005).

9.1.3. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Submerged aquatic vegetation is another habitat utilized by red drum as a nursery

area. SA

V habitat is defined in the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) as “bottom

recurrently vegetated by living structures of submerged, rooted vascular plants (roots,

rhizomes, leaves, stems, or propagules), as well as temporarily unvegetated areas

between vegetated patches” (Street et al. 2005). Submerged aquatic vegetation occurs in

both subtidal and intertidal zones and may be colonized by estuarine species, such as

eelgrass (

Zostera marina), shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), or widgeon grass (Ruppia

maritima) or freshwater species, such as wild celery (Vallisneria americana) and sago

pondweed (

Potamogeton pectinatus).

Over 150 species of fish and invertebrates have been documented by DMF in

seagrass beds in eastern Pam

lico and Core sounds, including red drum (DMF 1990). The

three-dimensional structure provides a surface for small plants and animals to attach to

and provides a safe refuge and foraging area for a large number of juvenile fish and

invertebrates (SAFMC 1998). The structure of SAV grass blades provides an excellent

nursery area and enhances a safe corridor between habitats, reducing predation (Micheli

and Peterson 1999).

Eggs, larvae, postlarvae, young-of-year and sub-adult red drum have been

documented in mesohaline and polyhaline SAV beds (Mercer 1984; Thayer et al. 1984;

Reagan 1985). In North Carolina, SAV is utilized as a nursery area where it is available,

and also as a foraging area for subadult red drum. Data collected by DMF through the

seine survey and tagging studies indicate high abundance of late age-0 red drum in

shallow, high-salinity grass beds behind the Outer Banks. SAV is also particularly

important as foraging grounds for one and two-year-old fish (Ross and Stevens, 1992;

DMF unpub. data). Juveniles appear to be more abundant in ecotonal areas with patchy

grass coverage than in homogeneously vegetated sites (Mercer 1984; Reagan 1985; Ross

and Stevens 1992).

SAV also enhances the entire ecosystem by stabilizing and trapping sediment,

reducing wave energy and cycling nutrients within the system

(Thayer et al. 1984). Beds

of SAV also produce large quantities of organic matter, which supports a complex food

base for numerous fish and other organisms (Thayer et al. 1984).

The amount of SAV in North Carolina was estimated to be between 134,000 and

200,000 acres around 1990 (Ferguson and W

ood 1994; Carraway and Priddy 1983). The

majority of SAV occurred in eastern Pamlico Sound and Core Sound in high salinity

waters (Figure 12). SAV was also documented to occur in a narrow band along a portion

of the western Pam

lico Sound shoreline and the Pamlico and Neuse rivers and tributaries,

although its distribution and abundance in this area was underestimated due to reduced

water clarity. However, Davis and Brinson (1990) qualitatively described the location of

SAV in this area. Areas south of Bogue Sound have not been mapped. Because light is

the primary limiting factor affecting its distribution, SAV is restricted to relatively

shallow waters, usually less than two meters in depth. The amount of SAV fluctuates

seasonally and inter-annually, depending on the species and salinity regime.

Figure 12. Distribution of known submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in North

Carolina (Street et al. 2005).

9.1.4. Soft bottom

Red drum also utilize shallow estuarine soft bottom as a nursery and foraging

area. This habitat consists of unconsolidated, unvegetated sedim

ent that occurs in

freshwater, estuarine, and marine systems. Wetlands, SAV and shell bottom often occur

adjacent to shallow soft bottom. Sediment composition varies from sand to fine muds

due to geomorphology and location within the system and may be a factor in juvenile red

drum distribution. Courser sandy sediments are concentrated along eroding or high

energy shorelines and shallower perimeter of waterbodies, while finer mud sediments are

located along low energy shorelines or deeper water (Riggs 1996). Soft bottom is

valuable as a foraging area for demersal fish and shallow portions are utilized as nursery

areas. The sediment type and energy regime will affect the primary and secondary

productivity of the bottom, and therefore the food available to red drum. Benthic

mircoalgae growing on the surface of the sediment provide a food base for the

invertebrates on which red drum forage (Peterson and Peterson 1979). The dominant diet

of juvenile red drum (16-30 mm in length) consists of benthic invertebrates typically

found in soft bottom, such as copepods, mysid shrimp, amphipods, and polychaetes

(Daniel 1988; Llanso et al 1998). As red drum grow, the dominant prey shifts to grass

shrim

p (when approx. 60-90 mm in length). At around 100 mm, dominant diet consists

of crabs, penaeid shrimp, and juvenile fish (Mercer 1984). Red drum larger than 300

mm, feed on a mix of blue crab and other portunid crabs, penaeid shrimp, small pelagic

fish (anchovy, menhaden, silversides) and some demersal fish (flounder, pinfish) (Scharf

and Schlicht 2000). Although there is little benthic structure associated with soft bottom,

shallow bottom can provide refuge and a migratory corridor that large predators cannot

access (Peterson and Peterson 1979).

Subadult and adult red drum forage in the surf zone and shoals in the nearshore

ocean and inlet system

s. In addition to providing fishery functions for juvenile and adult

red drum, soft bottom plays a very important role in the ecology of estuarine ecosystems

by storing and cycling nutrients, chemicals and microbes. Intense biogeochemical

processing and recycling establishes a means to trap and reprocess natural and human-

induced nutrients and toxic substances.

9.1.5. Shell bottom

Red drum use shell bottom as nursery and foraging areas to some extent. Shell

bottom

habitat is estuarine intertidal or subtidal bottom having concentrations of shell,

including living or dead oysters (

Crassostrea virginica), hard clams (Mercenaria

mercenaria), and other shellfish. Common terms used to describe shell bottom habitats

in North Carolina are “oyster beds,” “oyster rocks,” “oyster reefs,” “oyster bars,” and

“shell hash.” Shell hash is a mixture of sand or mud with gravel and/or unconsolidated

broken shell (clam, oyster, scallop, and/or other shellfish). Intertidal oyster reefs in the

central and southern estuarine systems are usually only a few oysters thick. However,

subtidal oyster mounds in Pamlico Sound can be several meters tall (DMF 2001). In

North Carolina, oysters attach to and accumulate on existing oyster beds, other shell, hard

structures and exposed

Spartina roots (DMF 2001). Intertidal oyster reefs in North

Carolina may occur along the adjacent to salt marsh and SAV, or as isolated reef features,

away from other structure (Grabowski et al. 2000). Oyster distribution and abundance

are limited by salinity, high temperature (Funderburk et al. 1991) and predators like

oyster drills and boring sponges (Bahr and Lanier 1981). In North Carolina, intertidal

oyster beds occur extensively throughout the central and southern coast where salinity

ranges from 14 to 30 ppt. Subtidal oyster reefs also occur in the New, Newport and White

Oak rivers. In the Albemarle-Pamlico system, oysters are concentrated in the lower

portion of Pamlico Sound tributaries, along the western shore of Pamlico Sounds and to a

lesser extent behind the Outer Banks (Street et al. 2005).

The complex three-dimensional structure provides protective cover for juvenile

and sub-adult red drum

, while the small invertebrates living on and among oyster shells

provide a food source (Meyer et al. 1996; ASMFC 2007). Fringing shell bottom or shell

hash may serve as a nearshore corridor between habitats such as salt marsh and SAV,

which red drum utilize (ASMFC 2007; Micheli and Peterson 1999). Juvenile red drum

have been documented in shell bottom habitat in South Carolina (Daniel 1988; Coen et

al. 1999), Virginia (Luckenbach and Ross 2003), Texas (Stunz et al. 2001), and North

Carolina (Grabowski et al. 2002). Barrios (2004) documented spawning aggregations of

red drum over subtidal shell bottom (3-5 m water depth) in the lower Neuse River

estuary. The bathymetric relief provided by the shell structure was thought to attract

adults and enhance foraging during the spawning season. Peterson et al. (2003), in

reviewing studies exam

ining fish use of shell bottom habitat, found that red drum were

documented utilizing shell bottom in two out of five past studies. However it was

inconclusive whether the presence of oyster beds enhanced red drum abundance.

Shell bottom also provides many important functions that enhance the health of

the entire ecosystem

for fishery and non-fishery species. Oysters filter sediment and

pollutants from the water column, enhancing water quality and improving conditions for

SAV growth. The hard multi-faceted shell structure aids in reducing wave energy,

stabilizing sediment, and reducing shoreline erosion. Oysters, like SAV and benthic

microalgae, facilitate storage and cycling of nutrients (ASMFC 2007).

9.1.6. Nursery habitat preference

Habitat preference by juvenile red drum varies somewhat regionally. In Gulf

coast estuaries, studies indicated that SAV was the preferred nursery habitat for red

drum

, (Stunz et al. 2002; Rooker et al. 1999). However, where SAV was sparse or not

present, the highest densities of newly recruited red drum were found at the

Spartina

marsh edge interface and within 1 m inside of the marsh edge. Red drum were not found

at 5 or 10 m inside of the marsh edge or at 30 m waterward of the marsh edge. Relatively

low densities of red drum were found on soft bottom and no red drum occurred in shell

bottom. In contrast, in South Carolina, post-larvae and juveniles settle out in meso-

euryhaline estuaries (10-25 ppt) on mud and sand bottom with oysters and shell hash as

well as shallow tidal marsh creeks (Daniel 1988).

In North Carolina, juvenile red drum habitat includes detritus or mud bottom

wetland creeks in western Pam

lico Sound and Pamlico and Neuse rivers, grass beds

behind the Outer Banks, and mud or sand bottom in shallow water in other areas (Ross

and Stevens, 1992). The most common habitat characteristics among DMF sampling

sites is shallow water depth (<5 feet) and relatively wind-protected water bodies. Results

from directed red drum seine surveys and fishery independent sampling have documented

juveniles from the Cape Fear River, north through Buzzard Bay in Dare County (Ross

and Stevens, 1992). Juveniles were most consistently abundant at the stations located

near the mouths of the Pamlico and Neuse rivers and the bays and rivers between these

two large rivers. In the Cape Fear and New rivers, juvenile red drum utilize the shallow

upper reaches of polyhaline and mesohaline tidal creeks and tidal marsh fringe along the

rivers (Weinstein 1979; Stewart 2006). Shell hash is found on the bottom of some of the

tidal creeks where red drum occur. More information is needed on red drum utilization

of shell hash and oyster reefs.

Powers and Gaskill (2004) conducted seine surveys in low (10-20 ppt) and high

(28-35 ppt) salinity estuaries in N

orth Carolina to assess recruitment and abundance in

various habitats. They found juvenile red drum were more common in the lower salinity

estuaries (Adams Creek, Slocum Creek, and other upper Neuse tributaries) then in the

higher salinity areas, such as Core, Bogue and Back sounds and the mouth of the Neuse

River, regardless of habitat type. Powers and Gaskill (2004) concluded that higher

abundance of mid-level predators in the lower estuary (higher salinity sites) in the fall

might be limiting recruitment success of red drum in those areas. Habitat use in the low

salinity areas included tidal creeks, m

arsh edge, and sandy beach habitat, although drum

were most abundant along sandy beaches. In higher salinity estuaries, red drum occured

in the same habitats, as well as seagrass beds, but at lower overall abundance levels than

habitats in upstream sites. When habitat use by juvenile red drum was assessed in

mesocosm experiments, results indicated that juvenile red drum occupied sand bottom

the most, followed by oysters and then artificial SAV (Powers and Gaskill 2004). More

field research along North Carolina’s coast is needed to determine juvenile habitat

preference and examine if recruitment is habitat limited.

9.1.7. Habitat condition

Because red drum utilize multiple habitats, protecting the integrity of the entire

system

is necessary to manage this species. Protection and enhancement of spawning

and nursery areas may be particularly important to enhance growth and survival of

juvenile red drum. In North Carolina, there have been reported losses of wetlands, SAV,

and shell bottom habitat. Since studies indicate that use of SAV and marsh edge by

juvenile red drum reduce predation rates and increase growth rates (Rooker et al. 1998;

Stunz and Minello 2001; Stunz et al. 2002), an increase in habitat coverage could

potentially improve recruitment success. Levin and Stunz (2005), assuming red drum

populations were not recruitment limited, estimated through modeling of a hypothetical

red drum population, that restoring marsh edge and SAV habitat in Galveston Bay to

their near original amounts could increase average post-settlement survival in Galveston

Bay by 24%, sufficiently abating the rate of population decline.

Wetlands

It is estimated that as much as 34-50% of North Carolina’s original wetland

coverage w

as lost, primarily due to ditching, channelization, and filling for agriculture

and development (Dahl 1990; DWQ 2000a). According to the Division of Water Quality

(DWQ 2000a), approximately 88% of salt/brackish marsh, 81-88% of riverine forested

wetlands, and 48% of pocosins remain. According to DCM, 29,560 acres (11.6%) of

existing salt, brackish, and freshwater marsh appear to be physically altered. From the

early 1800s to the early 1900s, ditching and draining for agriculture accounted for the

majority of wetland losses (Heath 1975). From about 1950 to the 1990s, conversion to

managed forest and agriculture accounted for 53% and 42%, respectively, with

development associated activities responsible for the remaining 5% (Bales and Newcomb

1996). Since 1990, there have been greatly reduced losses from agriculture and forestry

and increasing losses from development. However, between 1998 and 2000, due to a

change in federal wetland regulations (repeal of Tulloch Rule), approximately 12,000

acres of wetlands were ditched and drained, primarily in the southern portion of the coast.

Changes in state regulations are now in place to prevent such activity. Except for this

period, there have been no new large-scale wetland drainage projects since the mid-

1970s.

The primary threats to wetland habitat today are filling, dredging, and

hydrological alterations associated with residential and com

mercial development. The

Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) regulates development activities in Areas of

Environmental Concern, which include coastal wetlands (15A NCAC 7H .0205).

Generally, no development is allowed in coastal wetlands except water dependent

activities, such as docks. The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) manages

wetlands through the 401/404 Certification Program, under the federal Clean Water Act.

This program focuses on avoiding and minimizing filling of wetlands and streams

through review of all Environmental Assessments, Coastal Area Management Act

(CAMA) Major, and US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit applications.

Although the rate of wetland loss from dredging and filling activities has slowed,

aller losses continue to occur, which may still result in cumulative impacts. From

2001 to 2006, in the five river basins where red drum occur, a total of 904 acres of

wetlands were permitted by DWQ, to allow impacts from dredging or filling (Table 17).

The greatest wetland im

pacts occurred in the Cape Fear, followed by the Neuse. The

total acres impacted by year ranged from 80 in FY 2003/2004 to 228 in FY 2005/2006.

Compensatory mitigation for permitted losses and voluntary restoration efforts have

partially offset some of these losses. However, the type of wetland gained is often not

equivalent to what was lost. In addition, not all impacts require mitigation.

Table 17. DWQ 401 permitted wetland impacts (acres) in coastal river basins

inhabited by red drum

, 2001-2006 (DWQ, unpubl. data, R. Ridings, 2007).

River Basin 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 Total

Cape Fear

152.04 52.98 38.93 32.90 138.36 415.21

Neuse

30.22 91.55 15.25 88.38 40.72 266.12

Pasquotank

16.53 25.66 9.28 22.71 9.33 83.51

White Oak

7.22 12.79 7.84 37.45 5.97 71.27

Tar-Pamlico

7.39 5.07 9.36 13.16 33.72 68.70

Total

213.40 188.05 80.66 194.60 228.10 904.81

In 2003 the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) was established through a

cooperative agreem

ent with the Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and COE. The program was developed to

provide environmental mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts associated with

transportation and other development, with the goal of restoring, enhancing, preserving,

and protecting wetlands, streams, and riparian area functions (EEP 2006). EEP oversees

mitigation programs for wetland impacts related to 1) transportation, 2) statewide stream

and wetland 401 permits, 3) removal of riparian buffers, and 4) nutrient offset impacts.

The program has been increasing the amount of wetland and stream mitigation completed

annually. In FY 2005-2006, wetland and stream credits for state wetland in-lieu fee

impacts exceeded the wetland mitigation requirements (generally at least a 2:1 ratio with

acres impacted). The riparian buffer and nutrient offset programs have also resulted in a

net positive gain. Since 2003, more than $2 billion in approved and pending

transportation projects are moving forward because required compensatory mitigation

was met. In FY 2005-2006, 310,000 ft of stream and 589 acres of wetland mitigation

projects were begun. Work involves a mix of restoration, enhancement, and high quality

preservation (EEP 2006).

Shoreline stabilization results in direct and gradual loss of wetlands but is not

accounted for through the 401 perm

it process. Hard stabilization along estuarine

shorelines can result in a cumulative loss of wetlands since a hardened structure 1)

prevents landward migration of wetlands over time, 2) results in loss of marsh vegetation

waterward of the structure, which can not reestablish due to increased wave energy and

scour against the vertical structure (Garbisch et al. 1973; Knutson 1977), and 3) reduces

or eliminates the intertidal habitat due to shoreline deepening. Several studies have

found that abundance of juvenile fish adjacent to bulkheaded shorelines was much less

than what occurred adjacent to unaltered naturally vegetated shorelines (80-300% less)

(Mock 1966; Peterson et al. 2000; Waters and Thomas 2001). The difference was

attributed to lower abundance of organic detritus and small benthic invertebrates, deeper

water, and less intertidal vegetation. Ocean shoreline stabilization and prevention of

barrier island processes, such as overwash and inlet migration, suppresses development

of new tidal marsh behind barrier islands and is another deterrent to wetland expansion.

According to permit records, DCM issued perm

its between 1984 and 2000 to

stabilize approximately 457 miles of shoreline (11.7% of the estimated 3,900 miles of

estuarine shoreline). During this time period, the amount of shoreline stabilization

permitted annually along the coast has ranged from eight to 91 miles. These numbers

must be considered with caution since the numbers include CAMA permits include

repairs, replacements, or projects that may not have been done or completed, and there

could be data entry errors. Beaufort, Dare, Carteret, and Currituck counties have the

greatest total lengths of permitted bulkheads. In these counties, the percent of hardened

shoreline along major waterbodies ranges from roughly 8% to 32%. Because shoreline

stabilization contributes to wetland loss which would impact nursery habitat, there is a

need to more accurately assess where and how much of the estuarine shoreline is

hardened.

As part of CHPP implementation actions, the CRC is currently in the process

of revising estuarine shoreline management rules using recommendations from the

Estuarine Shoreline Biological and Physical Processes Work Group to minimize impacts

to natural shoreline and nearshore fish habitat functions. These rule changes will try to

encourage use of the most environmentally sensitive stabilization structure that is also

effective for each specific location.

Ongoing initiatives such as wetland restoration, land acquisition and preservation,

and agricultural cost-share BMPs need to be enhanced to offset continued losses. There

should also be additional initiatives implemented to protect and enhance wetland habitat.

The many fishery and water quality functions provided by wetlands make their

preservation and restoration along North Carolina’s coast a high priority for protection of

all coastal fish habitats.

SAV

The current spatial distribution and acreage of SAV is unknown since some areas

that historically supported SAV were not m

apped, western Pamlico sound tributaries

were not accurately quantified, and changes may have occurred since the original

mapping. While there are reports of large-scale losses of SAV in North Carolina’s low

salinity tributaries on the mainland side of Pamlico Sound, (North Carolina Sea Grant

1997; J. Hawkins, DMF, pers. com, 2003), the high salinity grass beds behind the barrier

islands appear relatively stable (Ferguson and Wood 1994). Efforts are currently

underway to quantitatively map high and low salinity SAV habitat in 2007 through an

interagency effort coordinated by Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Program. The

Division is a partner in this effort. This will provide baseline information on distribution

of SAV in some areas, and allow trend analysis in distribution and abundance of SAV in

eastern Pamlico, Core and Bogue sounds. Additional field monitoring of existing SAV

beds is needed to identify environmental conditions necessary to support SAV, and

model where SAV could potentially occur in shallow water.

The greatest threat to SAV is large-scale nutrient enrichment and sediment

loading, which increases turbidity, reduces light penetration, and subsequently im

pacts

SAV growth, survival, and productivity (Goldsborough and Kemp 1988; Kenworthy and

Haunert 1991; Funderburk et al. 1991; Stevenson et al. 1993). Catastrophic losses of

seagrass beds have been correlated with these water quality problems in other states in

the past (Twilley et al. 1985; Orth et al. 1986; Durako 1994). Nutrient enrichment and/or

increased sediment loads impact SAV growth, survival, and productivity by increasing

chronic turbidity in the water column from suspended sediment or phytoplankton

associated with algal blooms. In North Carolina, most of the low salinity areas that have

experienced large reductions in SAV coverage (Tar-Pamlico River and Neuse River

basins) have nutrient loading issues and are designated Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Once

SAV is lost, increased turbidity and sediment destabilization can result in accelerated

shoreline erosion and make recolonization more difficult (Durako 1994; Fonseca 1996).

Therefore, prevention of any additional SAV loss through water quality maintenance and

improvement is a high priority for red drum management.

Increased sediment and nutrient loading in the water column can enter coastal

waters from

point source discharges, nonpoint source stormwater runoff, or resuspension

of bottom sediments. Specific sources that contribute to increased sediment loading

include construction activities, unpaved roads, road construction, golf courses,

uncontrolled urban runoff, mining, silviculture, row crop agriculture, and livestock

operations (DWQ 2000b). Specific sources that contribute to increased nutrient loading

include agricultural and urban runoff, wastewater treatment plants, forestry activities, and

atmospheric deposition. Nutrients in point source discharges are from human waste, food

residues, cleaning agents, and industrial processes. The primary contributors of nutrients

from nonpoint sources are fertilizer and animal wastes (DWQ 2000b).

In North Carolina, there are water quality standards for light associated

param

eters including turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), and chlorophyll

Modifications to regulatory water quality standards may be needed to improve their

effectiveness for SAV protection. A review of current chlorophyll, TSS, and turbidity

standards should be conducted to determine if they are appropriate for the protection of

V in North Carolina waters or if a new standard for protecting water clarity for SAV is

needed.

Dredging for navigational channels, marinas, or other infrastructure can

physically dam

age or remove SAV, while shading from docks over grass beds can lead to

gradual loss of SAV beneath the structures (Loflin 1995; Shafer 1999). As additional

docks and marinas are constructed along the coast, the potential for boating-related

impacts increases. Results from Connell and Murphey (2004) indicate that current dock

designs over SAV beds in North Carolina result in a reduction in SAV coverage and

density. Regulations by CRC state that activities which will directly impact SAV, such

as dredging or construction of docking facilities, should be avoided (15A NCAC 7H

.0208(a)(5). Dock criteria are currently being evaluated by CRC, with support from

DMF, to determine how existing dock siting requirements could be modified to reduce

impacts to SAV and other fish habitats.

Use of bottom disturbing gear can damage SAV beds, but MFC regulations

restrict gears that cause the m

ost damage over SAV habitat, including oyster dredges,

crab dredges, and hydraulic clam dredges. Bay scallop dredges, which are smaller and

have no teeth, cause less severe damage to SAV than oyster and crab dredges, and are

allowed over SAV habitat. Hand gear, such as bull rakes and large oyster tongs, can

uproot and damage SAV, but to much smaller areas than mechanical gears (Thayer et al.

1984). Current MFC rules prohibit use of rakes more than twelve inches wide or

weighing more than six pounds in SAV. Clam kicking can also severely impact SAV

habitat since substrate is displaced by propeller backwash (Guthrie and Lewis 1982;

Peterson and Howarth 1987). Because of the severe disturbance to the bottom, clam

kicking is restricted to sandy bottom, in waters more than 10 ft deep, in Core and Pamlico

sounds, and Newport, North, New, and White Oak rivers. The fishery is managed

intensively, with strong enforcement to prevent clam kicking in the restricted areas.

Shrimp and crab trawls can shear or cut the blades of SAV, or uproot plants

without m

ajor disruption of the sediment (ASMFC 2000). While shearing of grass blades

does not kill a seagrass plant, shoot density is reduced, decreasing productivity and

structural complexity. Where the trawl doors dig into the sediment, SAV plants can be

uprooted and killed. The impact of the doors depends on gear configuration, vessel speed

and other factors. High turbidity and sedimentation from use of bottom-disturbing

fishing gear can reduce water clarity, affecting SAV growth, productivity, and in some

cases, survival (ASMFC 2000). The boundaries of No Trawl Areas in Core Sound were

modified in the Peneaid Shrimp Fishery Management Plan (DMF 2006) to avoid

additional grass beds. Additional law enforcement may be needed to enforce buffers

around closed areas supporting SAV, such as No Trawl Areas and Mechanical Clam

Harvest Areas. If other areas are identified where bottom disturbing gears are impacting

SAV, boundary changes should be evaluated.

Shell bottom

The current distribution of shell bottom is much less than what historically

occurred (Newell 1988). Mechanical harvesting of oysters was the prim

ary and initial

cause of habitat loss (DMF 2001). Most shell bottom losses have been to subtidal beds in

Pamlico Sound, where DMF has also found declines in oyster recruitment. Although

mechanical harvesting of oysters has been greatly restricted, reefs have not recovered,

possibly due to stress f

rom water quality degradation and increased occurrence of disease

(Dermo, MSX) (DMF 2001). Oyster dredging removes oysters and reduces the vertical

profile of oyster rocks, increasing the susceptibility of remaining shell bottom at that

location to low dissolved oxygen (DO) and possible mortality (Lenihan and Peterson

1998). Other causes of shell bottom losses include dredging for navigation channels or

marinas. These activities can physically remove or damage existing shell bottom or

result in turbidity that clogs oyster gills or covers sediment completely. Hydrologic

modifications also impact oyster habitat by altering salinity regimes. While drainage for

agriculture has changed little in recent years, drainage for urban/suburban development is

increasing steadily.

In designated oyster management areas and other designated habitat areas,

trawling and m

echanical harvest of oysters is prohibited, including portions of Core and

Pamlico sounds. Through the DMF Oyster Fishery Management Plan (2001), oyster

dredging was restricted from additional shallow areas in western Pamlico Sound

tributaries. Hand harvest methods for oysters and clams can also be destructive, but on a

much smaller scale. Completion of mapping of North Carolina shellfish beds by DMF

would enhance the ability to enforce existing regulations and make it possible to quantify

changes to this habitat relative to changes in land use, water quality, and regulatory

measures. Restoration of subtidal oyster reefs in the lower Neuse River and other

western Pamlico Sound estuaries could enhance spawning conditions for red drum.

Soft bottom

Activities that lead to the deepening, loss, or chemical contamination of shallow

and intertidal habitat are the greatest threat to this habitat. D

redging associated with

construction of marina and dock facilities alters the shoreline configuration, circulation

patterns, and changes in bottom sediment characteristics (Wendt et al. 1990). Light

availability on the bottom of dredged marinas is lowered, reducing productivity from

benthic algae (Ianuzzi et al. 1996). Operation of a marina can also affect productivity of

the soft bottom community due to introduction of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and

bacteria (Chmura and Ross 1978; Marcus and Stokes 1985; Voudrias and Smith 1986).

Heavy metals and hydrocarbons are toxic to many soft bottom dwelling invertebrates and

benthic feeding fish (Weis and Weis 1989). Additionally, DO may become depleted or

below biotic thresholds in dredged marina basins and channels. A North Carolina marina

study found significantly lower DO concentrations (less than 5.0 mg/l) inside some

marinas compared to outside marinas (DEHNR 1990). Estuarine shoreline stabilization

can also degrade soft bottom habitat utilized by red drum by reducing or eliminating the

intertidal zone, deepening shallow soft bottom habitat, or contaminating sediment from

leaching of toxic preservatives from wood structures (Weis et al. 1998).

The extent of sediment contamination in North Carolina coastal waters is not well

known. Sedim

ent sampling is not routinely conducted by the DWQ since there are no

sediment standards in the state. Studies examining sediment contamination at sites in

North Carolina soft bottom have found various levels of contamination (Riggs et al.

1989; 1991; Hackney et al. 1998). Highest contamination levels tended to occur in low

salinity areas with low flushing and high river discharge. In the Neuse River, surface

sediments were found to contain elevated levels of several heavy metals, including zinc,

copper, lead, and arsenic, primarily between New Bern and the mouth of the river. The

contaminated sites were primarily attributed to permitted municipal and industrial

treatm

ent plant discharges. Marinas were also found to contribute substantial amounts of

copper and variable amounts of zinc and lead. Nonpoint sources were more difficult to

evaluate. In the Pamlico River, heavy metal contamination was less severe, although

arsenic, cobalt, and titanium exceeded the levels found in the Neuse River. These studies

suggest that sediment contamination in some estuarine areas, especially those where both

organic rich mud and waste water discharges are present, may be significant and could

affect fish populations and the base of their food chain. To better determine if

contaminated sediment is a significant threat to coastal fish habitat, the distribution and

concentration of heavy metals and other toxic contaminants in freshwater and estuarine

sediments needs to be adequately assessed and areas of greatest concern need to be

identified.

Bottom disturbing gear can potentially impact soft bottom habitat, but because of

the lim

ited structure and dynamic nature of this habitat, has historically been considered

the most appropriate location for such gear. Of the bottom disturbing gears, trawling is

more commonly used than dredges on soft bottom habitat in both estuarine and coastal

ocean waters. Trawling can potentially impact soft bottom habitat by removing or

damaging epifauna, and burrow-forming infauna, reducing diversity and abundance of

benthic community, smoothing sediment features, and increasing exposure to predators

(Auster and Langton 1999; Collie et al. 1997). Sediment resuspension can increase

turbidity, reducing light dependent benthic productivity, which in turn affects the benthic

food web. While several studies have shown negative effects of trawling, other studies

have found no negative impacts (Van Dolah et al 1991; Currie and Parry 1996; Cahoon et

al. 2002). No studies have specifically looked at the effect of trawling on the bottom

habitat of Pamlico or other large sounds in North Carolina.

Use of trawl nets, long haul seines, swipe nets, dredges, and mechanical harvest

of shellfish is prohibited over productive shallow soft bottom

habitat designated as a

Primary and Secondary Nursery Area by the MFC (15A NCAC 3N .0104). There are

approximately 147,000 acres of designated Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) and Secondary

Nursery Areas (SNA) (15A NCAC 3N .0101 - .0105) in North Carolina (

Figure 13).

They are generally located in the upper portions of tidal creeks and rivers and usually

include wetlands, soft bottom

, and in some areas shell bottom. These nursery areas

include some but not all of red drum nursery areas. Dredging for navigational purposes is

also not allowed in PNAs by CRC regulations.

Figure 13. MFC designated fishery nursery areas.

Beach nourishment can threaten the quality of intertidal and shallow subtidal

ocean bottom

habitat, which is important nursery and foraging grounds for subadult and

adult red drum. When sand is put on the intertidal beach, the existing benthos is buried,

killing the prey available for red drum and other benthic feeding fish (Hackney et al.

1996). Because red drum are mobile, they can move to another area. However there may

be cumulative impacts if multiple beaches within a region are nourished at the same time.

The reported recovery time of the benthic community generally ranges from one month

to one year, although longer in some cases (Reilly and Bellis 1983; Rackocinski et al.

1993; Donoghue 1999; Jutte et al. 1999; Lindquist and Manning 2001). Factors that

affect the recovery time include compatibility of deposited material with native sand,

volume, depth, and length of filled area, time of year of project, frequency of

renourishment events, and specific site conditions. In addition to reduction in available

food, beach renourishment can affect red drum and other fish species by altering

preferred topographic features such as ebb tide deltas and nearshore muddy sloughs or

reducing visibility (Street et al. 2005).

Studies examining the effect of beach nourishment on fish abundance found that

large inter-annual fluctuations in surf zone fish populations m

ade detection of change

very difficult (COE 2001; COE 2003). More detailed studies are needed to assess the

effect of large-scale beach nourishment on red drum diet and behavior

. As of 2005, the

miles of beach authorized for storm damage reduction projects increased from 16 to 35

mi with an additional 104 mi at some stage of requesting authorization. As the number of

beach nourishm

ent projects increase, adequate monitoring of the effects of beach

nourishment on the soft bottom community and associated surf fish populations is

increasingly important and should be required for all large-scale or long-term

nourishment projects. The MFC adopted a beach nourishment policy in 2000 to guide

the permitting process to more fully consider fish habitat impacts. All beach nourishment

projects should adhere to the guidelines provided in that policy. The policy is a tool for

the MFC to use, should they decide to comment on a project. As part of CHPP

implementation, DCM has begun preparing a coastwide comprehensive beach

management plan to provide guidelines to minimize long-term impacts, benefiting red

drum and other surf zone species.

9.2 Water Quality

Good water quality is essential for maintaining the chemical properties of the

water column needed to support the various life stages of red drum, as well as sustain

other habitats which red drum utilize, such as SAV, shell bottom and soft bottom.

Although red drum have a wide tolerance range for environmental conditions, there are

optimal temperature, salinity, and pH thresholds which enhance survival and growth for

different life stages of the species. Optimum temperatures for spawning are between 22

and 30

C and at lunar spring tides (SAFMC, 1998). Eggs and larvae require salinity of

25 – 35 ppt for proper buoyancy while planktonic. Elevated pH levels and low water

temperatures can reduce survival of red drum larvae (Lyon and Fisher, 1998). Several

studies indicate that mortality during early post-settlement is substantial and that survival

through this stage is critical to recruitment success (Rooker et al., 1998; Baltz et al.,

1998). In mesocosm experiments, Rooker et al. (1998) found a 3–9% decrease in

mortality per millimeter increase in length of fish. Consequently, faster growth rates

associated with high water temperatures increase recruitment success. Because red drum

remain within one estuarine system for several years, they can be vulnerable to water

quality problems within a watershed.

Human activities that alter the preferred salinity or temperature conditions of the

species, elevate toxins, nutrients, or turbidity, or lower DO levels can degrade water

quality and im

pact growth and survival of red drum. These pollutants may be derived

from both point and nonpoint sources. Point sources include direct discharges of treated

domestic or industrial wastewater or untreated stormwater. Point source discharges are

regulated by DWQ and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In estuarine

waters, there are numerous wastewater discharges. EMC requires a NPDES permit for

point source discharges, which specifies limits of various pollutants in treated discharge

waters, based on the water quality classification of the receiving stream. Areas classified

as Nutrient Sensitive Waters have more stringent limits on nutrients. Leaks or ruptures

of sewage pipes and failing lift stations can also lead to untreated sewage entering into

coastal waters. In ocean waters, wastewater discharges are not permitted, because this

activity has been found to cause significant beach pollution in other states (Moore 1992).

Dumping of sewage sludge and industrial wastes has also caused adverse impacts to the

fishing industry (Cross et al. 1985). Ocean outfalls should continue to be prohibited in

North Carolina to minimize water quality degradation to the water column.

Nonpoint stormwater runoff can originate from numerous activities, including

urban developm

ent, roadways, marinas, concentrated animal operations, and land

disturbance from agriculture and forestry. Stormwater runoff can carry nutrients,

sediment, bacteria, and toxic chemicals into coastal waters. In some instances,

stormwater is directly discharged into ocean or estuarine waters. Beach communities

appear to be increasingly using “temporary” pumping of storm water to the beach as a

solution to stormwater runoff. The runoff during heavy rain events flood the streets, in

part due to improper siting of structures in flood zones, excessive impervious surface,

and lack of upland stormwater retention areas. Precautionary swimming advisories at

Hanby Beach, Carolina Beach, Emerald Isle, and Kill Devil Hills have been posted

because of potential contamination from stormwater discharge onto the beach or water

(JD Potts, DEH, pers. comm.). As coastal areas continue to develop and flooding

problems increase, managing stormwater should be a high priority for protecting habitat

and water quality. Because red drum are demersal bottom feeders and relatively long-

lived, they could be particularly susceptible to low DO and toxins that accumulate in

bottom sediment.

9.2.1 Water quality status

Red drum in North Carolina occur in several coastal river basins, including the

Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, Pasquotank, White Oak, Cape Fear and Lumber river basins (Figure

14). DWQ evaluates water quality in river basins on 5-year cycles, for six different Use

Support categories. Aquatic life and shellfish harvest are the m

ost ecologically pertinent

categories. The aquatic life use support category is an indicator of whether aquatic

invertebrates and fish can adequately live in the waters. Benthic invertebrate and fish

community data, ambient water quality, and NPDES data are considered in the

assessment. The shellfish harvest use support category is determined by elevated fecal

coliform bacteria levels and is a general indication that stormwater runoff is entering

surface waters.

Table 18 summarizes the most recent Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvest Use

Support for the coastal river basins where red drum

occur. From the Use Support data,

the Pasquotank river basin, that includes the Albemarle region and northern Pamlico

Sound, has relatively low amounts of impaired fresh and estuarine waters and a low

amount of shellfish closures. In the Tar-Pamlico, which includes many of the estuarine

tributaries of western Pamlico Sound and the southern portion of Pamlico Sound from

Hatteras to Ocracoke inlets, aquatic life impairment of freshwater streams is relatively

high (7.9%). However in the lower portion of the river basin, impairment of aquatic life

use support in estuarine waters and impairment of shellfish harvest use support is low.

All of the impaired estuarine waters for the aquatic life use support category were located

in the lower Pamlico River and tributaries (subbasin 03-03-07, between Washington and

Roos Point). The Neuse river basin has the highest amount of impaired freshwater

streams. The Cape Fear, followed by the Neuse river basin, has the most impaired

estuarine waters for aquatic life use support. Estuarine waters are those that are most

likely used by juvenile red drum. In the Cape Fear river basin, impaired estuarine waters

for aquatic life were primarily located in subbasin 03-06-17 in the main stem of the river,

between Toomer’s Creek (north of Wilmington) and Snow’s Cut. In the Neuse river

basin, impaired estuarine waters for aquatic life were primarily located in subbasin 03-

04-10, between New Bern and Tonney Hill Point (mouth of Neuse River, northern

shore). Impaired waters for shellfish harvest is greatest in the southern river basins -

Lumber, Cape Fear, and White Oak. This coincides with population density,

development, and increased impervious surfaces. Water quality stressors attributed to

aquatic life use support impairment in fresh water streams and estuaries include habitat

degradation (reduced biodiversity due to sedimentation and channelization), low

dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform contamination, and elevated turbidity (DWQ 2005).

The specific source of the stressors is in most cases unknown.

Figure 14. Location of North Carolina river basins

(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide)

Table 18. Impaired water ratings for Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvest Use Support

categories in six coastal river basins (DW

Q 2002a,b, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007)

River Basin

(year

)

Impaired

stream

miles

% impaired

of monitored

streams

Total %

monitored

Impaired

estuarine acres

% impaired of

monitored

waters

Total %

monitored

Impaired

(acres)

impaired

Total %

monitored

Pasquotank

(2002)

0.0 0.0 29 0 0 69 5,033 1.3 100

Tar-Pamlico

(2004)

64.1 7.6 33 6,071 1 92 7,516 1.3 100

Neuse

(2002)

278.0 22.3 36 31,763 9.1 91 3,710 1.1 100

White Oak

(2007)

0.0 n/a n/a 7,942 n/a n/a 37,582 31.8 n/a

Cape Fear

(2005)

425.4 6.9 n/a 6,527.40 20.6 n/a 6,500.70 41.0 n/a

Lumber

(2003)

0.0 0.0 32 0 0 50 3,606.90 84.0 100

Year of most recent DWQ River Basin plan, from which data was derived

Shellfish harvestAquatic life - estuarineAquatic life - streams

There is sparse data available on nearshore ocean water quality trends since DWQ

does not m

onitor ambient water quality in nearshore ocean waters. The Shellfish

Sanitation Office, Division of Environmental Health, has been recording

Enterococcus

bacteria levels for safe swimming along ocean beaches and some estuarine areas since

1997. Since 2002, a public advisory or alert has been issued for the ocean for 288 days in

38 sampling areas (0 in 2002, 12 in 2003, 19 in 2004, 7 in 2005), with advisories most

frequently occurring in Dare and Carteret counties. Although these bacteria will not hurt

red drum

, it is an indicator that other pollutants associated with upland activity, such as

nutrients or toxins, are present.

An additonal source of water quality data in North Carolina is the National

Coastal Assessm

ent Program conducted by the EPA. Approximately 33 stations have

been sampled in the summer since 2002. Information is collected to determine sediment,

benthic, and habitat indices, as well as fish tissue condition, in areas where red drum

occur and where DWQ data is sparse (Pamlico, Core, and Bogue sounds). The

assessment rated the Carolinian province as being in fair to good condition.

9.2.2 Water quality stressors

Water quality stressors attributed to water quality impairment in coastal waters

are often associated with increased development. There has been a significant increase in

population over the past 20 years in coastal river basins. Increased population has been

directly correlated with increased impervious surfaces and hydrological alterations,

which in turn results in increased stormwater runoff (Mallin et al. 2000). Increased

population results in the need for additional septic tanks, increased wastewater treatment

capacity, road infrastructure, and marinas, which can increase pollutant loading into

coastal waters. Hydromodifications due to ditching and drainage of uplands and wetlands

accelerates the quantity and rate at which pollutants enter estuarine waters, decreases the

amount of filtering that occurs prior to pollutants entering the waters, and may alter the

salinity regime in the upper estuary (DWQ 2000b). Loading and movement of sediment,

nutrients, and toxins are often greater in channelized sections than natural streams, and

can negatively impact the fish community and benthic habitats (White 1996; EPA 2001).

Several studies have found that the size, number, and species diversity of fish in

channelized streams are reduced and the fisheries associated with them are less

productive than those associated with unchannelized reaches of streams (Tarplee et al.

1971; Hawkins 1980; Schoof 1980). Pate and Jones (1981) found that productivity of

several species of juvenile fish was significantly less in PNAs that received moderate to

high levels of drainage from ditched uplands. They attributed this to the unstable salinity

conditions that occurred in areas adjacent to channelized systems following moderate to

heavy rainfall (>1 inch/24 hr). Therefore, hydromodification of the system can be the

driver of other subsequent water quality stressors, such as hypoxia, eutrophication, and

toxic contamination.

Hypoxia and eutrophication

Adequate supply of DO is critical to survival of benthic invertebrates and fish.

Most dem

ersal fishes experience mortality in waters having 1-2 mg/l O

, impaired larval

growth where oxygen levels are < 4.7 mg/l, and altered metabolism where oxygen levels

are < 4 mg/l (Miller et al. 1995; Gray et al 2002). Some estuarine species are capable of

detecting and avoiding low oxygen waters and will generally move to shallower

oxygenated waters, but there are species-specific differences in tolerance thresholds

(Wannamaker and Rice 2000). There are no reported oxygen tolerances for red drum.

Low-oxygen conditions can occur naturally in a system from flushing of swamp

aters, which characteristically have low DO, or from stratification of the water column

due to wind, temperature, and salinity conditions. However, low-oxygen conditions can

also be fueled by increased stormwater runoff carrying nutrients and oxygen-consuming

wastes, which result in excessive oxygen demand in the water column or sediment. Algal

bloom

s deplete the water column of DO due to respiration and organic decomposition

(DWQ 2000b). Dissolved oxygen depletion in the water column occurs most often in

summer. Warm surface waters, calm winds, and reduced freshwater inflow reduce

mixing of water. The stratified bottom layer of water is prevented from receiving

oxygenated surface waters and rapidly becomes depleted of oxygen. Shallow water

estuaries with less frequent flushing often develop persistent stratification and bottom-

water hypoxia that can last for weeks to months (Tenore 1972). Several studies have

indicated that the frequency, duration, and spatial extent of low oxygen events have

increased over the years due to increasing eutrophication of coastal waters from human

and animal waste discharges, greater fertilizer use, loss of wetlands, and increased

atmospheric nitrogen deposition (Cooper and Brush 1991; Dyer and Orth 1994; Paerl et

al. 1995; Buzelli et al. 2002).

In the Neuse River, past estimates suggest that up to 30-50% of the estuary during

sum

mer is unsuitable bottom habitat due to hypoxia (Eby et al. 2000). Since relatively

deeper oxygenated waters of the Neuse River estuary are important spawning areas for

red drum (Barrios 2004), stratification and hypoxia in the Neuse River estuary could

reduce the suitable habitat available for spawning and lower survival rates of eggs and

larvae. Lower salinity, which may co-occur under summer stratification conditions,

decreases egg buoyancy, causing eggs to sink and be more susceptible to hypoxic

conditions, rather than being carried in surface waters to suitable nursery grounds

(Barrios 2004).

Fish kills are often attributed to low oxygen events. Over the past ten years in

coastal river basins supporting red drum

, the number of reported fish kills peaked in 2001

and has decreased and remained relatively low in the past three years (Table 19, Figure

15). Approximately 10 estuarine species were reported in fish kills over the years.

Atlantic m

enhaden, flounder, and spot were the most frequently reported estuarine

species. Only one red drum in 2001 and one red drum in 2004, have been reported in fish

kill events, indicating that red drum are not directly impacted by low DO and fish kills.

However fish kills are an indicator of poor water quality conditions that may affect red

drum indirectly. Overall, fish kills were most frequent in the Neuse river basin, followed

by the Cape Fear, and Tar-Pamlico (DWQ 2006). Kill activity in the Neuse and Tar-

Pamlico rivers was most frequent in the lower estuary, below New Bern and Washington,

respectively. In this mixing zone, low DO, high temperatures, and fluctuating salinity are

stressful to fish life. In 2006, low DO was cited as a factor in 30% of the fish kills,

followed by toxic spills and algal blooms. Both of the latter can also deplete oxygen

from the water column. Real-time monitoring sensors in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico

rivers located close to fish kill events verified that fish kills occurred following

significant decreases in oxygen levels to hypoxic conditions (< 1.0 mg/l) the previous

evening or early morning for several hours. Overall, DO depletion, coupled with

unfavorable environmental conditions, is the most common cause of fish kills in estuarine

waters. It is unknown if the apparent decline in fish kills in the past few years was due to

favorable natural weather conditions or improved water quality conditions.

Table 19. Reported fish kills in coastal river basins supporting red drum, 1996-2006

(DWQ 2006).

River Basin 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

pe Fear

211623141258312

Neuse

1412 8162337 921 8 91

Lumber

4350200211

Pasquotank

10282016202

Tar/Pamlico

3651114238621

White Oak

3313333001

Yearly total

55 42 50 46 54 69 34 34 12 16 19

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

No. reported fish kills

Figure 15. Reported annual fish kill events in coastal river basins supporting red

drum

, 1996-2006. Includes Pasquotank, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, White Oak,

Cape Fear, and Lumber river basins.

Low oxygen events can also impact red drum by altering the benthic community

upon which it feeds (Luettich et al. 1999). Following a period of anoxia, initial food

available to red drum

could be greatly reduced. As the benthos recolonizes, small

organisms typical of early successional communities provide a source of food for small

juvenile benthic feeders, but larger organisms needed to support older red drum and other

benthic feeding adult fish are lacking or inadequate (Luettich et al. 1999). More

information is needed to understand the consequences on the estuarine food web and to

what extent anoxia is impacting the soft bottom community. Efforts are needed to reduce

anthropogenic nutrient loading, particularly in system

s that have a history of hypoxia and

anoxia.

Toxins

Toxins in sediments or the water column can inhibit or alter reproduction or

grow

th of aquatic organisms, or cause mortality in some situations (Weis and Weis

1989). Early life stages are most vulnerable to toxins (Funderburk et al. 1991). Toxicity

testing indicated that juvenile red drum were significantly more sensitive to

organophosphorus pesticides than mummichogs (Van Dolah et al., 1997). While the

survival of some aquatic organisms is affected by toxins, other organisms survive and

bioaccumulate the chemicals to toxic levels, passing them along in the food chain.

Multiple studies have shown clear connections between concentrations of toxins in

sediments and those in benthic feeding fish and invertebrates (Kirby et al. 2001;

Marburger et al. 2002).

Toxic chemicals tend to accumulate in fine-grained sediments to several orders of

greater m

agnitude than overlying waters, but can be resuspended in the water column by

storm events or human activities such as dredging and trawling. Sediment toxicity can

reduce the abundance of benthic prey available to red drum, reducing the quality of the

habitat. Because macroinvertebrate diversity declines with increasing sediment

contamination, food resources for benthic feeders, like red drum, may be limited in

highly contaminated areas (Weis et al. 1998; Brown et al. 2000; Dauer et al. 2000).

Toxic chemicals come from localized point sources as well as diffuse nonpoint

sources. Point sources include industrial and m

unicipal waste discharges. Nonpoint

sources of toxins include household and yard chemicals from urban runoff, petroleum

and other chemicals from roads, parking lots, marinas, docks, and boating activity, runoff

from agriculture and forestry, industrial emissions, and chemical spills (Wilbur and

Pentony 1999).

Because low concentrations of heavy metals in the water column can be easily

incorporated into fine-grained sedim

ent, chemicals can accumulate in the sediment to

toxic levels and be resuspended into the water column (Riggs et al. 1991). Studies have

shown that fine-grained sediments are the primary reservoir for heavy metals, particularly

organic rich muds (Riggs et al. 1991). Since organic rich muds occur extensively in

North Carolina’s estuaries and primary nursery areas, resuspension of contaminated

organic rich muds is of particular concern. Refer to the section on soft bottom condition

for more information on the known extent of sediment contamination in North Carolina.

Weather events

Hurricanes and other weather events can have a large influence on water quality

in Pam

lico Sound and other areas of North Carolina’s coast. Hurricanes are considered

an important natural perturbation that is necessary for the long-term maintenance of

estuarine systems (Meeder and Meeder, 1989). With increasing loss of wetlands and

hydrological modifications, however, the effect of flooding and storm damage is

intensified, and the resulting runoff is more severely contaminated. In 1996, Hurricanes

Bertha and Fran resulted in severe flooding of coastal waters, anoxia, and multiple fish

kills in both Neuse and Pamlico rivers and Pamlico Sound. Shortly after the passage of

Hurricane Floyd in September 1999, some anoxic conditions were documented in

Pamlico Sound (DWQ, DMF, unpub. data). However, subsequent storms and strong

winds prevented prolonged stratification of the water colum

n and increased oxygen

concentrations, minimizing fish kills in the sound. Large inputs of nutrients and toxic

chemicals were introduced into the system from flooded and failing hog lagoons and

wastewater treatment plants, and from organic matter displaced from swamps and upland

sources. The high number of fish kills in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins in 2001

may be a delayed ecological response to these nutrient inputs. In 2003, Hurricane Isabel

breached a new inlet through Hatteras Island, which could have enhanced flushing in

Pamlico Sound. However, DOT refilled the inlet to restore traditional transportation.

Prevention of natural barrier island processes will have a long-term effect on water

quality in adjacent estuarine waters.

Global warming and sea level rise could have a significant impact on future

estuarine conditions and consequently red drum

. As sea level continues rising, portions

of barrier islands are expected to be inundated, increasing ocean influence and salinity in

Pamlico Sound and tributaries (Pearsall and Poulter, in press). On a global scale, 30% of

global wetlands are expected to be lost due to the combination of sea level rise and

development along the shoreline, which deters landward migration of wetlands (IPPC

2002). In the Albemarle-Pamlico system, where elevations are low and landscape slope

is minimal, there is concern that the rate of vertical accretion of marsh peat (currently

estimated at 2.4-3.6 mm/yr - Craft et al. 1993) will not be able to keep up with sea level

rise and prevent submergence of wetlands (Moore et al. 2006; Pearsall and Poulter, in

press). While the current rate of sea level rise in the Albemarle region is 4.3 mm/yr

(Pearsall and Poulter, in press), the rate of sea level rise is expected to double or triple

over the next 50-100 years (IPCC 2002). The effect of these changes to red drum is

unknown, but will most likely influence spawning aggregation patterns, and suitability of

nursery habitats. Wetland loss will result in less filtering of stormwater runoff and less

available nursery areas. Efforts are needed to plan for and attempt to offset the impacts

of sea level rise on North Carolina’s estuarine system. Restoration strategies include

selectively plugging some ditches and installing tide gates on others to reduce impacts of

salt intrusion and peat soil erosion, and planting flood and brackish tolerant plants on

cleared lands.

9.3 Habitat and Water Quality Protection

MFC Authority

Presently, the MFC has authority for managing, restoring, developing, cultivating,

conserving, protecting, and regulating m

arine and estuarine resources. Marine and

estuarine resources are defined as “All fish [including marine mammals, shellfish, and

crustaceans], except inland game fish, found in the Atlantic Ocean and in coastal fishing

waters; all fisheries based upon such fish; all uncultivated or undomesticated plant and

animal life, other than wildlife resources, inhabiting or dependent upon coastal fishing

waters; and the entire ecology supporting such fish, fisheries, and plant and animal life.”

(G.S. 113-129)

Although the MFC’s primary responsibilities are management of fisheries

(season, size and bag lim

its, licensing, etc.), the MFC has the authority to comment on

State permit applications that may have an effect on marine and estuarine resources or

water quality, regulate the placem

ent of fishing gear, develop and improve mariculture,

and regulate location and utilization of artificial reefs. Authority for the MFC is found at

G.S. 143B-289.51 and 52.

Authority of Other Agencies

The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources have

several divisions responsible for providing technical and financial assistance, planning,

perm

itting, certification, monitoring, and regulatory activities, which impact the coastal

water quality or habitat. The DCM is responsible for development permits along the

estuarine shoreline in 20 coastal counties. Wetland development activity throughout

North Carolina is permitted through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

and DWQ (DWQ; 401-certification program). The DWQ has established a water quality

classification and standards program for “best usage” to promote protection of unique

and special pristine waters with outstanding resource values. The High Quality Waters

(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW), and

Water Supply (WS) classifications have outlined management strategies to control point

and nonpoint source pollution. The Neuse River Basin and Tar-Pamlico River Basin

were designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters by EMC in 1988 and 1989, respectively,

due to increases in algal blooms and fish kills in the upper estuary. The blooms were

linked to excessive nutrient levels. Regulations and water quality standards were

developed to reduce loading of non-point sources of nutrient runoff. These changes in

effluent and development standards are intended to reduce eutrophication of waters.

Phase II stormwater regulations will be effective beginning July 2007 in designated

areas. In coastal waters, this includes Brunswick, New Hanover, and Onslow counties, as

well as the municipalities of Wilmington, Jacksonville, and Greenville. These new

regulations will require more stringent control of stormwater runoff, identification and

correction of point source discharges of stormwater, and lower amounts of maximum

built upon area, when using the low-density development option.

Various federal and state environmental and resource agencies, including

DMF, evaluate projects proposed for perm

itting and provide comments and

recommendations to the DCM, DWQ, and COE on potential habitat and resource

impacts. Waters that have been designated as PNAs by MFC or have a special EMC

water quality classification, such as HWQ and ORW, are given additional consideration

of impacts by DCM and DWQ prior to issuing a permit. Habitat protection relies on

enforcement, the efforts of commenting agencies to evaluate impacts, and the

incorporation of recommendations into permitting decisions. Habitats are also protected

through the acquisition and management of natural areas as parks, refuges, reserves, or

protected lands by public agencies and/or private groups.

Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP)

The Fisheries Reform Act (FRA) of 1997 mandated the DENR to prepare Coastal

Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP -- G. S. 143B-279.8). The legislative goal for the CHPP is

long-term

enhancement of the coastal fisheries associated with coastal habitats. The

CHPP provides a framework for management actions to protect and restore habitats

critical to North Carolina’s coastal fishery resources and involves mandatory

participation by the three com

missions that have regulatory jurisdiction over the coastal

resources (Coastal Resource Commission), water (Environmental Management

Commission), and marine fishery resources (Marine Fisheries Commission), as well as

the Department. The CHPP was completed in December 2004 and implementation plans

for each Division and the Department were approved in July 2005. The plan is to be

reviewed every five years. Actions taken by all three commissions pertaining to the

coastal area, including rule making, are to comply, “to the maximum extent practicable”

with the plans. The CHPP helps to ensure consistent actions among these three

commissions as well as their supporting DENR agencies.

The CHPP describes and documents the use of habitats by species supporting

coastal f

isheries, status of these habitats, and the impacts of human activities and natural

events on those habitats. Fish habitat is defined as freshwater, estuarine, and marine

areas that support juvenile and adult populations of economically important fish,

shellfish, and crustacean species (commercial and recreational), as well as forage species

important in the food chain (Street et al. 2005). Habitats are categorized as wetlands,

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), soft bottom, shell bottom, ocean hard bottom, and

water column. The plan explains the environmental requirements, ecological value,

status, and threats of the six fish habitats and includes management recommendations to

protect and enhance the entire coastal ecosystem.

The CHPP recommends that some areas of fish habitat be designated as “Strategic

Habitat Areas” (SHAs). SHAs are defined as specif

ic locations of individual fish habitat

or systems of habitat that have been identified to provide critical habitat functions or that

are particularly at risk due to imminent threats, vulnerability, or rarity. While all fish

habitats are necessary for sustaining viable fish populations, some areas may be

especially important to fish viability and productivity. Protection of these areas would

therefore be a high priority (Street et al. 2005). The process of identifying and

designating SHAs began in 2005.

This fishery management plan describes habitat conditions or needs for the

various life stages of the red drum

. The FRA gives precedent to the CHPP and stipulates

that habitat and water quality considerations in the fishery management plan be

consistent with CHPP. Management actions recommended in this plan that are under

MFC authority will be acted upon directly, while those management actions under other

DENR authorities will be considered and acted upon through the CHPP implementation

process and the appropriate agencies.

Since the original red drum fishery management plan was completed in 2001,

habitat and water quality conditions appear to be the sam

e or in some cases, somewhat

better. SAV appears to be increasing in estuaries south of New River and in the lower

salinity estuaries of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico. The latter increase could be related to

nutrient reduction efforts in those river basins. However, additional loading from

increasing urbanization of the watersheds, as well as airborne deposition may offset net

reductions in nutrient loading from the Tar-Pam and Neuse Nutrient Sensitive Waters

Management Program. Wetland acreage continues to decline from permitted losses,

although mitigation efforts by EEP may be preventing a net loss. Efforts have increased

to restore more shell bottom habitat through additional funding and positions to the

oyster restoration and recycling programs, and partnerships with other non-profit

organizations. Water quality, in terms of aquatic life use support impairment, is greatest

in stream

s in the Neuse river basin and estuaries in the Cape Fear river basin. Fish kill

events have declined but can be locally problematic.

Status of 2001 red drum habitat recommendations

In reviewing the past habitat and water quality management recommendations,

any have been implemented or are underway. The following management actions are

underway or completed. Many of these are components of the CHPP implementation

plan.

• Coastwide mapping of SAV habitat has been funded and is underway, through an

APNEP interagency cooperative mapping project.

• Critical SAV areas will be designated for additional protection through the SHA

process, which is underway.

• Dredging of SAV habitat is avoided through DMF’s permit review process.

• CRC is in the process of revising dock siting rules, which will consider minimum

water depths, to avoid boating related impacts to SAV.

• Additional bottom disturbing gear restrictions have been implemented through the

bay scallop, shrimp, and oyster fishery management plans to avoid damage to SAV

and oysters.

• Research has been conducted examining red drum spawning activity in the Neuse

River estuary.

• DMF continues to comment on beach nourishment projects to minimize impacts to

spawning activities and larval transport.

• Additional funding of positions and equipment has been obtained to accelerate

completion of shell bottom mapping and restoration of this habitat.

• DMF staff continues to comment on projects to prevent dredging through oyster reefs

and prevent habitat degradation.

• The CRC is in the process of revising shoreline stabilization rules to discourage and

reduce the use of bulkheads. However, there have been no efforts to require removal

of bulkheads, as was recommended in the 2001 fishery management plan.

• EEP is in the process of evaluating mitigation requirements for wetland, oyster, and

SAV impacts, and improving the mitigation process.

• Neuse and Tar-Pamlico NSW nutrient reduction measures have successfully reduced

nutrient loading by more than their 30% reduction goals.

• Phase II regulations will also help reduce nutrient, sediment, and toxin inputs from

stormwater runoff. EMC is currently developing coastal stormwater rules to provide

stormwater protection to all coastal counties. However, additional efforts will

continue to be needed as population increases.

Several of the approved CHPP recommendations will benefit habitat utilized by

red drum

. Implementation plans have been developed by the responsible agencies to

address the recommendations. CHPP recommendations or actions that will benefit red

drum and should continue to be implemented include:

• Identify and designate Strategic Habitat Areas (SHAs) using ecologically based

criteria, analyze existing rules and enact measures needed to protect SHAs, and

improve programs for conservation and acquisition of areas supporting SHAs.

• Complete and continue mapping of SAV to assess distribution and change over

time.

• Conduct cooperative DMF/NOAA research to assess environmental conditions

needed to support SAV, and model potential SAV habitat.

• Work with CRC and EMC to enhance enforcement and compliance with CRC,

EMC, and MFC rules and permit conditions, particularly regarding dredging,

dock construction, and wetland filling).

• Work with CRC to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal marina and

dock management plan and adequate dock siting criteria for the protection of

SAV, shell bottom, and shellfish harvesting.

• Work with CRC and EMC to implement measures to adequately reduce nutrient

and sediment loading by:

- Reducing point source pollution from wastewater by increasing inspections

facilities and infrastructure and providing incentives for upgrading all types

of wastewater treatment systems.

-Improving land-based strategies throughout riverbasins to reduce non-point

pollution and m

inimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through

voluntary actions and rule making.

• Complete shell bottom mapping throughout the coast.

• Continue to restore oyster reef no-take sanctuaries.

• Work with CRC to revise shoreline stabilization rules to adequately protect

riparian wetlands and shallow water habitat and significantly reduce the rate of

shoreline hardening.

• Initiate DO and other continuous water quality monitoring in the Pamlico Sound

system to track water quality changes over time and effect on fishery species.

• Work with EMC to develop and implement a mandatory coastal stormwater

management program that is equally or more protective than the Phase II

stormwater program.

• Assess the distribution and concentration of heavy metals and other toxins in

estuarine waters and sediments, assess benthic condition, and identify the areas of

greatest concern.

Red drum habitat research needs

• Determine juvenile habitat preference and examine if recruitment is habitat

limited.

• Examine ecological use and importance of shell bottom to red drum.

• Identify coastal wetlands and other habitats utilized by juvenile red drum and

assess relationship between changes in recruitment success and changes in habitat

conditions.

• Assess cumulative impact of large-scale beach nourishment and inlet dredging on

red drum and other demersal fish that use the surf zone.

• Determine location and significance of spawning aggregation sites throughout the

coast.

• Determine if navigational dredging between August and October significantly

impacts spawning activity.

• Determine if designation of spawning areas by MFC is needed, and if specific

protective measures should be developed.

9.4 Recommended Management Actions

Suitable and adequate habitat is a critical element in the ecology and productivity

of estuarine system

s. Degradation or improvement in one aspect of habitat may have a

corresponding impact on water quality. Maintenance and improvement of suitable

estuarine habitat and water quality is critical to successfully managing red drum stocks.

9.4.1 Environmental Factors

Habitat and water quality protection, conservation, and restoration are essential to

accom

plish the goal and objectives of this plan. The MFC, CRC, and EMC should adopt

rules to protect critical habitats for red drum as outlined in the Coastal Habitat Protection

Plans (CHPP), The N.C. General Assembly and/or divisions of the DENR should develop

a strategy to fully support CHPP implementation with additional staff and funding. The

involvement of federal agencies and increased funding (state and federal) may be

necessary to accomplish these actions. The MFC and DMF should continue to comment

on activities that may impact aquatic habitats and work with permitting agencies to

minimize impacts and promote restoration and research.

Research is needed before any new management actions can be taken. The

recom

mended research items in this FMP should be conducted and the results used to

better manage red drum. To accomplish the research needs listed in the Environmental

Factors section, CRFL funds or other funding sources should be sought. If possibly,

additional sampling by the Division throughout the coast should be conducted, targeting

summer spawning estuarine juvenile fish at the appropriate time of year and in

appropriate locations. This information would aid in determining habitat preferences, and

the relationship between red drum, coastal fish habitats, and activities that alter those

habitats.

10. PRINCIPAL ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

10.1 Identification of Issues

Major issues and management options developed during the FMP process are

summarized in this section. Management issues in the North Carolina red drum fishery

have been solicited from the public, Red Drum Advisory Committee, Marine Fisheries

Commission, Finfish and Regional Advisory committees, DMF, DENR, and the scientific

community.

10.1.1 Issues Addressed in this Plan

1. Adult Harvest Limits

2. Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum

3. Recreational Bag and Size Limits

4. Commercial Harvest Limits

5. Bycatch in the Estuarine Gill Net Fishery

10.2 Issues and Management Strategies

10.2.1 Adult Harvest Limits

Issue

The potential modification of the rule prohibiting the harvest and possession of

red drum greater than 27 in total length.

Background

Regulations on the harvest of juvenile and adult red drum have changed

significantly over the past 31 years. Restrictions on the harvest of adult red drum were

first put into place in 1976 with the allowance of two fish greater than 32 in total length

(TL). In 1990, a five fish bag limit was put into place on juvenile red drum with an

allowance of one adult fish 32 in TL or greater. In 1992 the maximum size limit was

reduced to 27 in TL with no sale of fish greater than 27 in TL. The harvest of one large,

adult red drum was allowed until October 1998. As an interim measure to the North

Carolina Red Drum FMP, required in the guidelines for FMP development, the MFC

prohibited the harvest and possession of red drum greater than 27 in TL in October 1998

(NCAC 15A 3M .0501 (c)). Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Red Drum FMP requires states

from New Jersey to Florida to achieve and maintain the necessary size and creel limit

combinations to attain a spawning potential ratio (SPR) of 40% and it required all states

to maintain or implement more restrictive commercial fishery regulations (ASMFC

2002).

Discussion

The rule prohibiting the possession and harvest of red drum greater than 27 in TL

was implemented to reduce mortality on the spawning stock because overfishing was

occurring (NCDMF 2001). The average SPR from 1986 to 1991 was estimated at only

1.3% (Vaughan and Carmichael 2000). The estimated SPR of the North Carolina red

drum stock increased to 18% from 1992 to 1997 but was still below the overfishing

threshold of 30% (Vaughan and Carmichael 2000). Results from the latest stock

assessment indicate that the average SPR for the northern stock of red drum (North

Carolina and Virginia) is above the 30% threshold but below the 40% target from 1999 to

2005 (Takade and Paramore 2007). The SPR estimates from the latest stock assessment

correspond with increased escapement rates into the adult population during this time.

An indication of increased escapement into the adult population is evident from

length frequency data from

the NCDMF Red Drum Volunteer Tagging Program. The

percentage of red drum tagged by volunteer tagger Norman Miller between 28 and 36 in

TL (young adult red drum) was examined over three time periods (1984-92, 1992-99,

2000-06) from Ocracoke Inlet to see how the proportion of this size class has changed

over time (Figure 16). The time periods were lagged one year because fish within the

slot lim

it on the last year of the management period would be the first cohort to recruit to

the adult tagging program in the new management period, but they would have been

subject to fishing mortality at ages 1 and 2 in the old management period. Norman tagged

virtually every adult red drum he and his customers caught, which minimized bias and

provided the most comprehensive length frequency data for the time series. The

proportion of red drum in the 28-36 in TL size class increased from 17.8% to 18.1% in

the early and middle periods, respectively, to 34.4% in the late period. A further

indication of increased escapement into the adult population can be found in the

commercial estuarine gill net length frequency data (Figure 17). The length frequency

distributions were exam

ined over three time periods (1986-91, 1992-98, 1999-04), which

covered different size and trip limit regulations (see Section 6, Status of the Commercial

Fisheries). The length frequency distribution during the early period was mostly

comprised of fish in the lower end of the slot limit (14 in TL, 1986-1990, 18 in TL 1991),

with very few fish in the upper end of the slot limit. The middle period had more fish in

the upper end of the slot limit, but the modal size (19 in TL) was at the lower end of the

slot limit. The length frequency was distributed throughout the slot limit in the late

period with the modal size (22-24 in TL) in the middle of the slot limit. The increased

escapement into the adult population and size limit regulations have resulted in red drum

throughout the slot limit available to the commercial and recreational fisheries and an

increase in the size class comprising young adult fish.

100

CumulativePercent

Frequency

28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54

Size Class (TL, in)

EARLY

MID

LATE

Figure 16. Cumulative percent frequency at size for adult red drum tagged in

Ocracoke Inlet from the NCDMF Red Drum Volunteer Tagging

Program during the early (1986-1991), mid (1992-1997) and late

(1999-2005) management periods.

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent Frequency

Size Class (TL, in)

1986-91

1992-98

1999-04

Figure 17. Length frequency distributions of red drum from the commercial estuarine

gill net fishery during the early (1986-91), middle (1992-98) and late (1999-

04) management periods.

The prohibition on harvesting red drum greater than 27 in TL prevents anglers

from

applying for a potential International Game Fish Association (IGFA) all tackle

world record. Allowing a trophy fishery where an angler can keep one red drum over 55

in TL during the year if the angler obtains a

“trophy tag” is a possible solution. The State

of Florida has a tarpon tag for anglers who possess or harvest a tarpon

(http://www.myfwc.com

). A trophy tag would be available to all anglers who purchase a

coastal recreational fishing license (CRFL) at no additional cost. The NCDMF is unable

to charge a fee for a trophy tag or permit. The number of adult red drum harvested in a

year could be limited by restricting each license holder to one trophy tag per year.

Length frequency data from the NCDMF Volunteer Tagging Program indicate that not

many adult red drum caught by anglers exceed 55 in TL, so the number of adult red drum

harvested under this management option would likely be low (Figure 18). The trophy tag

would give the NCDMF inform

ation on the number of adult fish harvested but would

provide very limited biological data on the adult population. If red drum over 55 in TL

was only comprised of old adults and senescence commonly occurred in older red drum,

then the impact on the spawning stock could be minimal. An age, growth and maturity

study by Ross and Stevens (1992) only found two fish (ages 49 and 51) that were

senescent but also sampled an age 51 fish that recently spawned. Age and growth data

for adult red drum show that red drum 55 in TL and greater were age 40 and older

(Figure 19). However, the sample size was very low (n=2), which precludes making any

conclusions about the age structure of red drum

55 in TL and greater. Although the

average age generally increases with the length of the fish, the range of ages for any

given adult size class is very large, making length a poor indicator of age. Further

complicating a trophy tag system is Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Red Drum FMP, which

requires states from New Jersey to Florida to achieve and maintain the necessary size and

creel limit combinations to attain an SPR of 40% and it required all states to maintain or

implement more restrictive commercial fishery regulations (ASMFC 2002). These states

currently prohibit the harvest and possession of adult red drum (ASMFC 2006).

Therefore, any state that allows the adult harvest of red drum would be found out of

compliance with the ASMFC FMP.

A similar option is to make special permits available to anglers who wish to

harvest adult red drum

greater than 27 in TL. Like the trophy tag option, these permits

would be available to all anglers at no cost. This would likely result in more adult red

drum harvested per year than the trophy tag management option because of the broader

size range of adult fish that could be harvested. The entire age range of adult red drum

could be harvested, which would increase the impact on the spawning stock. More age

and growth data could be collected by the NCDMF under this management option, but a

very large number of adult red drum would be needed on an annual basis for an age and

growth study of the adult population because the maximum age of red drum is greater

than age 60 and because of the overlapping sizes at age. The number of adults that must

be harvested in order to get reliable age and growth information for the entire adult

population is contrary to the current management strategies for red drum and could

compromise the sustainability of the spawning stock. And this option would also be out

of compliance with Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Red Drum FMP.

100

Size Class (TL, in)

Cumlative Percent Frequency

Figure 18. Length frequency distribution of adult red drum from the NCDMF Volunteer

Tagging Program, 1984-2006.

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 55 56

Size Class (TL, in)

Age

Average Age Minimum Age Maximium Age

Figure 19. Average, minimum and maximum ages for adult red drum per one inch size

class, 37-56 in TL.

Another option would be to allow the harvest of adult red drum while

aintaining the SPR above the 30% threshold. This would provide some benefits to the

commercial and recreational fisheries in the form of some adult red drum could be

harvested and the angling all tackle world record could be broken. There is also the

potential for the NCDMF to collect age and growth data on the adult fish. Unlike the

trophy tag and special permit options, the number of adult red drum harvested per year

would be difficult to obtain, and the NCDMF would not have a reliable way to monitor

the number of adult red drum harvested. And this option would also be out of

compliance with Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Red Drum FMP.

Waiting until the SPR target of 40% is reached before allowing the harvest of

adult red drum

would be more risk averse and could avoid compliance issues with the

ASMFC FMP. The next coastwide stock assessment for red drum is scheduled for 2009,

so no new SPR information will likely be available before then. It is also uncertain

whether the next amendment to the ASMFC FMP will allow the harvest of adult red

drum if the SPR target is reached. Vaughan and Carmichael (2000) indicated that it

would likely take 15-20 years for the spawning stock of red drum to rebuild based on the

age at maturity and longevity of the species. North Carolina would be found out of

compliance if adult harvest is allowed and the next amendment to the ASMFC Red Drum

FMP does not allow adult harvest.

The Red Drum Plan Development Team (PDT) discussed the issue of the

“tradeoff” between the harvest of adult red drum

and the subsequent reduction in juvenile

red drum harvest in order to avoid overfishing. The creel and size limit analysis used to

calculate the required harvest reductions in 1998 were examined to determine if it is

possible to calculate a tradeoff between juvenile and adult fish. This is an appropriate

method to use for calculating harvest reductions but does not work well for calculating

harvest increases because the length frequency of the released fish is unknown. Using

the length frequency distribution when adult harvest was permitted (1992-98) is

problematic because the length frequency distribution has significantly changed since

then. And any reduction in juvenile harvest to offset adult harvest would result in

increased release and discard mortality of juvenile red drum.

The lack of data for the adult population continues to prevent assessing the red

drum

spawning stock. Management measures that allow the harvest of adult red drum

could provide NCDMF with data on this portion of the population, but the data would

likely be inadequate to assess the adult population. This summer the NCDMF will begin

a fisheries independent longline study in Pamlico Sound and near shore ocean waters to

develop an abundance index for adult red drum. The study will sample adult red drum to

develop information on catch per unit effort (CPUE) and length frequencies, to collect

migratory and stock identification information on adult red drum, and to evaluate the age

composition and reproductive status of red drum less than 90 cm TL (35.4 in TL).

Available age and growth data indicates that red drum less than 90 cm TL are primarily

ages 10 and less. Examination of this portion of the population can provide an indication

of whether adequate escapement is occurring in the sample area. This study will provide

North Carolina with the resources necessary to develop a fishery independent index of

abundance for adult red drum occurring in state waters that will be used in future stock

assessment work.

Current Authority

North Carolina Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (15A NCAC)

03M.0501 Red Drum (Director’s proclamation authority for red drum)

Management Options/Impacts

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

1) Status quo (prohibit all possession and sale of red drum >27 in TL)

+ Protects adult spawning stock

+ Increase likelihood of good year classes (recruitment)

+ Increase stock diversity

+ Increase likelihood of reaching management targets

+ No changes for juvenile harvest regulations required

- Continued potential economic impact on recreational and commercial

fisheries

- Impact on historical use as food fish

- Limits availability of data for assessment of stock diversity

2) Trophy fishery (1 fish 55 in TL or greater) through the use of a trophy tag

+ Controlled harvest of adults with mandatory reporting

+ Potential positive impact on recreational fishery

+ Allows retention of potential state or world record red drum

+ Collect harvest data on recreational fishery

+ Provide some use as food

+ Relatively small number of adult red drum likely harvested

- Selectively harvest larger, more productive fish

- Added cost to purchase a trophy tag

- Increased administrative burden on the NCDMF

- Provide limited biological data to NCDMF

- Limits protection of adult stock

- Delays stock recovery

- Reduction in juvenile harvest to offset adult harvest

- Increased enforcement required

- Out of compliance with ASMFC Red Drum FMP

3) Special Permit to retain 1 fish > 27 in TL

+ Controlled harvest of adults with mandatory reporting

+ Potential positive impact on recreational fishery

+ Collect harvest data on recreational fishery

+ Provide some use as food fish

- Limits protection of adult stock

- Increased administrative burden on the NCDMF

- Provide limited biological data to NCDMF

- Delays stock recovery

- Reduction in juvenile harvest to offset adult harvest

- Increased enforcement required

- Out of compliance with ASMFC Red Drum FMP

4) Harvest of adults (>27 in TL) while maintaining a 30% SPR threshold

+ Adult harvest at threshold levels

+ Potential positive impact on recreational and commercial fisheries

+ Increases likelihood of a sustained fishery

+ Potential for some use as food fish

+ No permit required, no administrative burden on the NCDMF

- Provide limited harvest and biological data to NCDMF

- Limits protection of adult stock

- Delays stock recovery

- Allows harvest of adults before SPR target is met

- Reduction in juvenile harvest to offset adult harvest

- Out of compliance with ASMFC Red Drum FMP

5) No harvest of adults (>27 in TL) while maintaining a 40% SPR target

+ Adult harvest at target levels

+ Potential positive impact on recreational and commercial fisheries

+ Increases likelihood of a sustained fishery

+ Potential for some use as food fish

+ No permit required, no administrative burden on the NCDMF

- Provide limited harvest and biological data to NCDMF

- Limits protection of adult stock

- Requires reduction in mortality on juvenile fish to increase escapement/SPR

rates

- Reduction in juvenile harvest to offset adult harvest

- Out of compliance with ASMFC Red Drum FMP unless FMP is amended to

allow

adult harvest

Management Recommendations

DMF and RDAC - Status quo (no harvest over 27 inches TL)

MFC Selected Management Option

Endorses DMF and RDAC

Research Recommendations

• Design an appropriate state fishery-independent survey of adult red drum to be

implemented (NCDMF Red Drum Longline study, begun summer 2007).

• Improved catch and effort data for the adult red drum fishery, particularly the fishery

that occurs at night.

• Improved length frequency data for adult red drum in the commercial and

recreational fisheries.

• Continue tagging efforts of adult red drum through the NCDMF Volunteer Tagging

Program.

• Age, growth and maturity data for the adult red drum.

10.2.2 Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum

Issue

The directed recreational catch and release fishery for adult red drum and the

concerns and potential risks of this fishery.

Background

Recreational fishing for adult red drum continues to grow in popularity despite

the prohibition of possessing or harvesting red drum greater than 27 inches total length

(TL) (NCAC 15A 3M .0501 (c)). Catch and effort data for the adult red drum fishery are

lacking, but the number of release citations awarded for red drum 40 inches TL and

greater has greatly increased since the late 1990s. However, it is difficult to ascertain

how much of this trend is due to increases in availability of large fish, increases in fishing

effort or to increased popularity of the citation program.

Most of the adult red drum caught by anglers in North Carolina occurs from the

spring through the fall (Burdick et al. 2007). The m

ost common angling practice is to use

cut bait fished on the bottom, and fishing takes place during the day and at night.

Anglers generally catch adult red drum in the surf and inlets of the Outer Banks in the

spring and fall and in the western Pamlico Sound estuary in the summer (Ross et al.

1995, Beckwith and Rand 2004a, Beckwith and Rand 2004b). Red drum spawn in the

late summer and fall around the inlets and western Pamlico Sound (Ross et al. 1995,

Luczkovich et al. 1999, Barrios Beckwith et al. 2006). Anglers often catch red drum in

spawning condition in the western Pam

lico Sound estuary (Beckwith and Rand 2004a).

A number of guide services participate in this fishery and there are tournaments targeting

adult red drum. In addition, a number of guides and anglers participate in a volunteer

tagging program of adult red drum for the NCDMF.

There have been concerns raised regarding the targeting of adult red drum by

recreational anglers. Som

e members of the public believe that adult red drum should not

be targeted because of the prohibition on possessing or harvesting adult red drum. The

harvest of adult red drum is prohibited because the juveniles are harvested and the

spawning stock is the component of the population that requires the most protection in

order to achieve and maintain sustainable harvest. The improper handling of the fish

before they are released and the deep hooking of adult red drum can lead to release

mortality. The results from the latest stock assessment indicate the spawning potential

ratio (SPR) is above the threshold of 30% and near the target of 40% (Takade and

Paramore 2007). Under the current management strategy, SPR must be maintained at a

minimum of 40% to meet the target of both the state and ASMFC red drum FMP’s.

The 2001 North Carolina Red Drum FMP addressed the issue of recreational gear

restrictions—specifically, the use of circle hooks and the attendance of fishing rods while

fishing for red drum

to reduce the chance of deep hooking (NCDMF 2001). The

management action for this issue was to develop educational information on conservative

angling practices for red drum. This paper will revisit the issue based on research

conducted since the 2001 FMP.

Discussion

Researchers have conducted studies to estimate the release mortality of adult red

drum

, the factors leading to mortality and the differences in deep hooking events between

circle hooks and J-style hooks (Aguilar 2003, Beckwith and Rand 2004a, Beckwith and

Rand 2004b). Studies by Aguilar (2003) and Beckwith and Rand (2004a) had overall

mortality rates ranging from 3.8% to 6.7% for adult red drum that were held for up to

three days after being caught using either circle hooks or J-style hooks. All mortalities

showed evidence of internal bleeding from being deep hooked (Aguilar 2003, Beckwith

and Rand 2004a). Beckwith and Rand (2004b) found that circle hooks had a much lower

incidence of deep hooking than J-style hooks. The researchers found that a large or

intermediate sized circle hook (8/0-16/0) combined with a short leader and a fixed weight

resulted in the lowest incidence of deep hooking (4%) in the study. The investigators

also recommended using fishing tackle that shortens the time it takes to land the fish and

to minimize handling while unhooking and releasing red drum (Beckwith and Rand

2004a).

No research has been conducted on the effects of catch and release fishing on the

reproductive biology of red drum

, but it has been studied for snook in Florida (Lowerre-

Barbieri et al. 2003). A catch and release fishery exists for spawning aggregations of

snook during the summer months (June through August) at inlets and passes of the Gulf

and Atlantic coasts of the State. Histological examination of ovaries of recaptured snook

showed that the stress of being caught and released by anglers did not cause females to

interrupt or term

inate spawning (Lowerre-Barbieri et al. 2003). The snook were caught

during the warm summer months, and fishing for adult red drum on the spawning

grounds occurs during a similar time of year (late summer and early fall) in North

Carolina. However, the results from this research cannot be assumed to be the case for

red drum and are included as a comparison to a similar fishery under similar conditions.

Educational information provided by the NCDMF and North Carolina Sea Grant,

educational sem

inars to recreational fishing clubs, video productions, magazine articles

and hook and line mortality studies have been successful in getting anglers to adopt

conservative angling practices for adult red drum (Barrios Beckwith et al. 2006). The

NCDMF and North Carolina Sea Grant conducted a survey of anglers who target adult

red drum to characterize this fishery (unpublished data, NCDMF). Overall (Atlantic

Ocean and Pamlico Sound), 56% of the respondents always use circle hooks and another

27% occasionally use circle hooks for adult red drum. The results were similar for

anglers in Pamlico Sound, with 52% of the respondents using circle hooks and 16% using

circle and J-style hooks for adult red drum. Many other State fisheries agencies also

provide educational information on the proper release of fish and on hooks and other gear

to reduce release mortality of fish. Much information on conservative angling practices

is available to anglers, and survey results show that anglers targeting adult red drum

utilize many of these practices. However, anglers are not required to use circle hooks or

other types of gear that improve the chance of survival for released red drum.

Large circle hooks, short leaders and fixed sinkers are proven to minimize the

chance of deep hooking red drum

in the western Pamlico Sound estuary (Beckwith and

Rand 2004b). This fishery is usually prosecuted by setting fishing rods in rod holders,

which results in slack line. The fixed sinker attached close to the hook prevents the fish

from ingesting the hook past the pharyngeal teeth (Beckwith and Rand 2004b). Anglers

targeting adult red drum in the surf on the Outer Banks use either circle hooks or J-style

hooks with sliding sinkers. Both long and short leader lengths are used with short leaders

gaining popularity due to the ability to cast the rig a greater distance. Although no

studies of deep hooking red drum in the surf exist, anecdotal evidence indicates a low

incidence of deep hooking due to anglers tending their fishing rods and the fishing line

remaining tight so the anglers can feel the red drum eat the bait.

Fishing gear regulations such as requiring the use of circle hooks and other gear

types to f

ish for adult red drum would decrease the release mortality. Fishing gear

regulations are used for other recreational fisheries. The State of Florida limits the

number of fishing rods that can be used and prohibits certain gear types for tarpon fishing

in Boca Grande Pass on the west coast of Florida from April to June

(

http://www.MyFWC.com

). And the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

(NCWRC) requires all anglers on the Roanoke River to use single barbless hooks from

April 1 to June 30 to reduce the release mortality of striped bass on the spawning grounds

(http://www.ncwildlife.org

). However, gear restrictions would be difficult to enforce in

the adult red drum fishery. Much of the fishing effort occurs at night and many anglers

fish from boats. Fishing for adult red drum in North Carolina covers an extensive area

whereas the tarpon fishery at Boca Grande Pass and the striped bass fishery on the

Roanoke River take place in relatively discrete locations. Anglers also fish for other

species at the same time and locations where adult red drum fishing takes place. In

addition, some anglers will fish for other species while they are fishing for adult red

drum

. Therefore, enforcement officers could have difficulty determining whether certain

anglers are targeting adult red drum. And requiring all anglers to use certain gear types

regardless of whether they are fishing for adult red drum could significantly limit, if not

eliminate, fishing for other species.

The survey conducted by the NCDMF and North Carolina Sea Grant showed

anglers targeting adult red drum

in Pamlico Sound used J-style hooks no smaller than

size 5/0 and circle hooks no smaller than size 7/0 (unpublished data, NCDMF). Anglers

targeting fish such as southern flounder, spotted sea trout, juvenile red drum and bluefish

use hooks much smaller than the hooks used to target adult red drum. Implementing a

maximum hook size for J-style hooks that is much smaller than what is used in the adult

red drum fishery would allow for the targeting of other species, and would require

anglers who target adult red drum in Pamlico Sound to use circle hooks. Adult red drum

are incidentally caught on small J-style hooks, but anglers targeting adult red drum are

not likely to use small J-style hooks because these hooks do not hold up to the pressure of

landing large fish. However, a maximum hook size regulation would be difficult to

enforce due to the variations in hook styles and inconsistent hook measurements among

hook manufacturers. And any fishing gear regulations for adult red drum fishing in

Pamlico Sound would likely cover a very large area due to their widespread distribution.

This regulation would require tarpon anglers in Pamlico Sound fishing with

natural bait to use circle hooks. Circle hooks are com

monly used in the Florida

recreational tarpon fisheries, but they are not widely used in the Pamlico Sound tarpon

fishery (Captain George Beckwith, Downeast Guide Service, Personal Communication).

However, this regulation implemented to reduce the release mortality of adult red drum

could also reduce the release mortality of tarpon, as well.

Closing water bodies or areas where and when adult red drum are known to

congregate would increase the protection of these fish. For adult red drum

, this could

include ocean inlets, the surf along the Outer Banks and the western Pamlico Sound

estuary. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prohibits fishing and possession

of striped bass in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Atlantic Ocean to limit the

harvest and fishing effort. Similarly, Maryland prohibits the fishing for striped bass on

the spawning grounds in the Chesapeake Bay tributaries from March 1 through May 31

(

http://www.dnr.state.md.us

). However, every Atlantic coast state from Maryland to

Florida has a recreational catch and release fishery for adult red drum without any closed

areas. Closed areas would require much enforcement and would involve the same

enforcement difficulties as requiring specific gear types. The closed areas could be large

and cover multiple water bodies. Adult red drum are found in many different locations

along the coast throughout the year (Burdick et al. 2007), and it may not be possible to

designate each one as a seasonal closed area or water body. Closed areas could be

limited only to known red drum spawning locations. Barrios Beckwith et al. (2006)

found that spawning activity was related to day of the year, year, depth and salinity in the

lower Neuse River. Factors such as salinity and dissolved oxygen can vary annually and

daily, which results in different distributions of red drum spawning aggregations. And

spawning locations in the rest of the State that are not as well documented would remain

open to fishing.

A number of guide services in North Carolina specialize in fishing for adult red

drum

; closed seasonal areas or water bodies would have a negative impact on their

businesses. These closed seasonal areas or water bodies would also impact some fishing

tournaments that take place in these locations. In addition, this would have a significant

impact for anglers participating in the NCDMF Red Drum Volunteer Tagging Program.

Closing water bodies or areas to adult red drum fishing would severely decrease the

number of red drum tagged and minimize the use of this data source by the NCDMF.

The incidental catch of adult red drum would still occur in these areas by anglers

targeting other species. Anglers fishing for tarpon in western Pamlico Sound employ

similar bait and tackle as anglers targeting adult red drum. The same situation occurs for

anglers fishing for striped bass, cobia and bluefish along the surf and inlets of the Outer

Banks. Fishing for a variety of others species also takes place in these areas and the gear

employed and the specific locations fished by these anglers rarely results in the incidental

catch of adult red drum. Closing areas or water bodies to all recreational fishing would

further prevent the incidental catch of adult red drum but would negatively impact

anglers who do not target and who are unlikely to catch adult red drum.

Current Authority

North Carolina Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (15A NCAC)

03M.0501 Red Drum (Director’s proclamation authority for red drum)

Management Options/Impacts

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

1) Status quo (continued educational information on conservative angling practices for

red drum

+ Anglers informed about best practices to minimize release mortality of

adult red drum

+ Could improve stock recover due to reduced release mortality through

anglers adopting conservative angling practices

+ Coastal Recreational Fishing License (CRFL) identifies a known user

group to provide information

+ No negative impact on the NCDMF adult red drum volunteer tagging

program

+ No additional enforcement responsibilities

+ No additional regulations or rule changes

- The use of hooks and gear that increase release mortality still allowed

- No reduction in effort

- Fishing still occurring on spawning grounds

2) Require the use of circle hooks and other gear types to reduce release mortality of

adult red drum

+ Reduce release mortality of adult red drum

+ Provides additional protection to spawning stock

+ Could improve stock recovery due to reduced release mortality

- Difficult to enforce

- Regulations could apply to much of the State’s coastal waters

- Additional rules and regulations required

- Could affect fishing for other species

3) Implement a maximum hook size for J-style hooks that is much smaller than what is

used in the adult red drum

fishery in Pamlico Sound

+ Require the use of circle hooks in the adult red drum fishery, which would

reduce the release m

ortality

+ Provides additional protection to spawning stock

+ Could improve stock recovery due to reduced release mortality

+ Would allow fishing for other species to take place

+/- Would require the use of circle hooks in the tarpon fishery

- Difficult to enforce

- Additional rules and regulations required

- Regulated area could be very large

4) Seasonal closures of water bodies or areas to adult red drum fishing where adult red

drum

are known to congregate.

+ Provides additional protection to spawning stock

+ Could improve stock recovery due to reduced release mortality

+/- Incidental catch of adult red drum could still occur

- Additional enforcement required

- Difficult to enforce

- Additional rules and regulations required

- Affects the NCDMF Red Drum Volunteer Tagging Program

- Economic impact to guide services and tournaments that target adult red

drum

- Prohibits a popular recreational fishery

5) Seasonal closures of water bodies or areas to all recreational fishing where adult red

drum

are known to congregate.

+ Provides additional protection to spawning stock

+ Could improve stock recovery due to reduced release mortality

- Additional enforcement required

- Additional rules and regulations required

- Difficult to enforce

- Eliminates all recreational fishing in these areas or water bodies

- Affects the NCDMF Red Drum Volunteer Tagging Program

- Economic impact to guide services, tournaments and local communities in

these areas or water bodies

- Prohibits a popular recreational fishery

Management Recommendation

DMF and RDAC – During July through September, unlawful to use J-

hooks larger than 4/0 while fishing natural bait in Pamlico Sound and its

tributaries, excluding the Albemarle Sound Management Area (ASMA)

and the are from Core Sound south to the NC/SC state line.

Recommendation would also include status quo (continued educational

information on conservative angling practices for red drum)

MFC Selected Management Option:

It is unlawful to use any hook larger than 4/0 from July 1 through

September 30 in the internal coastal fishing waters of Pamlico Sound

and its tributaries south of the Albemarle Sound Management Area

and north of Core Sound while using natural bait from 7:00 p.m. to

7:00 a.m. unless the terminal tackle consists of:

(1) A circle hook defined as a hook with the point of the hook directed

perpendicularly back toward the shank, and with the barb either

compressed or removed.

(2) A fixed sinker not less than two ounces in weight, secured not

more than six inches from the fixed weight to the circle hook. (also

continued education on fishing methods that minimize risk to fish)

Research Recommendations

•

Improved catch and effort data for the adult red drum fishery, particularly the fishery

that occurs at night.

• Identify the spawning areas for adult red drum in North Carolina.

• Economic analysis of the adult red drum fishery.

• Conduct further studies/surveys on hooks and tackle currently used in adult red drum

fishery.

• Incorporate information on conservative angling practices for red drum into the

upcoming Angler’s Guide and make the information available on the NCDMF

website.

10.2.3 Recreational Bag and Size Limits

Issue

The recreational bag limit for red drum is currently 1 fish per person per day from

18 to 27 inches TL. The North Carolina fishery management plan for red drum may

consider options to modify the current bag limit and other recreational management

measures.

Background

The recreational fishery for red drum in North Carolina occurs year round with

peaks in the spring and fall. Similar to the commercial fishery, the recreational red drum

fishery varies annually and is dependent on year class strength. Available data from the

MRFSS from 1989 to 2006 indicate that:

1. Recreational landings of red drum have averaged 227,461 pounds.

2. Landings of red drum vary annually. Recreational landings increased

from

39,077 pounds in 1997 to 591,428 pounds in 1998 (Table 20).

When reductions in harvest were needed to reduce fishing mortality, major

consideration was given to making reductions equitable for both the commercial and

recreational sectors. Estimated reductions, based on the one fish recreational bag limit

and the seven fish commercial trip limit, were intended to reduce annual harvest in each

fishery by approximately 40%. Because landings vary annually dependent upon the year

class strength of fish available in the slot limit it is difficult to ascertain if the reductions

were successful over a short period of time. Comparing across each management period

should reduce annual variability allowing for some comparison. The prior management

period (1992 to 1998) was compared to the current management period (1999 to 2006).

However, the 1999 and 2000 harvest years were excluded from the analysis because

during this time a 100-pound trip limit was in place for the commercial fishery as

opposed to the current 7 fish bycatch allowance. For both periods, the recreational

fishery landed approximately 60% of the overall catch (Table 21). In addition, compared

to the prior period, average annual landings in current m

anagement period were reduced

by 35% for the recreational fishery and by 36% for the commercial fishery. Based on

this information, the current management was successful at both maintaining equitability

among the sectors and at reducing harvest.

Table 20. North Carolina red drum catches for recreational anglers (MRFSS), for

1989 – 2005 with PSE. All weights are in pounds. Com

mercial weights

are included as a reference, and combined weights are reported.

A + B1* B2*

+ B1 Commercial Total

Year # Landed PSE # Released PSE

Weight (lb)

PSE Weight (lb) Weight (lb)

1989 62,359 16 7,566 34 214,849 20 274,356 489,205

1990 33,149 28 12,452 38 302,994 64 183,216 486,210

1991 38,658 15 121,178 14 108,268 16 96,045 204,313

1992 23,593 19 60,230 18 109,134 20 128,497 237,631

1993 49,493 12 182,301 20 266,459 14 238,099 504,558

1994 28,953 16 107,662 14 192,060 21 142,119 334,179

1995 88,593 12 164,520 11 405,620 13 248,122 653,742

1996 36,746 15 35,752 18 204,556 16 113,338 317,894

1997 8,749 26 259,570 11 39,077 28 52,502 91,579

1998 114,638 12 199,701 11 591,428 13 294,366 885,794

1999 64,739 15 247,146 10 326,303 15 372,942 699,245

2000 61,618 13 203,967 14 316,029 13 270,953 586,982

2001 23,142 16 238,552 14 132,578 17 149,616 282,194

2002 42,541 15 640,857 11 182,226 17 81,364 263,590

2003 25,481 17 75,561 15 118,808 18 90,525 209,333

2004 30,165 19 191,593 10 114,434 19 54,086 168,520

2005 53,154 21 327,859 15 242,019 21 128,770 370,789

2006 52,383 14 463565 10 219362 15 168,489 387,851

Numbers

Recreational

Definitions of recreational catch type:

*A = fish brought ashore in whole form which can be identified, enumerated, weighed, and measured

by interviewers.

*B = fish not brought ashore that can be separated into: B1 = fish caught used as bait, filleted, or

discarded & B2 = those released alive.

Table 21. Average annual landings of red drum by fishing sector

and m

anagement period.

Average Annual Landings (percent of combined)

Period Recreational Commercial Combined

1992 to 1998 258,333 (59.8%) 173,863 (40.2%) 432,197

2001 to 2006 168,238 (60.0%) 112,142 (40.0%) 280,380

Discussion

The reduction in the recreational bag limit from 5 to 1 was intended to reduce the

recreational harvest while still allowing recreational anglers to possess a fish for personal

consumption. The reduction in overall harvest is intended to allow for the continued use

of the resource by the public, while diverting the overfishing that had been occurring in

the previous management period.

The most recent stock assessment for red drum in North Carolina indicates a

arked improvement in the escapement of juveniles to the adult stocks and is reflective

of the current recreational and commercial harvest controls. With a target Spawning

Potential Ratio (SPR) of 40%, and a sustainable harvest SPR threshold definition of 30%

escapem

ent, the current level of SPR is above the overfishing threshold and appears to be

near the target, although these estimates may be considered optimistic given the lack of

information on commercial discards.

Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Red Drum Fishery Management Plan does not

andate specific bag and size limits. The Amendment specifies that all states must

implement an appropriate bag and size limit which will attain the management goal of

40% SPR. For states in the northern region which still have a commercial harvest of red

drum, the overall harvest restrictions for commercial and recreational harvest combined

must be sufficient to attain a 40% SPR.

The following combinations of bag and size limits were conducted on data for the

period of 1992 to 1998 (Table 22)(Vaughan and Carmichael 2001). They are based on

necessary reductions in fishing m

ortality through both recreational bag and size limits

and commercial trip limits. Each combination of bag and size limit is considered to

provide conservation equivalencies that meet or exceed the 40% SPR. All combinations

assume a 40% reduction in commercial harvest over the prior management period (1992

to 1998), which was achieved by the trip limit currently in place.

Table 22. Potential bag and size limit combinations that are

projected by the bag and size lim

it analysis to

achieve the 40% SPR.

Bag Limit Slot Limit (total length)

1 18-27”

2 19-27”

3 18-26”

The bag and size limit analysis assumes that the conditions prevalent during the

1992 to 1998 period will rem

ain constant into the future. Changes in angler behavior,

angler success or increased effort and participation over time could offset any predicted

gains. For the period of 1999 to 2005, reducing the possession limit to one fish and

limiting all harvest to fish between 18 and 27 inches was effective at increasing SPR

values above the overfishing definition as predicted. Changes to this management

strategy should be carefully considered as each bag and size limit combination has

potential risks. For instance, increasing the minimum size limit has less potential

positive effect as does decreasing the maximum size. This is because harvest loss due to

increases in the minimum size can potentially be offset through delayed harvest as the

fish grow above the minimum legal size. This is particularly true for a fast growing fish

such as red drum whose growth from 18 to 19 inches will take approximately one month.

Conversely, decreasing the maximum size carries no risk of delayed harvest. Protecting

the larger fish maximizes the benefit to the SPR estimates because these fish have already

been exposed to most of the fishery effort and have an increased chance of survival to

maturity.

A bag limit of one fish was effective at reducing harvest as intended. While the

reduction from five fish to one fish was a drastic reduction in the potential harvest for a

given angler, it was not a tremendous reduction in actual overall harvest. For the period

of 1992 to 1998, very few trips landed more than two red drum. A one fish bag limit was

necessary to achieve ample reductions without a severely reducing the slot limit.

Increasing the bag limit above one, in combination with adjusting the slot limit may lead

to reduced SPR estimates due to recoupment in the fishery. Recoupment occurs when

anglers either increase effort or change their behavior to increase or maintain harvest in

response to regulatory changes. Projected gains from decreasing the slot limit can easily

be offset if the resulting increased bag limit leads to increases in effort or targeting. In

addition, angler success rates and/or fish availability can also contribute to recoupment

under more liberal bag limits. This tends to be particularly true when abundant year

classes enter the slot. Current trends in angler success rate for red drum indicate a

positive trend (Figure 20). It is well accepted that recreational effort has and will

continue to increase over tim

e (Figure 21 and Figure 22). In addition, technology

continues to im

prove, enhancing anglers potential for success. The current 1 fish bag

limit at 18 to 27 inches has less potential for recoupment in the red drum fishery and has

proven effective at increasing SPR levels. Increased bag limits with corresponding slot

limits do offer viable alternatives based on the bag and size limit analysis, but also have

risks for which the analysis cannot quantify. It should be noted that all options, including

the current regulations, could result in lower SPR values, albeit to varying degrees, if

fishing effort or participation increases.

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Yea

Probability of Success

Prob of Success

Figure 20. Probability of success for anglers targeting red drum recreationally.

Successful trip defined as a trip that targeted and landed red drum

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

1981

1983

1987

1989

1991

1993

1997

1999

2001

2003

Year

Number of Trips for All Areas and

Modes

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Number of Trips for Inland/All

Modes

All Areas/Modes

Inland/All Modes

Figure 21. Recreational fishing effort (number of trips) from

1981 to 2006. Source

MRFSS.

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1981

1987

1989

199

1997

1999

2005

Year

Number of Participants

Figure 22. Number of participants in North Carolina recreational fishery (coastal,

non-coastal and non-resident).

Another consideration to choosing an appropriate bag and size limit option should

be to account for regional discrepancies in the availability of red drum

at a given size.

Red drum recruit throughout the estuaries as juveniles but tend to be particularly

abundant in the upper reaches of the estuary at smaller sizes. As they become larger,

they tend to have a net movement to higher salinity areas, such as coastal inlets.

Increasing the minimum size could reduce the availability of fish available for harvest

along the western sounds. Investigation of MRFSS length frequencies by region

indicates that areas along the western Pamlico Sound would be most adversely impacted

by the increases in the minimum size limit, while decreasing the maximum size limit

would have the largest impact on the eastern Pamlico (Figure 23; Table 23). Either

increasing or decreasing the size lim

it had a similar impact on the southern region.

Harvest of illegal size fish (non-compliance) was significant for all regions.

7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

WHOLE INCHES (TOTAL LENGTHS)

PERCENT OBSERVED

DARE COUNTY AND OCRACOKE

CARTERET COUNTY AND SOUTH

WEST AND INLAND COUNTIES

Figure 23. Length frequency distribution of red drum

observed in MRFSS survey by

region from 1993 to 2006.

Table 23. Percent non-compliance (red drum harvested that were <18 or >27

inches total length) and the percent of

fish measured that would be illegal

if either a 19 inch minimum or a 26 inch maximum size limit were put

into place. Samples from MRFSS 1993 to 2006.

Dare County and

Ocracoke

Carteret

County and

south

West and

Inland

Counties

% non-compliance 16.7 19.7 9.2

19 inch minimum size* 6.3 9.8 13.9

26 inch maximum size* 9.6 8.5 3.8

* non-compliant fish were not included in this analysis.

If increasing the bag limit is a desirable option for the public then a conservative

alternative m

ay be to decrease the maximum size limit to 26 inches and implement a bag

limit of two fish. Reducing the maximum size (as opposed to increasing the minimum

size) will be more beneficial to future SPR values and the bag limit is the most

conservative step in lieu of status quo. Additionally, there would be minimal

discrepancies in regional distribution of fish, where an increase in the minimum size

would create a negative impact on the lower salinity areas where larger slot size red drum

are less common.

Current Authority

North Carolina Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (15A NCAC)

03M.0501 Red Drum (Director’s proclamation authority for red drum)

Management Options/Impacts

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

1) Status quo (1 fish 18-27 inches TL)

+ Same size limit as commercial sector - enforcement

+ Increase likelihood of reaching management goals (SPR rates)

+ Familiarity and acceptance by fishermen

+ Greatest size range – greater opportunity to keep a fish

+ No changes before next assessment

- Limits harvest for individuals

- Potential for increased release mortality

2) Increase the bag limit and change size range

+ Increase number of fish for personal consumption

+ Potential for less discards (based on increased bag limit)

- Reduced range of sizes over which to keep a fish

- Discrepancy in recreational and commercial size limits

- Potential for recoupment and/or delayed harvest in fishery which m

negatively impact SPR

- Changes before next assessment (2008)

- Regional discrepancies in availability of fish by size

Management Recommendations

DMF and RDAC - Status quo (1 fish 18-27 inches TL)

MFC Selected Management Option

Endorses DMF and RDAC recommendation

Research Recommendations

• Assess the size distribution of recreational discards

• Increase recreational sampling coverage

• Expand recreational sampling to include night-time intercepts

10.2.4 Commerical Harvest Limits

10.2.4.1 Commercial Trip Limit

Issue

Can the current bycatch allowance in the Red Drum FMP of 7 fish be increased?

Background

Historically, annual landings of red drum have been highly variable from year to

year. Annual landings during the 1970's averaged 83,009 lbs per year and ranged from

7,500 to 214,000 lbs (Figure 24). Annual landings from the 1980's were greater than

those from

the 1970's, averaging 203,813 lbs per year and ranging from 52,561 to

283,020 lbs. Landings during the 1990's averaged 186,932 lbs per year and ranged from

52,548 to 372,749 lbs. The majority of the landings have historically originated from

Pamlico and Core sounds and the Atlantic Ocean. During the 1970's, no commercial gear

dominated landings although long haul seines and common haul seines were generally

the most productive gears with gill nets, pound nets, and fish trawls occasionally

contributing larger catches. Anchored and run-around gill nets were the dominant gear

during the 1980's and 1990's, accounting for greater than 70% percent of annual

commercial landings. Most of these gill net fisheries are seasonal, targeting flounder,

spotted seatrout, and striped mullet along the barrier islands and mainland shorelines.

Although they catch red drum incidentally, red drum can make an important contribution

to the overall catch.

A directed fishery that developed in the mid-1990's used run-around gill nets to

encircle schools of red drum

and accounted for 31% of all red drum commercially

harvested from 1994 to1998. Prior to the implementation of trip limits in 1998, nearly

one-half of the total annual commercial harvest of red drum was accounted for by only a

few trips landing large amounts of red drum. From 1994 to 1998, a total of 1.1% of the

trips that reported landings of red drum accounted for 48.5% of the total harvest. For this

period, the largest landings of red drum primarily occured behind the 'Outer Banks' from

Oregon Inlet to Ocracoke during the spring and fall. Gears that typically had large

landings of red drum were runaround gill nets and long haul nets and these gears made up

a larger proportion of the landings by gear during this period (Figure 25). These gears

have proven to be effective in circling large schools of red drum

. Participation in the

run-around gill net fishery increased during this period as many of these fishers actively

pursued schools of red drum. While there have been a few exceptional long haul catches

of up to 10,000 pounds, a typical catch for a run-around gill net trip would range from

100 to 1000 pounds.

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Commercial landings (lb)

Figure 24. Annual commercial landings of red drum from 1950 to 2006.

The 7 fish bycatch provision was developed by DMF in an effort to control the

com

mercial harvest by eliminating the targeting of red drum while still allowing a

reasonable bycatch allowance when taken incidental to other fisheries. The trip limit was

effective at shifting landings back towards gears that take red drum incidentally to other

species (Figure 25). Preparation of the red drum FMP began in 1998. Interim rules were

developed in October 1998 to reduce harvest by both recreational and com

mercial

fishermen and protect a strong year class that was entering the fishery. The bag limit for

the recreational fishery was reduced from 5 fish to 1 fish and a commercial trip limit was

established at 100 pounds while the annual harvest cap of 250,000 pounds was

maintained.

100

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Year

Percent of total catch

Anchored gill net

Run-around gill net

Pound net

Long haul seine

Beach seine

Figure 25. Proportion of commercial red drum ladings by gear type from 1987 to 2006.

In 1999, the fishery was closed by proclamation on November 5, 1999 because

the cap had been exceeded. The final harvest for 1999 was 372,942 pounds, well over

the 250,00 pound cap.

The 100 pound trip limit was suspended on July 22, 2000 and replaced by a 5 fish

per day lim

it for commercial operations to ensure that the harvest limit was not exceeded.

The fishery was closed on August 19, 2000.

During 1999 and 2000, the early closures prevented the southern flounder gill net

fishery, the fishery with the greatest bycatch of red drum

, from landing any red drum.

The MFC decided in October 2000 to move forward with the provision in the FMP to

change the start of the fishing year from January 1 to September 1 to ensure that the

unavoidable bycatch of red drum occurring in the flounder fishery could be landed. As a

result, a proclamation was issued on October 11, 2000 that reinstated the 5 fish bycatch

allowance as a transition into the new commercial harvest season (September 1 - August

31). The final commercial harvest figure for 2000 was 270,953 pounds.

Proclamation FF-47-2001 was issued on September 6, 2001 to implement the

approved red drum

FMP setting the bycatch allowance at seven (7) and requiring that red

drum make up less than 50% of the total catch of all finfish (excluding menhaden) landed

daily for a commercial fishing operation. The intent was to ensure that annual harvest

remains below the cap and to allow red drum harvest only as bycatch taken incidental to

other fisheries. The annual landings of red drum have remained below the cap since this

proclamation was issued.

Fishermen and members of the MFC have requested a re-examination of the

current trip lim

it, as a result of annual landings being below the cap, in hopes of

increasing the bycatch allowance. The commercial cap was originally set as a harvest

level that would prevent a directed fishery back in 1990 when the blackened redfish craze

developed in the Gulf of Mexico.

The commercial cap was set at 300,000 pounds and

subsequently reduced to 250,000 pounds in 1991, but is not based on any population

assessment and should not be viewed as the amount of harvest that can be allowed

in a given year. If an assessment based annual commercial harvest limit were put

into place for the commercial red drum fishery in North Carolina, it would be

considerably less than 250,000 pounds. For example, from 1992 to 1998 North

Carolina’s commercial landings averaged approximately 174,000 pounds for a period

when the escapement rate was estimated to be 18%, well below the current target of 40%.

For a quota managed fishery, any reduction in harvest necessary to increase escapement

would be taken from these average landings and not from the 250,000 pound cap, a level

of landings that historically have rarely been achieved. North Carolina opted not to

reduce the commercial cap, but chose instead to reduce harvest through a daily bycatch

allowance. The current commercial trip limit has two advantages for the commercial

fishery over a quota managed fishery: 1) it allows more harvest to occur in years where a

strong year class is present than would be possible with a quota, and 2) it does not require

the commercial season to close resulting in discards after the allowable harvest is taken.

When Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Red Drum FMP was approved in 2002, it

included analysis that calculated a reduction in landings necessary to achieve a target

40% escapem

ent rate. A compliance requirement of Amendment 2 is that each state must

implement management measures in order to achieve 40% escapement. No new

regulations were necessary in North Carolina to achieve this reduction because of the 7

fish commercial bycatch allowance and the 1 fish recreational bag limit in place as a

result of the NC Red Drum FMP. Projections based on these regulations estimated North

Carolina’s escapement rate to be slightly above 40%. Results of the most recent

assessment indicate that the regulations were largely successful in achieving this goal.

An additional compliance criterion of Amendment 2 is that states must maintain current or

more restrictive commercial fishery regulations for red drum, i.e. no relaxation of current

fisheries management measures. This stipulation removed the NC Fisheries Director’s

ability to modify the commercial trip limit. The sliding trip limit set by the Director was

originally approved as part of the 2001 NC Red Drum FMP. In August 2003, North

Carolina requested that the ASMFC South Atlantic Board approve a motion to include this

authority in the framework of Amendment 2 also. If approved the NC Fisheries Director

would once again be able to raise or lower the current 7 fish commercial bycatch allowance

without going out of compliance with the ASMFC plan. The intent of the motion was to

maintain a bycatch only fishery and only to allow increases when necessary to account for

unavoidable bycatch. The motion was approved. To date, the 7 fish commercial trip limit

has remained unchanged.

Discussion

The DMF has monitored the red drum commercial harvest and conducted fishery-

dependent gill net sampling that allows an analysis of the red drum catch per trip. Based

on fishery-dependent, estuarine sampling of large and small mesh gill nets from 2004-

2006 (Trips sampled = 1,404), 80% of the trips sampled contained no red drum. The

majority of trips (67%) that did land red drum (n = 279) contained 3 red drum or less.

The data indicate that there were not many trips that caught their bycatch limit of

7 fish (Figure 26). Very few trips (3% for all trips and 13% for trips that landed red

drum

) had 7 or more red drum, indicating that most trips do not encounter 7 legal size red

drum and that waste is not a large problem.

For All Estuarine Gill Net Trips that Landed Red Drum

87%

13%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of trips with < 7 red drum Percent of trips with >= 7 red drum

For All Estuarine Gill Net Trips

97%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of trips with < 7 red drum Percent of trips with >= 7 red drum

Figure 26. Percentage of estuarine gill net trips that did or did not capture the seven fish

bycatch allow

ance. Given for all trips sampled and for all trips sampled

where red drum were present.

In addition to fishery dependent sampling where commercial trips are intercepted

at the fish house, NCDMF also has observer coverage for the estuarine gill net fishery

since 2001. During this period, 1,470 large m

esh (

≥5” stretch mesh) estuarine gill net

trips have been observed. The majority of the trips occurred in eastern Pamlico Sound

with southern flounder being the most abundant species captured. Similar to the

dependent fish house data, most trips did not exceed the current 7 fish bycatch allowance.

Of all trips observed, 98% had less than the allowable limit. For trips that landed red

drum, 8% had the 7 fish bycatch allowance.

For all trips observed, 1,246 legal size red drum were captured (Table 24). Of

these, the vast m

ajority (83%) were either marketed or released alive. Unmarketable

discards accounted for 7% of legal size red drum encountered, while dead regulatory

discards accounted for 8%.

Further analysis was conducted to determine the fate of red drum when the 7 fish

bycatch allowance was encountered. This occurred on 1.8% of the 1,470 observed trips.

These 27 trips encountered 334 legal size red drum

. The fates of these fish included

harvested (59%), released alive (17%), unmarketable discards (4%) and dead regulatory

discards (19%).

Table 24. Fate of legal size red drum (n=1,246) in the large

esh estuarine gill net fishery. NCDMF observer

data from 2001 to 2006 (n=1,470 trips sampled)

Disposition Number Percent

Marketed 866 70%

Released Alive 166 13%

Dead Discard 98 8%

Unmarketable 89 7%

Unknown 30 2%

Total 1,246 100%

In addition to the large mesh trips that were observed, 405 small mesh gill net

trips were also observed. No m

ore than six legal size red drum were encountered on any

of these trips.

One FRG study of incidental catch and discard of red drum in large mesh gillnets

was conducted in 2002 in the Newport River and specifically addressed the issue of the 7

fish bycatch allowance (Buckel et al. 2006). Fishing 10 nets (100 yards each) a day from

June through November, the catch of red drum exceeded the daily bag limit on 23% of

the days. Of the 326 red drum retrieved from the gill nets, 32.5% were dead, but only 15

of the 106 dead red drum had to be discarded due to size limits and 6 were discarded

dead based on harvest limits. The majority of discards were released alive. The author

notes that the findings support the current regulations (7 fish limit) but also

acknowledges that the study took place during a year when red drum available in the slot

limit were at a low abundance.

An additional concern raised by fishermen has been over the requirement that red

drum

be landed as bycatch to other finfish. Both the state and ASMFC plans for red drum

allow for only the non-directed (bycatch) landings of red drum, where they are taken

incidental to other target species. Since 2001, it has been required that red drum make up

less than 50% by weight of all finfish (excluding menhaden) landed by a commercial fishing

operation. Requiring red drum to be landed as bycatch presents a problem when red drum

are encountered in a fishery prior to other ‘target’ species being encountered. NC Marine

Patrol could interpret possession of red drum on board a vessel while the commercial

operation is engaged in fishing activity as a violation if the red drum possessed exceeds the

weight of other finfish in possession at the time of inspection. Available data from the

observer program indicates that the percent of fish discarded due to this is not significant.

Options could be considered to either 1) allow red drum to be possessed up to the daily

bycatch allowance while actively fishing gear but require adequate poundage of other finfish

at time of landing, or 2) allow fishing operations to possess some red drum outside of the

bycatch provision.

Increasing the commercial trip limit has been the topic of debate among

com

mercial fishers and several MFC members for some time. An increase could allow

for some red drum in the slot limit to be harvested as opposed to being discarded dead.

100

However, all available data to date suggests that discard levels have been low to

oderate and that most legal size red drum encountered are either harvested or released

alive. Increasing the bycatch allowance may also entice purposeful setting of gill nets in

areas where red drum are known to occur. The current stock assessment indicates that

SPR and escapement rates are currently above the overfishing definition and approaching

the target. It must be noted that the assessment fails to account for the size and

magnitude of discards in the commercial fishery, a factor that in all likelihood makes the

current SPR and escapement rates optimistic.

A criterion for increasing harvest

outside of an excessive bycatch issue would be if the escapement rate of 40% were

being exceeded. This is not currently the case.

If bycatch levels justify an increase in the trip limit, the NCDMF Director has the

authority to increase the trip limit. Recently it was proposed at a MFC meeting to

consider allowing the first three red drum captured to be landed without the requirement

that other edible finfish be present (not as bycatch) and then to continue the current 7 fish

bycatch allowance. This would create a 10 fish daily limit provided other species were

captured to allow for red drum bycatch of 7 fish. The additional 3 fish would allow for

any red drum captured prior to other targeted species to be taken without the possibility

of being found out of compliance with the current 50% bycatch provision.

10.2.4.2 Commercial Fishing Year

Issue

Avoiding closures in the commercial red drum bycatch fishery.

Background

A September 1 to October 31 commercial fishing year was implemented as part of

the 2001 NC Red Drum FMP. This shift in the commercial fishing year was made to

ensure that there would be no closure during peak landings that typically occur in the fall

(see discussion in 12.2.4.1). Additionally, because red drum are a somewhat unavoidable

bycatch component to the southern flounder estuarine gill net fishery, it is imperative to

keep the red drum fishery open during the flounder season to avoid excessive discards

and waste.

Discussion

After exceeding the cap in 1999 and 2000, a 7 fish daily trip limit has kept

commercial landings well below the commercial cap since 2001. However, during the

current fishing year (2007/2008), atypically high winter landings have caused an early

closure for commercially harvested red drum due to the 250,000 lb cap being met and

exceeded before April. A concern in the current fishing year is that excessive discards

are now likely to occur primarily as a bycatch in the southern flounder estuarine gill net

fishery. In an effort to address the discard issue in the future, the RDAC recommended

implementing a spit in the commercial fishing year. Under the proposal, 150,000 lb of

red drum would be allotted to the period of September 1 to April 30, with the remaining

cap of 100,000 lb conserved for the second period (May 1 to August 31). Any remaining

cap from period one would be available for landing in period two. Reserving at least

101

100,000 lb of landings for period tow, during the warmer summer months, will reduce

aste when discard mortality is at its highest. Any potential closure under this scenario

would most likely occur during the winter when discard mortality is low.

As a result of the 2007/2008 commercial closure, the MFC took action

suspending the rule 3M .0501 which sets the com

mercial year and cap and allowed the

DMF Director to reopen the commercial season with a limited harvest of 4 fish per day

per commercial fishing operation. This action was taken due to the concern over the

potential for dead discards during the closed portion of the season that coincided with the

peak of the southern flounder estuarine gill net fishery. To ensure harvest of red drum

during this time is legitimate bycatch, red drum harvest is currently limited to

commercial fishers who are capturing southern flounder, striped mullet or spotted

seatrout. Red drum are considered a common bycatch in gill net fisheries targeting these

species. Overages during the current fishing year will be subtracted from the 2008/2009

fishing year and any closures if necessary will likely occur during the winter.

It should also be noted that any overages in the commercial cap during any

fishing year require that the am

ount of that overage (exceeding 250,000 lb) be subtracted

from the subsequent years commercial cap. This is a requirement of Amendment 2 to the

ASMFC Red Drum FMP.

Current Authority

North Carolina Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (15A NCAC)

03M.0501 Red Drum (Director’s proclamation authority for red drum)

Management Options/Impacts

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

1) Status quo (7 fish limit with 50% bycatch provision, DMF Director m

aintains

proclamation authority to increase trip limit and adjust the bycatch provision as

needed)

+ Keeps harvest at a level to meet 40% escapement requirement

+ Increase likelihood of reaching management goals (SPR rates)

+ No regulatory changes before next assessment

+ Discards of legal size fish appear to currently be insignificant

+ NCDMF Director still has authority to increase bycatch allowance if discards

increase

- Limits harvest for individuals

- Potential for increased discards if a strong year class enters the slot limit

102

2) Increase the bycatch allowance

+ Potential for reduced discards

+ Increased harvest

- Potential for increased pressure in areas where red drum occur

- Potential negative impact on SPR

- Reduces likelihood of reaching management goals

- Data suggests discards are not currently a major issue

- NCDMF Director already has this authority to increase bycatch allowance

if discards increase

3) Allow for possession of some red drum while actively fishing gear even if

adequate finfish (excluding m

enhaden) have not yet been obtained.

+ Less discards

+ Increased harvest

- More difficult to enforce

- Potential for dead release of red drum that could have been released alive

4) Allow for the possession of some red drum without requiring that they be

bycatch

(Example would be to allow three red drum to be landed without requiring other

finfish to be present; additional landed red drum

would be subject to bycatch

provision)

+ Less discards

+ Increased landings

- Potential for targeting

- Less incentive for netters to avoid areas where red drum typically occur

5) Implement a split season on the commercial fishing year, capping the period of

Septem

ber 1 to April 30 at 150,000 lb and conserving the remaining portion of

the cap (100,000 lb) for the period of May 1 to August 31. Unused cap in Period

1 can be carried forward to Period 2.

+ Avoid closure during the summer when discard mortality is highest

+ Less likely to have Cap overages

- May result in reduced landings if fish availability changes

Management Recommendations

DMF and RDAC –

1) Status quo (7 fish trip limit with 50% bycatch provision). Director retains

authority to modify the trip limit and bycatch provisions as needed.

2) Allow for the possession of up to 3 fish while engaged in red drum without

requiring that they be subject to the 50% bycatch provision. Upon

landing/sale all red drum possessed would be subject to any bycatch

requirements.

3) Implement a split season on the commercial fishing year, capping the period

103

of September 1 to April 30 at 150,000 lb and conserving the remaining

portion of the cap (100,000 lb) for the period of May 1 to August 31. Unused

cap in period 1 can be carried forward to period 2. Any annual commercial

harvest limit that is exceeded one year will result in the poundage overage

being deducted from the subsequent year’s commercial harvest limit.

MFC Selected Management Option

Endorses DMF and RDAC recommendations.

Research Recommendations

• Continued and expanded observer coverage in the commercial fishery.

• Expand independent gill net survey to other parts of the state.

10.2.5 Red Drum Discarded Bycatch in the Estuarine Gill Net Fishery

10.2.5.1 Statewide Estuarine Gill Net Bycatch Estimates

Issue

The occurrence and magnitude of regulatory and unmarketable red drum discards in

the estuarine gill net fishery.

Background

Non-harvest loss of red drum occurring from the use of commercial fishing gear is

currently not fully known. This lack of inform

ation continues to be a major source of bias

in accurately assessing the current stock status of red drum in North Carolina. Current

fishing mortality rates for red drum stocks in North Carolina appear to allow for adequate

escapement of juvenile red drum to the adult stock. These escapement rates, however, carry

the caveat that non-harvest losses in the commercial fishery are not known. This lack of

information on discards likely results in an overly optimistic estimate of escapement and

spawning potential ratio (SPR). Assessing the magnitude of discards in the commercial

fishery is listed as high research priority in both the 2007 red drum stock assessment update

(Takade and Paramore 2007) and Amendment 2 to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (ASMFC) Red Drum Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (ASMFC 2002).

Bycatch is an important issue facing the North Carolina Division of Marine

Fisheries (NCDMF) and the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Com

mission (NCMFC). The

Guidelines for the North Carolina Fishery Management Plans as adopted by the NCMFC,

set a standard for FMP’s to design management measures which minimize waste of fishery

resources, including both target and bycatch species. In addition, an objective of this

fishery management plan is to promote harvest practices that minimize bycatch of

unmarketable red drum. While non-harvest losses likely occur to some extent from various

commercial gears, it has been well accepted that the primary loss is likely due to the

104

bycatch of red drum in the estuarine gill net fishery. As a result, the 2001 NC Red Drum

FMP took m

easures to reduce red drum bycatch in the estuarine gill net fishery by requiring

the seasonal attendance of small mesh gill nets (<5” stretch mesh). Gill nets of this mesh

size select for red drum less than 18” TL and are a significant source of the bycatch

mortality, particularly in months when water temperatures are high. Current North

Carolina regulations require the attendance of small mesh gill nets from May 1 through

October 31 in areas known to be critical for juvenile red drum. These include all primary

and secondary nursery areas, areas within 200 yards of any shoreline, and the extensive

area of shallow grass flats located behind the Outer Banks. An exemption to this rule lifts

the attendance requirement for the region from Core Sound to the South Carolina border in

October to allow for the fall spot fishery. A study conducted in Core Sound during 1999

indicated that catches of red drum during the October fall spot fishery were relatively low.

All observed trips conducted during the study occurred while gill netters were fishing nets

set approximately 100 yards from shore. This practice of setting nets well off the shoreline

appeared to be effective at reducing the incidence of juvenile red drum bycatch in this

fishery. During the same study, Division gill nets set less than 100 yards from shore had

substantially more red drum bycatch than did sets made at >

100 yards from shore.

During the development of the 2001 NC Red Drum FMP, several issues were tabled

by the red drum

AC and DMF due to inadequate information. To address this data

deficiency, four research recommendations from the 2001 FMP were: 1) Collect

information on gill net effort by area/season; 2) Conduct at sea samples to estimate red

drum discards from gill nets; 3) Estimate the release mortality from gill nets; 4) Collect data

on the harvest and releases of red drum captured in gill nets under the Recreational

Commercial Gear License. New data has been collected to some extent for all four of these

research recommendations. This issue paper will provide a summary of all data collected to

date and will provide management options based on this new information.

All results reported are based on anchored estuarine gill nets unless noted

otherwise. Drift and run-around gill nets were not included in the analysis. Bycatch

from other fisheries/gears are not currently available.

1) Collect information on estuarine gill net effort by area and season.

Information specific to North Carolina’s estuarine gill net fishery can be drawn

from three DMF sampling programs briefly described below:

NC Trip Ticket Program

Commercial red drum landings and the red drum commercial cap are monitored

through the North Carolina trip ticket program

. Under this program licensed fishermen can

only sell commercial catches to licensed NCDMF fish dealers. The dealer is required to

complete a trip ticket every time a licensed fishermen lands fish. Trip tickets capture data

on gears used to harvest fish, area fished, species harvested, and total weights of each

individual species. The trip ticket program began in 1994.

105

Commercial Fish House Sampling

Commercial fishing activity is monitored through fishery dependent (fish house)

sampling. Sampling occurs dockside as fish are landed. Commercial fishers are

interviewed and the catch is sampled. Data collected includes information on location,

effort and gear characteristics, as well as information used to determine the size and age

distribution of species landed. Over the past decade gill nets have been the dominant gear

used for red drum accounting for >70% of the overall harvest. In 2006, 93.5% of the red

drum harvest was taken in gill nets, followed by pound nets with 4%.

Commercial Observer Program

Starting in October of 2000, the Pamlico Sound flounder gill net fishery has been

restricted, operating under an Incidental Take Perm

it (ITP) issued by NMFS to reduce

interactions with endangered and threatened sea turtles. The restrictions on this fishery are

effective from September 15 through December 31. Stipulations of the permit include

permitted entry, restricted areas, limited yardage of gill net and mandatory scientific

observer coverage. This ITP began the available observer data available for the estuarine

gill net fishery in North Carolina. From 2001 to 2003, coverage was limited to the fall

Pamlico Sound flounder gill net fishery. From 2004 to 2006, coverage was expanded by

DMF to include other regions and estuarine gill net fisheries. Participation in this expanded

coverage by commercial gill netters was voluntary. Information gathered during observer

trips includes data on effort and mesh sizes used, as well as, data on the size and ultimate

fate of captured species.

Information gathered from these three programs was used to characterize North

Carolina’s estuarine gill net f

ishery. North Carolina has a large number of commercially

valuable species that are targeted by gill nets throughout the year with no single size gill net

(i.e. mesh size) being ideal for all species. The result is gill netters utilize specific mesh

size nets depending on the species they intend to target. While multiple species are most

often landed for a single trip, a target (key) species most often represents the majority of the

catch.

In order to characterize a specific estuarine gill net fishery the species being

targeted m

ust first be identified. This information is not readily available and must be

inferred from the catch composition. Data collected from 2001 to 2006 was analyzed to

determine the target species for each individual trip made. As noted earlier, drift and run-

around gill nets were not included in the analysis. Using trip ticket data, the species of

highest abundance in landings was considered the target species and was used to define the

trip. After initial analysis, 95% of all gill net trips fell into one of sixteen key species.

These sixteen species were then each identified as a separate fishery. For those remaining

undefined trips, a hierarchy was used where the species of second and then third highest

abundance was used to define the trip if it was represented by one of these sixteen species.

This defined an additional 4% of the remaining trips. Of the remaining trips (1%) the non-

key species of highest abundance in the catch was used to define the trip. Overall, flounder

was the primary species targeted by gill netters in estuarine waters of North Carolina (

Table

25). Overall landings across all trips for each of the key species are summarized in Table

26.

Table 25. Anchored estuarine gill net trips with the species of highest abundance landed (target

species) being used to define a trip.

Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Combined (%) cum%

Flounder 19,390 17,779 16,255 16,208 14,402 16,884 100,918 (47) 47

Striped Bass 5,198 5,041 4,965 4,404 4,377 3,363 27,348 (13) 59

Spot 2,105 2,793 2,861 2,847 2,930 1,686 15,222 (7) 66

Striped Mullet 3,149 3,041 2,720 2,035 1,853 1,659 14,457 (7) 73

American Shad 1,327 1,746 1,865 1,556 1,447 1,325 9,266 (4) 77

Menhaden 1,579 1,512 1,647 1,192 1,226 1,725 8,881 (4) 81

Bluefish 1,895 991 1,484 915 1,240 1,063 7,588 (4) 85

White Perch 882 1,111 1,827 968 879 858 6,525 (3) 88

Catfish 1,040 916 831 743 776 1,112 5,418 (3) 90

Red Drum 2,347 356 556 331 599 883 5,072 (2) 93

Speckled Trout 413 820 621 486 411 948 3,699 (2) 94

Spanish Mackerel 685 668 279 308 553 396 2,889 (1) 96

Hickory Shad 801 219 199 619 550 306 2,694 (1) 97

River Herring 341 488 377 314 413 281 2,214 (1) 98

Weakfish 458 330 218 406 321 275 2,008 (1) 99

Sea Mullet 129 92 99 74 67 147 608 (0) 99

Others (37 species) 463 357 279 220 137 199 1,655 (1) 100

Combined 42,202 38,260 37,083 33,626 32,181 33,110 216,462 (100)

Table 26. Annual landings of major species in North Carolina’s anchored estuarine gill net fishery.

Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Combined

Flounder 1,905,276 1,807,364 1,469,218 1,587,289 1,283,917 1,539,360 9,592,425

Menhaden 1,134,509 791,479 980,822 561,149 865,364 602,951 4,936,272

Striped Mullet 778,261 891,357 709,182 512,018 449,901 377,231 3,717,950

Spot 536,123 675,204 652,932 685,989 728,509 325,141 3,603,898

Bluefish 445,555 256,451 488,170 278,599 368,342 231,817 2,068,932

Striped Bass 226,372 226,705 339,056 295,172 235,708 184,266 1,507,279

American Shad 119,925 238,923 356,303 241,001 179,411 161,248 1,296,812

White Perch 175,525 219,077 404,865 176,027 138,723 106,859 1,221,077

Catfish 155,373 157,399 170,153 125,599 118,345 134,689 861,557

Spanish Mackerel 183,834 199,166 74,470 88,931 178,606 97,679 822,686

Hickory Shad 161,234 44,195 63,388 173,352 169,441 48,963 660,573

Red Drum 129,509 66,335 78,805 44,917 103,648 145,833 569,047

Weakfish 106,464 95,321 69,863 89,238 101,191 74,261 536,339

Speckled Trout 55,038 101,934 96,928 67,850 50,757 114,347 486,854

River Herring 86,164 71,636 82,119 75,920 74,727 36,849 427,414

Sea Mullet 45,656 40,184 38,423 28,907 25,755 54,951 233,877

Once trips were defined, each fishery was then further characterized from

available

fish house sampling and observer data from 2001 to 2006. For each of the sixteen fisheries

defined, information specific to mesh sizes used, yards of net fished, soak times and depths

fished are included (Table 27 and Table 28). Species with similar gear parameters for mesh

size are grouped together into large (>

5 inch) or small (<5 inch) stretch mesh gill net

fisheries. Available information is also separated by region. Regions include: Albemarle

Sound, Core Sound to the South Carolina border, Pamlico and Neuse River, and Pamlico

Sound.

The availability of various species in North Carolina’s estuarine gill net fishery varies

by season. Monthly landings by region for each of the sixteen key species are provided in

Figure 27 and Figure 28.

106

Table 27. Large mesh (>

5 inch) gill net fishery parameters commonly associated with the targeting of various species, 2001-2006.

FLOUNDERS

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 1,686 5.50

5.25 - 6.5

5.66 2.88 7.00 1,534 50 6,000 20 4 96 5 1 20

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 293 5.75

5.5 - 6

5.74 3.13 6.50 1,737 200 3,700 26 12 72 9 1 20

Observer (pgm 466) 66 5.50

5.25 - 6

5.59 3.25 6.50 2,109 600 3,000 22 10 48 7 1 20

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 349 5.50

5.5 - 6

5.63 3.25 7.00 1,949 200 6,000 17 7 48 3 1 12

Observer (pgm 466) 101 5.50

5.5 - 6

5.66 5.25 6.50 1,519 500 3,400 18 11 48 3 1 6

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 543 5.50

5.25 - 5.5

5.46 3.00 7.00 1,176 50 5,333 17 4 72 4 1 18

Observer (pgm 466) 202 5.50

5.25 - 5.5

5.45 3.00 6.00 935 100 3,200 21 4 144 4 1 18

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 501 6.00

5.25 - 6.5

5.83 2.88 7.00 1,411 100 6,000 22 8 96 3 1 10

Observer (pgm 466) 881 6.00

5.5 - 7

5.99 3.00 8.75 1,179 100 3,000 24 2 144 3 <1 13

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

STRIPED BASS

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 150 5.50

5.5 - 8

5.70 2.50 10.00 657 50 3,000 17 1 36 6 2 15

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 24 5.75 & 8

5.5 - 8

5.90 2.50 10.00 1,009 100 3,000 20 1 24 8 3 15

Observer (pgm 466) 7 5.50

5.50

5.50 5.50 5.50 950 400 2,000 31 24 48 11 6 18

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 111 5.50

5.5 - 7

5.70 5.50 7.00 555 50 1,800 16 12 36 6 2 12

Observer (pgm 466) 6 5.50

5.25 - 6

5.45 5.25 6.00 1,033 600 1,600 22 12 24 6 4 12

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 15 5.75

5.75 - 6

5.30 3.00 6.00 986 400 1,500 21 12 24 6 3 12

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

RED DRUM

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 51 5.50

5.5 - 6

5.30 3.00 6.50 838 100 3,200 17 8 48 3 1 7

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 7 6.00

4.5 - 6

5.63 4.50 6.00 700 100 2,000 16 12 24 3 1 5

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 9 5.50

4.5 - 5.75

5.06 3.00 5.75 738 200 3,200 16 12 24 3 2 5

Observer (pgm 466) 3 5.50

5.5 - 5.75

5.56 5.50 5.75 1,033 600 1,600 16 12 24 2 2 4

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 12 5.50

5.25 - 6

5.25 3.25 6.00 750 100 1,400 15 12 24 4 2 4

Observer (pgm 466) 1 5.50

4.5 - 5.5

5.00 4.50 5.50 800 800 800 16 16 16 4 2 7

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 23 6.00

5.5 - 6.25

5.43 3.25 6.50 968 300 3,000 19 8 48 3 1 7

Observer (pgm 466) 14 6.00

4.75 - 6.5

5.76 4.75 6.50 1,016 300 1,700 23 12 48 2 1 4

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

AM SHAD

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 208 5.50

5 - 5.5

5.50 3.00 7.00 759 100 2,500 24 12 96 9 1 14

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 18 5.50

5.25 - 5.5

5.37 3.00 7.00 892 300 1,400 49 12 96 9 8 10

Observer (pgm 466) 33 5.50

5.25 - 5.5

5.25 3.00 6.00 786 231 2,400 28 12 96 10 2 21

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 2 5.25

5.25

5.25 5.25 5.25 300 300 300 18 12 24 4 4 4

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 179 5.50

5.25 - 5.5

5.56 3.75 7.00 731 100 2,500 22 12 72 9 1 14

Observer (pgm 466) 54 5.50

5 - 6

5.55 5.00 7.00 835 198 3,000 26 12 73 6 2 14

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 9 5.50

5.50

5.29 3.13 6.00 1,217 200 2,000 26 12 48 5 2 6

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

107

108

Table 27. Continued.

HICKORY SHAD*

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 55 5.50

3 - 5.5

4.20 3.00 6.00 1,073 231 3,000 23 12 48 7 1 13

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 1 5.50

2.5 - 5.5

3.67 2.50 5.50 1,150 1,150 1,150 12 12 12 5 5 5

Observer (pgm 466) 8 5.25

3 - 5.5

4.98 3.00 5.50 963 400 1,760 22 12 48 11 8 21

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 13 3.75

3.25 - 4.0

3.58 3.00 4.00 939 400 1,900 20 12 24 4 2 6

Observer (pgm 466) 2 3.50

3.25 - 3.75

3.60 3.25 5.50 1,000 500 1,500 36 24 48 5 3 6

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 19 5.50

3.75 - 5.5

4.70 3.75 5.50 878 231 1,900 26 12 24 10 5 13

Observer (pgm 466) 9 5.50

4 - 5.5

4.93 4.00 5.50 836 231 1,770 24 12 48 7 3 15

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 22 4.00

3.0 - 4.0

3.96 2.88 6.00 1,365 400 3,000 23 12 48 5 1 10

Observer (pgm 466) 4 3.50

3 - 5.75

4.17 3.00 5.75 763 560 1,150 24 24 24 3 1 5

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

CATFISH

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

Albemarle Sound Observer (pgm 466) 12 5.50

3.25 - 5.5

4.68 3.00 5.75 1,338 400 3,000 20 1 48 8 2 18

Core Sound South Observer (pgm 466) 2 5.50

3.25 - 5.5

4.30 3.25 5.50 1,100 900 1,300 36 24 48 3 2 6

Pamlico/Neuse River Observer (pgm 466) 15 5.50

3.25 - 5.5

5.50 5.00 6.00 713 132 2,400 21 10 24 6 3 11

Pamlico Sound Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

Table 28. Small mesh (< 5 inch) gill net fishery parameters commonly associated with the targeting of various species, 2001-2006.

SPOT

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 160 3 - 3.25

3 - 3.5

3.46 2.75 8.00 780 100 3,000 17 1 48 6 2 20

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 46 3.25

3.13 - 3.25

3.50 3.00 8.00 715 133 1,600 16 2 24 6 3 10

Observer (pgm 466) 13 3.25

3.0 - 3.25

3.22 3.00 3.75 815 200 1,700 11 1 24 7 2 16

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 42 3.00

3 - 3.13

3.32 2.75 5.75 544 100 2,500 12 1 24 5 3 20

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 12 3.00

3 - 3.25

3.57 3.00 5.50 544 200 800 10 2 24 4 3 4

Observer (pgm 466) 6 3.00

2.75 - 3.25

3.50 2.75 5.50 791 400 1,025 18 12 24 4 2 6

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 60 3.00

3 - 3.5

3.54 2.88 6.00 1,091 200 3,000 22 7 48 6 2 13

Observer (pgm 466) 26 3.50

3 - 3.75

4.25 2.87 7.00 1,020 140 2,630 24 2 72 4 1 12

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

STRIPED MULLET

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 89 3.75 - 4

3 - 4

4.10 2.88 5.75 818 200 2,600 16 1 48 5 1 17

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 9 3.25

3.25

4.60 3.00 5.75 1,371 500 2,600 27 10 48 8 3 17

Observer (pgm 466) 18 3.25

3 - 3.5

3.71 3.00 5.50 537 100 1,200 10 1 24 5 1 11

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 10 3.75

3.75 - 4

4.00 3.25 5.50 833 400 1,600 17 12 36 4 3 5

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 60 4.00

3 - 4

3.70 2.88 6.50 638 200 1,800 11 1 24 4 3 7

Observer (pgm 466) 1 4.00

4.75 4.00 5.50 800 800 800 12 12 12 5 4 6

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 10 4.00

3.25 - 4

4.60 3.25 6.50 889 400 1,500 19 12 24 3 1 7

Observer (pgm 466) 44 4.00

3.50 - 4.0

4.02 3.00 6.00 901 55 1,500 26 1 72 3 1 24

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

109

Table 28. Continued.

SPOTTED SEATROUT

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 70 4.00

3.5 - 4(+5.5)

4.20 3.00 5.75 1,055 100 2,300 19 3 72 4 3 8

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 6 4.00

3.5 - 4

3.90 3.50 4.00 1,180 400 1,600 17 3 24 4 2 5

Observer (pgm 466) 4 3.75

3.25-3.75(+5.5)

4.00 3.25 5.50 1,175 800 1,500 42 24 48 4 2 6

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 40 4.00

3.5 - 4(+5.5)

4.20 3.00 5.50 988 400 2,000 13 12 24 4 2 7

Observer (pgm 466) 3 5.50

3 - 5.5

4.28 3.00 5.50 840 331 1,400 15 1 24 3 1 5

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 24 4.00

3.75 - 4.75

4.30 3.25 5.76 1,083 100 2,300 27 12 72 4 2 8

Observer (pgm 466) 14 4.00

3.75 - 4.5

4.21 3.50 6.00 1,030 400 1,700 24 16 48 4 2 8

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

BLUEFISH

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 161 3.25

2.88 - 3.5

3.70 2.88 6.50 1,036 100 3,900 23 2 48 6 2 17

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 11 3.25

3.13 - 3.25

3.23 3.12 3.25 950 500 1,200 24 12 48 5 3 10

Observer (pgm 466) 1 3.00

3.00

3.00 3.00 3.00 2,000 2,000 2,000 2 1 4 4 2 7

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 16 3.00

3 - 3.25

3.43 2.88 6.00 1,103 150 2,000 18 12 24 5 3 8

Observer (pgm 466) 1 5.50

5.50

5.50 5.50 5.50 900 900 900 24 24 24 3 3 4

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 2 3.25

3.25

4.38 3.25 5.50 1,700 1,700 1,700 12 12 12 3 3 3

Observer (pgm 466) 3 3.25

3.25

4.25 3.25 6.00 867 200 1,400 11 4 18 5 4 6

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 132 3.25

2.88 - 3.5

3.76 2.88 6.50 1,026 100 3,900 23 2 48 6 2 17

Observer (pgm 466) 37 3.50

3.25 - 4

4.89 3.00 7.00 885 200 2,775 24 12 48 4 1 11

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

WEAKFISH

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 36 3.00

2.88 - 3.25

3.30 2.50 6.25 1,307 200 4,000 21 1 48 8 3 14

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 2 3.25

3.25

3.25 2.50 3.25 800 800 800 14 14 14 7 7 7

Observer (pgm 466) 1 3.13

3.13

3.13 3.13 3.13 270 270 270 18 12 24 4 3 5

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 2 3.00

3 - 4

3.31 3.00 4.00 650 500 800 18 12 24 4 4 5

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 1 3.00

3.00

3.00 3.00 3.00 200 200 200 12 12 12 7 7 7

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 31 3.00

2.88 - 3.25

3.34 2.88 6.25 1,408 250 4,000 22 1 48 8 3 14

Observer (pgm 466) 18 3.00

2.88 - 3.75

3.37 2.88 5.75 999 300 2,440 22 3 48 7 2 15

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

MENHADEN

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 37 3.00

3 - 3.25

3.60 2.88 4.00 985 200 2,000 22 9 48 7 3 15

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 13 3.25

3.13 - 3.75

3.43 3.00 4.00 844 300 1,500 24 12 48 9 6 12

Observer (pgm 466) 37 5.25

3 - 5.5

4.68 3.00 5.50 829 210 1,965 29 12 72 10 4 22

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 2 3.13

3 - 3.13

3.06 3.00 3.12 850 200 1,500 18 12 24 5 3 6

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) 6 3.00

3 - 4

3.50 3.00 4.00 567 200 1,000 12 12 12 6 6 6

Observer (pgm 466) 28 5.50

3.25 - 5.5

4.65 3.25 8.00 758 248 1,700 20 2 48 6 2 16

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 16 3.00

3 - 3.25

3.75 2.88 4.00 1,170 200 2,000 23 9 48 7 3 15

Observer (pgm 466) 41 3.50

2.88 - 3.5

3.72 2.87 7.00 721 200 1,955 24 1 72 6 1 15

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

110

Table 28. Continued.

SP MACKEREL

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 48 3.50

3.38 - 3.75

3.55 3.00 4.00 1,291 500 2,700 7 2 12 13 6 17

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 48 3.50

3.38 - 3.75

3.55 3.00 4.00 1,291 500 2,700 7 2 12 13 6 17

Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

WHITE PERCH

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

Albemarle Sound Observer (pgm 466) 17 3.25

3 - 3.25

3.77 2.33 5.50 709 100 1,400 28 2 96 10 2 2

Core Sound South Observer (pgm 466) - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Observer (pgm 466) 7 3.25

3.25 - 3.5

3.29 3.25 3.50 667 300 1,050 18 12 24 4 3 6

Pamlico Sound Observer (pgm 466) 6 3.50

3 - 3.5

4.00 3.00 5.75 1,012 450 1,650 28 24 48 4 3 7

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

RIVER HERRING

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

Albemarle Sound Observer (pgm 466) 28 3.00

3 - 3.25

3.59 3.00 5.50 694 280 1,590 32 12 72 9 2 17

Core Sound South Observer (pgm 466) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico/Neuse River Observer (pgm 466) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico Sound Observer (pgm 466) 5

3 - 3.5

4.04 3.00 5.50 1,390 750 1,700 24 24 24 4 1 8

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

SEA MULLET

Region Source (Program)

mode

common range

mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max

All Dependent 5 2.88 2.88 - 3.5 2.82 3.50 3.50 1,280 200 2,000 13 3 24 11 7 14

Albemarle Sound Dependent (pgm 461) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Core Sound South Dependent (pgm 461) 1 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 200 200 200 3 3 3 7 7 7

Pamlico/Neuse River Dependent (pgm 461) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pamlico Sound Dependent (pgm 461) 4

2.62 - 3.5

3.00 2.62 3.50 1,550 1,000 2,000 15 12 24 13 12 14

Gill Net Stretch Mesh Size (inches) Effort Data (yards fished) Soak Time (hours) Depth (ft)

111

Flounder - Large Mesh

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Red Drum - Large Mesh

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Striped Bass - Large Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

American Shad - Large Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlic o Sound

Figure 27. Monthly landings by region for common species targeted in the large mesh estuarine gill net fishery.

112

Hickory Shad - Large Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Catfish - Large Mesh

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlic o Sound

Figure 27. Continued.

Spot - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Striped Mullet - Small Mesh

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Figure 28. Monthly landings by region for common species targeted in the small mesh estuarine gill net fishery.

113

Bluefish - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Spotted Seatrout - Small Mesh

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Weakfish - Small Mesh

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Menhaden - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Figure 28. Continued

114

Spanish Mackerel - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

White Perch - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

Sea Mullet - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Core Sd - South

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlico Sound

River Herring - Small Mesh

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

123456789101112

Month

% of annual landings

Albemarle Sound

Pamlico/Neuse River

Pamlic o Sound

Figure 28. Continued.

2) Conduct at sea samples to estimate dead red drum discards from gill nets

North Carolina observer data were used to estimate discards of dead red drum from the

estuarine gill net f

ishery. Available observer coverage was for the period of 2001 to 2006 (Table

29). Data from 2001 to 2003 were exclusively from the Pamlico Sound gill net fishery in the fall.

Due to this lim

ited coverage, annual coast wide estimates for these years were not attempted.

Table 29. Observed estuarine gill net trips by month and year from the North Carolina observer

program

Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

January 0 0 0 5 7 22

February 0 0 0 14 34 40

March 0 0 0 36 45 45

April 0 0 0 28 35 34

May 0 0 0 48 31 26

June 0 0 0 512726

July 0 0 0 302214

August 0 0 0 253812

September 29 69 34 91 56 61

October 707352967792

November 66 32 25 58 63 30

December 14 5 7 21 6 0

Total 179 179 118 503 441 402

Available data from 2004 to 2006 were separated by region as described in the previous

section and included: Albem

arle Sound, Pamlico Sound, Pamlico/Neuse River, and Core Sound to

the South Carolina border. In addition, available data were further partitioned into seasons. Seasons

were selected based on several criteria that included: months with similar mean water temperatures,

peak landings for major fisheries, and periods where small mesh gill net attendance was required.

The seasons selected were: January through April; May through August; September through

October; and November through December.

Observed trips, in the same manner as was done for the trip ticket data, used the species of

highest abundance in the catch to define the trip. A catch per unit effort (CPUE) was then generated

for discarded dead red drum

. The CPUE was defined as the number (or weight) of dead red drum

discarded per trip. Estimates of discards were then calculated by multiplying the number of trips

taken in a particular fishery by the corresponding CPUE from the observer data. Initial analysis

attempted to generate CPUE’s by fishery, season and region; however data were not sufficient at this

level. Observed trips were then collapsed into large (>

5 inch stretch mesh) or small (<5 inch stretch

mesh) mesh gill net fishery groupings in an attempt to fill data gaps. CPUE was generated by year,

region and season where at least 10 trips were observed. Collapsing across regions by season then

filled remaining data gaps for each year. For the small mesh estimates, low sample sizes required

additional collapsing across region and season by year.

115

Estimates of dead red drum discards from 2004 to 2006 in the large mesh estuarine gill net

fishery ranged from 12,393 lbs in 2004 to 54,143 lbs in 2005 (Table 30). Dead discards from small

esh gill nets ranged from 3,042 lbs in 2004 to 5,570 lbs in 2006 (Table 31). Results of this

analysis should be viewed with caution as bycatch associated with various fisheries can vary

drastically. The num

ber of observed trips for each of the key fisheries was inadequate to allow for

estimates by a single fishery. After collapsing across key fisheries, samples in the large mesh

fishery were much better represented by region and season than were the samples for the small mesh

fishery. Small mesh observer trips were not adequate for analysis by region and season. Most of the

data was collapsed across both regions and seasons to provide a single CPUE by year. For this

reason, small mesh estimates in particular should be viewed with caution.

Combined estimates from the small and large mesh fishery were as follows: 15,435 lb in

2004; 58,950 lb in 2005; and 32,676 lb in 2006. These values represent 29%, 46% and 19% of the

annual com

mercial harvest in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

3) Estimate the dead red drum discards resulting from the release mortality associated

with gill nets

Estimated red drum discards from the commercial estuarine gill net fishery are based on red

drum

observed to be dead at the time the gear is fished and do not account for any mortality

associated with red drum released alive at the net. In the red drum stock assessment a 10 percent

mortality is assumed for all red drum released in the recreational fishery. This estimate is based on

hook and line studies where red drum have been captured using techniques common to the

recreational fishery and then held for a short period to determine the short-term mortality associated

with catch and release. From 1999 to 2000, the NCDMF conducted studies to determine the short-

term mortality associated with the release of red drum from estuarine gill nets. During this study,

delayed mortality estimates were conducted separately for small (<

4 ½ inch) and large (> 5 inch)

stretch mesh gill nets (Price and Gearhart 2002a; Price and Gearhart 2002b). Red drum were held

(72 hours) in pens to determine the short-term mortality. Results varied by mesh size. For small

mesh nets the overall delayed mortality averaged 3% while large mesh mortality was significantly

higher averaging 33%. Discrepancies in these values were attributed to the low sample size of red

drum captured in the large mesh nets (n = 18) relative to the small mesh nets (n = 1,236). Additional

work should be conducted in this area to provide more reliable estimates.

The magnitude of mortality associated with release from estuarine gill nets was estimated

using an interm

ediate release mortality of 10%. Estimates were calculated in the same manner as

previously used to estimate dead red drum discards occurring at the net. The one exception being

that the CPUE was defined as the number (or weight) of red drum released per trip. This number

was then multiplied by 10% to determine the total release mortality. CPUE was generated by year,

region and season where at least 10 trips were observed. Collapsing across regions for each season

then filled remaining data gaps for each year. For the small mesh estimates low sample sizes

required additional collapsing across region and season by year.

Estimated release mortalities from 2004 to 2006 in the large mesh estuarine gill net fishery

ranged from

2,613 lb in 2004 to 6,229 lb in 2005 (Table 32). For the small mesh gill net fishery,

estim

ates were lower ranging from 1,005 lb in 2004 to 2,222 lb in 2005 (Table 33).

116

Table 30. Estimated dead discards (number and weight) of red drum from the large mesh estuarine gill

net fishery.

2004

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs) exp_num exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 5,755 30 0.5% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 2,371 41 1.7% 0.00 0.00 - -

Sep-Oct 1,838 5 0.3% 0.78 1.30 1,434 2,389

Nov-Dec 1,037 4 0.4% 0.25 0.28 259 290

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 504 0 0.0% 0.02 0.04 10 20

May-Aug 2,273 1 0.0% 0.26 0.38 591 864

Sep-Oct 1,098 27 2.5% 1.96 3.26 2,152 3,579

Nov-Dec 230 2 0.9% 0.25 0.28 58 64

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 1,422 21 1.5% 0.05 0.10 68 142

May-Aug 1,477 67 4.5% 0.27 0.24 399 354

Sep-Oct 930 22 2.4% 0.00 0.00 - -

Nov-Dec 330 17 5.2% 0.00 0.00 - -

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 503 0 0.0% 0.02 0.04 10 20

May-Aug 2,220 36 1.6% 0.39 1.15 866 2,553

Sep-Oct 1,646 110 6.7% 0.69 1.18 1,136 1,942

Nov-Dec 354 27 7.6% 0.44 0.49 156 173

Combined 23,988 410 1.7% 7,138 12,393

2005

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs) exp_num exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 4,640 11 0.2% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 1,654 7 0.4% 0.48 1.06 794 1,753

Sep-Oct 2,216 0 0.0% 1.82 6.53 4,033 14,470

Nov-Dec 1,458 0 0.0% 0.54 1.46 787 2,129

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 458 0 0.0% 0.44 0.72 202 330

May-Aug 2,008 14 0.7% 1.50 2.50 3,012 5,020

Sep-Oct 1,225 2 0.2% 1.82 6.53 2,230 7,999

Nov-Dec 226 2 0.9% 0.54 1.46 122 330

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 1,410 41 2.9% 0.22 0.61 310 860

May-Aug 1,671 57 3.4% 0.25 0.63 418 1,053

Sep-Oct 810 2 0.2% 1.82 6.53 1,474 5,289

Nov-Dec 172 3 1.7% 0.54 1.46 93 251

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 483 3 0.6% 0.44 0.72 213 348

May-Aug 1,771 18 1.0% 0.61 1.73 1,080 3,064

Sep-Oct 1,721 125 7.3% 1.74 6.29 2,995 10,825

Nov-Dec 327 46 14.1% 0.50 1.29 164 422

Combined 22,250 331 1.5% 17,925 54,143

2006

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs) exp_num exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 4,631 26 0.6% 0.23 0.22 1,065 1,019

May-Aug 2,582 0 0.0% 0.30 0.76 775 1,962

Sep-Oct 2,625 0 0.0% 0.72 2.42 1,890 6,353

Nov-Dec 1,100 0 0.0% 0.19 0.56 209 616

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 396 0 0.0% 0.12 0.12 48 48

May-Aug 2,466 27 1.1% 0.33 0.99 814 2,441

Sep-Oct 1,390 1 0.1% 0.72 2.42 1,001 3,364

Nov-Dec 156 0 0.0% 0.19 0.56 30 87

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 1,214 24 2.0% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 1,574 23 1.5% 0.00 0.00 - -

Sep-Oct 904 0 0.0% 0.72 2.42 651 2,188

Nov-Dec 160 0 0.0% 0.19 0.56 30 90

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 588 2 0.3% 0.12 0.12 71 71

May-Aug 2,065 13 0.6% 0.92 1.98 1,900 4,089

Sep-Oct 1,915 144 7.5% 0.73 2.43 1,396 4,653

Nov-Dec 217 25 11.5% 0.20 0.58 43 126

Combined 23,983 285 1.2%

9,922 27,106

Collapsed across region by season where n<10

117

Table 31. Estimated dead discards (number and weight) of red drum from the small mesh estuarine

gill net fishery.

2004

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs) exp_num exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 2,175 19 0.9% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 647 5 0.8% 0.09 0.23 58 149

Sep-Oct 288 3 1.0% 0.26 0.86 75 248

Nov-Dec 187 2 1.1% 0.13 0.18 23 34

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 418 0 0.0%

0.09 0.23 38 96

May-Aug 454 0 0.0% 0.09 0.23 41 104

Sep-Oct 962 0 0.0% 0.26 0.86 250 827

Nov-Dec 427 0 0.0% 0.13 0.18 53 77

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 475 5 1.1%

0.09 0.23 43 109

May-Aug 185 1 0.5%

0.09 0.23 17 43

Sep-Oct 72 1 1.4% 0.26 0.86 19 62

Nov-Dec 164 2 1.2% 0.13 0.18 21 30

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 1,199 5 0.4% 0.09 0.23 108 276

May-Aug 797 2 0.3%

0.09 0.23 72 183

Sep-Oct 584 12 2.1% 0.35 1.15 204 672

Nov-Dec 604 20 3.3% 0.15 0.22 91 133

Combined All 9,638 77 0.8%

1,112 3,042

2005

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs) exp_num exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 2,068 31 1.5% 0.10 0.11 207 227

May-Aug 1,013 9 0.9% 0.32 0.55 324 557

Sep-Oct 240 0 0.0% 0.22 0.32 53 77

Nov-Dec 193 1 0.5% 0.40 0.53 77 102

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 224 0 0.0% 0.14 0.20 31 44

May-Aug 306 0 0.0% 0.32 0.55 98 168

Sep-Oct 607 0 0.0%

0.22 0.32 134 194

Nov-Dec 423 1 0.2% 0.40 0.53 169 224

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 609 18 3.0% 0.06 0.05 37 30

May-Aug 172 3 1.7% 0.32 0.55 55 95

Sep-Oct 108 0 0.0% 0.22 0.32 24 35

Nov-Dec 171 0 0.0% 0.40 0.53 68 91

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 1,421 16 1.1% 0.31 0.52 441 739

May-Aug 1,444 10 0.7% 0.70 1.22 1,011 1,762

Sep-Oct 327 4 1.2% 0.22 0.32 72 105

Nov-Dec 605 18 3.0% 0.44 0.59 266 357

Combined All 9,931 111 1.1% 3,066 4,807

2006

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs) exp_num exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 1,325 44 3.3% 0.18 0.21 239 278

May-Aug 638 2 0.3% 0.20 0.33 126 211

Sep-Oct 292 0 0.0% 0.57 1.69 166 493

Nov-Dec 256 0 0.0% 0.25 0.28 64 72

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 169 2 1.2% 0.18 0.24 30 41

May-Aug 196 2 1.0% 0.20 0.33 39 65

Sep-Oct 950 0 0.0% 0.57 1.69 542 1,606

Nov-Dec 508 0 0.0% 0.25 0.28 127 142

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 691 15 2.2% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 221 1 0.5%

0.20 0.33 44 73

Sep-Oct 222 1 0.5% 0.57 1.69 127 375

Nov-Dec 288 0 0.0% 0.25 0.28 72 81

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 1,200 16 1.3% 0.38 0.59 456 708

May-Aug 1,053 1 0.1% 0.20 0.33 211 347

Sep-Oct 543 6 1.1% 0.57 1.69 310 918

Nov-Dec 575 4 0.7% 0.25 0.28 144 161

Combined All 9,127 94 1.0% 2,694 5,570

Collapsed across region by season where n<10

Collapsed across region and season by year

118

Table 32. Estimated release mortalities (number and weight) of red drum from the large mesh

estuarine gill net fishery.

2004

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs)

(10%)

exp_num

(10%)

exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 5,755 30 0.5% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 2,371 41 1.7% 0.00 0.00 - -

Sep-Oct 1,838 5 0.3% 1.64 2.93 301 539

Nov-Dec 1,037 4 0.4% 1.59 3.04 165 315

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 504 0 0.0% 0.99 1.66 50 84

May-Aug 2,273 1 0.0% 0.37 0.28 84 64

Sep-Oct 1,098 27 2.5% 2.85 4.49 313 493

Nov-Dec 230 2 0.9% 1.59 3.04 37 70

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 1,422 21 1.5% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 1,477 67 4.5% 0.46 0.32 68 47

Sep-Oct 930 22 2.4% 0.64 0.96 60 89

Nov-Dec 330 17 5.2% 0.47 0.70 16 23

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 503 0 0.0% 0.99 1.66 50 83

May-Aug 2,220 36 1.6% 0.56 0.48 124 107

Sep-Oct 1,646 110 6.7% 1.68 3.20 277 526

Nov-Dec 354 27 7.6% 2.44 4.89 86 173

Combined 23,988 410 1.7% 1,630 2,613

2005

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs)

(10%)

exp_num

(10%)

exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 4,640 11 0.2% 0.14 0.40 65 185

May-Aug 1,654 7 0.4% 0.73 1.22 121 202

Sep-Oct 2,216 0 0.0% 2.15 5.55 476 1,230

Nov-Dec 1,458 0 0.0% 1.65 4.01 241 585

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 458 0 0.0% 1.69 2.20 77 101

May-Aug 2,008 14 0.7% 3.14 5.49 631 1,102

Sep-Oct 1,225 2 0.2% 2.15 5.55 263 680

Nov-Dec 226 2 0.9% 1.65 4.02 37 91

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 1,410 41 2.9% 0.80 1.39 113 196

May-Aug 1,671 57 3.4% 0.32 0.44 53 74

Sep-Oct 810 2 0.2% 2.15 5.55 174 450

Nov-Dec 172 3 1.7% 1.65 4.02 28 69

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 483 3 0.6% 1.69 2.20 82 106

May-Aug 1,771 18 1.0% 0.39 0.72 69 128

Sep-Oct 1,721 125 7.3% 2.18 5.68 375 978

Nov-Dec 327 46 14.1% 1.15 1.66 38 54

Combined 22,250 331 1.5% 2,844 6,229

2006

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs)

(10%)

exp_num

(10%)

exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 4,631 26 0.6% 0.23 0.27 107 125

May-Aug 2,582 0 0.0% 0.38 0.52 98 134

Sep-Oct 2,625 0 0.0% 1.43 2.76 375 725

Nov-Dec 1,100 0 0.0% 1.23 1.83 135 201

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 396 0 0.0% 0.20 0.32 8 13

May-Aug 2,466 27 1.1% 0.19 0.28 47 69

Sep-Oct 1,390 1 0.1% 1.43 2.76 199 384

Nov-Dec 156 0 0.0% 1.23 1.83 19 29

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 1,214 24 2.0% 0.17 0.40 21 49

May-Aug 1,574 23 1.5% 0.26 0.23 41 36

Sep-Oct 904 0 0.0% 1.43 2.76 129 250

Nov-Dec 160 0 0.0% 1.23 1.83 20 29

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 588 2 0.3% 0.20 0.32 12 19

May-Aug 2,065 13 0.6% 1.15 1.78 237 368

Sep-Oct 1,915 144 7.5% 1.42 2.77 272 530

Nov-Dec 217 25 11.5% 1.28 1.90 28 41

Combined 23,983 285 1.2% 1,747 3,001

Collapsed across region by season where n<10

119

Table 33. Estimated release mortalities (number and weight) of red drum from the

small mesh estuarine gill net fishery.

2004 Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs)

(10%)

exp_num

(10%)

exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 2,175 19 0.9% 0.00 0.00 - -

May-Aug 647 5 0.8% 0.25 0.19 16 12

Sep-Oct 288 3 1.0% 1.72 2.12 50 61

Nov-Dec 187 2 1.1% 2.08 3.05 39 57

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 418 0 0.0% 0.03 0.31 1 13

May-Aug 454 0 0.0% 0.25 0.19 11 9

Sep-Oct 962 0 0.0% 1.72 2.12 165 204

Nov-Dec 427 0 0.0% 2.08 3.05 89 130

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 475 5 1.1% 0.03 0.31 1 15

May-Aug 185 1 0.5% 0.25 0.19 5 4

Sep-Oct 72 1 1.4% 1.72 2.12 12 15

Nov-Dec 164 2 1.2% 2.08 3.05 34 50

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 1,199 5 0.4% 0.03 0.31 4 37

May-Aug 797 2 0.3% 0.25 0.19 20 15

Sep-Oct 584 12 2.1% 2.29 2.83 134 165

Nov-Dec 604 20 3.3% 2.45 3.61 148 218

Combined 9,638 77 0.8% 729 1,005

2005

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs)

(10%)

exp_num

(10%)

exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 2,068 31 1.5% 0.16 0.11 33 23

May-Aug 1,013 9 0.9% 0.41 0.72 42 73

Sep-Oct 240 0 0.0% 0.25 0.25 6 6

Nov-Dec 193 1 0.5% 1.10 1.71 21 33

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 224 0 0.0% 0.82 1.01 18 23

May-Aug 306 0 0.0% 0.41 0.72 13 22

Sep-Oct 607 0 0.0% 0.25 0.25 15 15

Nov-Dec 423 1 0.2% 1.10 1.71 47 72

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 609 18 3.0% 0.22 0.28 13 17

May-Aug 172 3 1.7% 0.41 0.72 7 12

Sep-Oct 108 0 0.0% 0.25 0.25 3 3

Nov-Dec 171 0 0.0% 1.10 1.71 19 29

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 1,421 16 1.1% 2.75 3.58 391 509

May-Aug 1,444 10 0.7% 0.90 1.59 130 230

Sep-Oct 327 4 1.2% 0.25 0.25 8 8

Nov-Dec 605 18 3.0% 1.22 1.90 738 1,147

Combined 9,931 111 1.1% 1,503 2,222

2006

Season # trips

# trips

observed

% coverage CPUE (#) CPUE (lbs)

(10%)

exp_num

(10%)

exp_wt

Albemarle Sound Jan-Apr 1,325 44 3.3% 0.59 0.80 78 106

May-Aug 638 2 0.3% 0.73 1.05 47 67

Sep-Oct 292 0 0.0% 0.71 0.69 21 20

Nov-Dec 256 0 0.0% 1.25 2.59 32 66

Core Sound South Jan-Apr 169 2 1.2% 0.76 1.09 13 18

May-Aug 196 2 1.0% 0.73 1.05 14 21

Sep-Oct 950 0 0.0% 0.71 0.69 67 66

Nov-Dec 508 0 0.0% 1.25 2.59 64 132

Pamlico/Neuse River Jan-Apr 691 15 2.2% 0.40 0.49 28 34

May-Aug 221 1 0.5% 0.73 1.05 16 23

Sep-Oct 222 1 0.5% 0.71 0.69 16 15

Nov-Dec 288 0 0.0% 1.25 2.59 36 75

Pamlico Sound Jan-Apr 1,200 16 1.3% 1.75 2.74 210 329

May-Aug 1,053 1 0.1% 0.73 1.05 77 111

Sep-Oct 543 6 1.1% 0.71 0.69 39 37

Nov-Dec 575 4 0.7% 1.25 2.59 72 149

Combined 9,127 94 1.0% 828 1,268

Collapsed across region by season where n<10

120

4) Collect data on the harvest and releases of red drum captured in gill nets under the

Recreational Commercial Gear License.

Commercial fishing gears such as gill nets, crab pots and shrimp trawls have been used for

recreational purposes in the coastal w

aters of North Carolina for many years. To participate in these

activities the user must possess a Recreational Commercial Gear License (RCGL) that entitles the

individual to use limited amounts of commercial gear to catch fish for personal consumption but

does not allow for the sale of the catch.

The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries License and Statistics Section initiated a

survey project in March 2002 to collect catch and effort data from

RCGL holders. Questionnaires

are mailed to 30% of all RCGL holders each month requesting that they indicate waterbodies

commonly fished, types and amounts of gear used, number and weight of individual species kept,

and number of individual species discarded at sea.

Survey Design

The monthly and bimonthly survey questionnaires were designed to determine the number of trips

taken and quantities of gear used. Participants are also requested to provide estimates for the

numbers and pounds of each species caught and retained as well as the number of each species

discarded.

The sampling universe of RCGL holders for the monthly surveys includes all individuals

who purchased a license within a year prior of each m

onth sampled. SAS® PROC

SURVEYSELECT is used to randomly select a sample of the population at a 30.0% coverage rate

by county of residence, resulting in a mailing of 1,200 to 2,000 questionnaires, depending on the

number of active licenses during each sample period.

Effort and Catch Extrapolation Methods

To estimate the total number of trips taken by all RCGL holders, the monthly survey data are

extrapolated for each sample period and gear combination by:

1) Calculating the level of participation by dividing the total number of participants actively

using a

specific gear by the total number of returned questionnaires,

2) Calculating the mean number of trips taken by the participants indicating actively using a

specific gear and

3) Estimating the effort using the mean number of trips, level of participation, and the total

num

ber of RCGL holders for the given sample period.

Determination of the estimated catch for each species is also calculated for each sample period

and gear level by:

1. Summing the total catch by species, sample period and gear combination,

2. Summing the total number of trips taken by sample period and gear combination,

121

3. Dividing total catch by the total number of trips to determine the mean catch for each

species for every sample period and gear combination and

4. Calculating the catch estimate using the product of the mean catch and the estimated effort.

Red drum discards from RCGL gill nets were estimated for both small and large mesh gill

nets separately from 2002 to 2006. Information on the disposition of the red drum released from

RCGL gill nets was not available. Small mesh gill nets used under the RCGL require full time

attendance. Large mesh gill nets used under the RCGL can be left unattended from one hour before

sunset to one hour after sunrise north of the Emerald Isle Bridge (HWY 58) in Carteret County but

must be attended at all times south of this bridge to the South Carolina line. A maximum of 100

yards of gill net per license holder up to 200 yards of gill net per vessel can be fished. Although the

mortality associated with the use of this gear is unknown, the limited yardage and attendance

requirements should reduce the potential for excessive mortality.

Estimated red drum landings and discards from RCGL gill nets are summarized in Table 34.

Table 34. Estimated number and pounds of red drum harvested and the number of red drum

discarded using the Recreational Com

mercial Gear License in North Carolina.

Year Gear

Expanded

Trips

Actual Numbe

Observations

Kept

(number)

Kept

(pound)

Discard*

(number)

2002 Large Mesh Gill Nets 4,599 98 2,598 8,413 2,791

Small Mesh Gill Nets 789 26 441 1,480 1,252

All 5,388 124 3,039 9,893 4,043

2003 Large Mesh Gill Nets 1,645 47 738 2,746 818

Small Mesh Gill Nets 976 28 386 1,499 777

All 2,621 75 1,124 4,245 1,595

2004 Large Mesh Gill Nets 2,389 47 538 1,927 1,897

Small Mesh Gill Nets 1,304 40 791 2,605 1,735

All 3,693 87 1,329 4,532 3,632

2005 Large Mesh Gill Nets 2,647 85 1,166 4,879 1,601

Small Mesh Gill Nets 1,572 54 672 2,748 1,777

All 4,219 139 1,838 7,627 3,378

2006 Large Mesh Gill Nets 1,783 70 843 3,619 979

Small Mesh Gill Nets 1,719 72 1,000 3,941 6,655

All 3,502 142 1,843 7,560 7,634

*discard estimates include both live and dead red drum

In order to estimate the potential dead discards from the RCGL large mesh gill net fishery,

the ratio of

dead to live releases was calculated from the commercial observer data from 2004 to

2006. Only trips with a soak time of less than 12 hours were used to correspond with the attendance

requirement during the day. Of all red drum discarded, 33% were discarded dead. The mean weight

122

of individual red drum discarded dead was also calculated from the commercial observer data to

allow for annual discard estimates by weight to be calculated. The mean weight of an individual

discarded dead red drum by year was 1.74 lb in 2004; 3.02 lb in 2005; and 2.73 lb in 2006. Based

on this analysis, dead discards from the large mesh RCGL gill nets accounted for between 882 lb

and 1,596 lb of red drum discards per year (Table 35).

Table 35. Estimated dead discards from large mesh RCGL gill nets.

Year

Dead Discards (number) Dead Discards (weight)

2004 626 1,089

2005 528 1,596

2006 323 882

Estimates of dead red drum discards from attended small mesh RCGL gill nets were not

calculated due to the lack of inform

ation on the fate of discarded red drum in this fishery.

Commercial observer data had zero mortalities from small mesh trips where the soak time was less

than two hours. Low gillnet mortality in attended nets is consistent with the findings of Thorpe et al.

(2001). This study characterized the mortality associated with various types of estuarine gill net

fisheries in southeastern North Carolina. They reported a 0% acute mortality for red drum discarded

in the run-around spotted seatrout fishery, as well as in the small mesh RCGL gill net fishery and a

2.2% acute mortality for red drum taken in the run-around gill net striped mullet fishery. Short soak

times, actively fishing gear, and limited yardage appear to be an effective way of minimizing discard

mortality.

Summary of Discard Estimates

Available data on red drum discard mortality are summarized below in both pounds and

num

bers. The summary includes estimates from anchored estuarine gill nets for both commercial

and RCGL users. Estimated pounds of dead discards from the anchored estuarine gill net fishery

represented between 20% and 39% of the total removals from the population by this gear between

the years 2004 and 2006 (

Table 36). Expressed as the number of fish removed from the population,

dead discards represented betw

een 50% and 55% of all removals by anchored estuarine gill nets

during 2004 and 2005 (

Table 37). Total harvest numbers were derived from the catch at age in the

stock assessm

ent so no values were available for 2006. Discard (release) mortality represents a large

portion of the overall annual removals from the red drum population in both the recreational and

commercial fishery. In 2004 and 2005, dead discards from the recreational fishery represented

between 38% and 39% of the total recreational removals (harvest + dead discards) by number (

Table

38). Currently, the assessment only accounts for the recreational removals and no estimates have

been available in the com

mercial fishery. Based on this analysis, the stock assessment failed to

account for between 14% and 18% of all annual removals from the population in 2004 and 2005.

123

Table 36. Summary of all estimated discard mortalities in pounds associated with the anchored

estuarine gill net fishery.

Recreational

Large Mesh

Gill Net

Dead

Discards

(lbs)*

Total

Discard

Mortalities

(lbs)

Harvest from

Anchored

Estuarine Gill

Nets (lbs)**

Year Small Mesh Large Mesh Small Mesh Large Mesh Large Mesh All % Dead Discard % Harvested

2004 3,042 12,393 1,005 2,613 1,089 20,142

46,844

30% 70%

2005 4,807 54,143 2,222 6,229 1,596 68,997

108,527

39% 61%

2006 5,570 27,106 1,268 3,001 882 37,827

149,452

20% 80%

*no estimates for releases recreational small mesh gill nets

**includes commercial and recreational harvest by anchored estuarine gill nets

Anchored Estuarine Gill

Net Dead Discards (lbs)

Anchored Estuarine Gill

Net Mortality from

Releases (lbs)

Proportion of Total Removals

(lbs)

Table 37. Summary of all estimated discard mortalities in numbers associated with the anchored estuarine

gill net f

ishery.

Recreational

Large Mesh

Gill Net

Mortalities

(#'s)*

Total

Discard

Mortalities

(#'s)

Harvest from

Anchored

Estuarine Gill

Nets (#'s)**

Year Small Mesh Large Mesh Small Mesh Large Mesh Large Mesh All % Dead Discard % Harvested

2004 1,112 7,138 729 1,630 626 11,235 9,159 55% 45%

2005 3,066 17,925 1,503 2,844 528 25,866 25,727 50% 50%

*no estimates for releases recreational small mesh gill nets

**includes commercial and recreational harvest by anchored estuarine gill nets

Anchored Estuarine Gill

Net Dead Discards (#'s)

Anchored Estuarine Gill

Net Mortality from

Releases (#'s)

Proportion of Total Removals

(#'s)

Table 38. Estimated total takes from the red drum population by year from the recreational

hook and line fishery.

Year % Dead Discard % Harvested

2004 19,159 30,165 39% 61%

2005 32,786 53,154 38% 62%

Note: all values reported are in numbers of fish.

Proportion of Total Removals

Harvest

Discard Mortality

(10% of Releases)

124

Is it possible to eliminate or reduce the bycatch of unmarketable red drum in the

estuarine gill net fishery?

Understanding the habitat use of sub-legal red drum is a key factor in the successful

management of red drum and is critical if management options can be developed to effectively

reduce bycatch. The NCDMF began an independent gill net survey (IGNS) in Pamlico Sound in

2001. The program was expanded to include the Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse Rivers in 2003. A

major objective of this study was to provide a relative index of abundance for key species, including

red drum. A secondary objective was to look at habitat usage and associated catch rates of various

species. Information gathered from this program should provide insight on habitat use of red drum,

as well as ways to avoid red drum bycatch in the estuarine gill net fishery.

The IGNS utilized a stratified random sampling design where locations were selected based

on strata and depth (Figure 29). Sampling was divided into four regions: eastern Pamlico Sound

[Dare County (includes Outer Banks Dare and Hyde)], western Pam

lico Sound [Hyde County

(includes mainland Hyde County)], Neuse River, and Pamlico/Pungo River. Each of these sampling

regions was further divided into four evenly sized strata. A one-minute by one-minute (one square

nautical mile) grid system was laid over each stratum. Each stratum was sampled twice monthly. A

sample consisted of two shots of gill net and shots were made up of an array of panels, with each

panel being 30 yards in length. Panels varied in mesh size ranging from 3 to 6 ½ inches stretch

mesh by ½ inch intervals. For each sample, one shot was placed in deep (>

6 ft) and one shot was

placed in shallow (<6 ft) water for a total of 480 yards of gill net fished. Gill nets were set at dusk

and fished the following morning with a target soak time of 12 hours. Nets set close to shore were

either set perpendicular or parallel based on conditions and common fishing practice in the area.

Individual species captured were enumerated, measured and condition of fish at capture was

recorded (alive, dead or spoiled). Pertinent environm

ental data such as: salinity, temperature,

dissolved oxygen, bottom type, attached grass species, depth, and distance from shore were also

noted.

When and where are sub-legal red drum typically captured in estuarine gill nets?

The abundance of sub-legal red drum by season and habitat was explored using data from the

IGNS for each of the major regions sampled. Key predictors examined included depth and distance

from shore. Catch per unit effort (# of red drum captured per set) was calculated by month for all

red drum captured less than 18 inches total length. Results were pooled across years. Comparison

of CPUE values between shallow and deep sets clearly reveals a strong preference to shallow water

by sub-legal red drum (

Table 39). Across regions and months, shallow sets generally captured

>90% the num

ber of red drum as did deep sets with only a few exceptions having lower values. In

all instances, CPUE’s from shallow sets exceeded those of deep sets. Monthly CPUE values for

sub-legal red drum in shallow sets increased in all regions beginning in August as fish recruited to

the gear (

Figure 30). Peak monthly CPUE values occurred in September for the Neuse River,

October for the Pam

lico River and Dare County, and in November for the Pungo River and Hyde

County. The highest combined CPUE across all regions occurred in November.

125

Figure 29. Map of Pamlico Sound and associated rivers showing the sam

ple strata and locations of

individual samples taken in the NCDMF independent gill net survey from 2001 to 2006.

Table 39. Independent gill net survey CPUE for sub-legal red drum (<18 inches TL) captured in shallow (<6

ft) versus deep (>6 ft) sets from

2001 to 2005.

Location February March April May June July August September October November December

Neuse River shallow sets 1.33 1.29 1.17 1.27 0.63 2.14 5.08 11.87 6.02 7.19 2.75

deep sets 0.13 0.04 0 0 0.5 0 0.13 0.07 0.83 0.22 0.24

% reduced in deep 90% 97% 100% 100% 21% 100% 97% 99% 86% 97% 91%

Pamlico River shallow sets 0 0 0.91 0.13 0.375 0.94 2.02 3.56 7.88 4.15 1.96

deep sets 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.1 0.51 0.13 0.29 0.13

% reduced in deep - - 100% 15% 100% 100% 95% 86% 98% 93% 93%

Pungo River shallow sets 0 4 1.1 0.63 3.5 1.83 1.57 4.04 3.63 8.63 4.75

deep sets 0 0.25 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.17 0.1 0.17 0.25

% reduced in deep - 94% 100% 37% 100% 100% 100% 96% 97% 98% 95%

Hyde County shallow sets 0.85 0.58 1.21 0.77 0.15 0.44 1.44 4.57 6.77 9.21 5.52

(Pamlico Sound) deep sets 0 0 0.1 0.02 0.06 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.25

% reduced in deep - 100% 92% 97% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 95%

Dare County shallow sets 0.25 1.03 2.28 1 1.29 0.33 1.25 3.7 6.15 3.73 2

(Pamlico Sound) deep sets 0.1 0.03 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.86 0.94 0.48 1

% reduced in deep 60% 97% 94% 94% 98% 88% 98% 77% 85% 87% 50%

CPUE by Month

126

February March April May June July August September October November December

Month

Sum of CPUE across Regions

Dare County shallow sets

Hyde County shallow sets

Pungo River shallow sets

Pamlico River shallow sets

Neuse River shallow sets

Figure 30. Sub-legal red drum (<18 inches TL) CPUE by m

onth and region from the Pamlico Sound

independent gill net survey from 2001 to 2005.

In addition to depth, distance from shore was also analyzed to determine how sub-legal red

drum

catches may be impacted based on gill nets set at varying distances from shore. For this

analysis, sets made less than or greater than 50, 100 and 200 yards were compared using both deep

and shallow sets combined. In all regions, CPUE values typically decreased as distance from shore

increased (

Table 40). Hyde County had the greatest overall reduction with a 96% decrease in sub-

legal red drum

catch resulting from gill nets being set at least 50 yards from shore. Dare County saw

the lowest reduction but still had a 35% decrease in sub-legal red drum catch at 50 yards from shore.

Because depth typically increases with distance from shore, and red drum CPUE decreased with

increasing depth, the data were also analyzed using only shallow sets. Results using only shallow

water sets had higher overall CPUE values than did the deep and shallow sets combined, but the

percent reduction with distance from shore was similar. At 50 yards, the reduction in sub-legal red

drum catch ranged from 32% for Dare County to 95% for Hyde County.

Table 40. Sub-legal red drum CPUE from the NCDMF independent gill net survey with percent reductions

in CPUE based on establishing 50, 100, and 200 yard buffers from

shorelines for gill nets.

All Sets (Deep and Shallow) <50

ds >50

ds % reduction < 100

ds > 100

ds % reduction < 200

ds > 200

ds % reduction

Pamlico/Pungo/Neuse Rivers 1.87 0.88 53% 1.65 0.91 45% 1.51 0.18 88%

Pamlico Sound (Hyde County) 2.25 0.08 96% 2.01 0.01 100% 1.81 0.01 99%

Pamlico Sound (Dare County) 1.77 1.15 35% 1.72 1.13 34% 1.74 1.13 35%

Shallow Sets Only

Pamlico/Pungo/Neuse Rivers 3.23 2.02 37% 3.2 1.92 40% 3.16 0.41 87%

Pamlico Sound (Hyde County) 2.96 0.14 95% 2.94 0 100% 2.94 0 100%

Pamlico Sound (Dare County) 2.96 2.01 32% 2.92 1.96 33% 2.87 1.97 31%

CPUE reduction at 50 yds CPUE reduction at 100 yds CPUE reduction at 200 yds

127

What factors determine the fate of a red drum captured in a gill net?

Data from the NCDMF IGNS was analyzed to determine the fate of sub-legal red drum

captured with regard to month (water temperature) and mesh size (Table 41). Mortality was highest

for both sm

all and large mesh gill nets during the summer months from June through September.

Mortality in small mesh gill nets was higher than that for large mesh gill nets in every month except

September. Mortality rates showed a positive correlation with water temperature (

Figure 31).

Table 41. Sub-legal red drum acute mortality from capture in small and large mesh gill nets from

the NCDMF independent gill net survey, 2001 to 2006. Based on 12-hour soak tim

Month N % dead N % dead

February 34 29% 7 0% 48

March 115 30% 9 0% 53

April 169 38% 30 33% 64

May 115 50% 11 27% 71

June 99 72% 27 67% 80

July 116 72% 17 65% 84

August 306 74% 30 57% 83

September 729 67% 67 69% 78

October 953 51% 80 24% 68

November 962 40% 74 4% 59

December 274 23% 24 4% 51

Small Mesh Large Mesh

Average Water

Temperature (

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

February March April May June July August September October November December

Month

% Acute Mortality

Temperature (F)

Small Mesh

Large Mesh

Average Water Temperature (F)

Figure 31. Mean water temperature (

F) and percent acute mortality (at the net) for sub-legal red drum

captured in small and large mesh gill nets by month.

128

Discussion

A goal of the North Carolina Red Drum FMP is to prom

ote fishing practices that minimize

bycatch. Bycatch in the estuarine gill net fishery appears to be a substantial source of mortality in

the red drum fishery. Estimates from the available observer data indicate that dead red drum

discards from the estuarine gill net fishery are approximately equal to the number of red drum

harvest commercially on an annual basis. This loss due to discard mortality accounted for about

14% to 18% of all red drum removals in 2004 and 2005. The majority of these mortalities are sub-

legal fish.

Sub-legal red drum have been described as being ubiquitous with shoreline habitat (Ross and

Stevens 1992). Data gathered from

the IGNS indicated that red drum catch rates increase with

decreasing water depth and decreasing distance to shore. Bacheler et al. (2007) recently analyzed

data from the IGNS to determine what factors contribute to the distribution of red drum in Pamlico

Sound. The study used a generalized additive model (GAM) to relate water quality, microhabitat,

geographic, and temporal factors to red drum catches in the IGNS. The model utilized these

variables to predict what factors were significant in determining the habitat usage of various life

stages of red drum in North Carolina. Results indicated that age 1 (primarily sub-legal) red drum

had a strong preference to shallow, nearshore habitat. In addition, red drum along the ‘Outer Banks’

(Dare County), tended to also commonly be associated with seagrass habitat. Findings of the study

are consistent with the descriptive data presented in this paper, and indicate that limiting gill nets in

shallow water habitats and near shorelines could substantially reduce red drum discard mortality.

The undesirable effect of this action is that landings of other legal species could potentially be

negatively impacted.

The difficult question moving forward is to weigh the cost and benefits of various actions.

Can catches of other species (i.e. spot, striped mullet, speckled trout, bluefish and flounder) be

retained or recouped if gill nets are prohibited in particular areas or if they are required to be set at a

particular distance from shore?

Large Mesh Gill Net Fishery

Data collected by NCDMF in the fall of 2004 found no significant difference in the catch

rates of flounder taken in gill nets set on the shoreline versus those set 50 yards offshore. Sets were

made in the Pamlico, Pungo and Neuse Rivers. A Fishery Resource Grant (FRG) conducted in 2002

was designed to address the catch rates of red drum and flounder in large mesh gill nets set close to

and off the shoreline (Montgomery 2003). The results of the study found that more red drum were

captured in gill nets set close to and perpendicular to the shoreline while flounder catches were

highest in nets set slightly off (10 to 25 ft) and parallel to the shore. The conclusion of the study was

that the data tended to support the hypothesis that nets set farther from the marsh line would

decrease red drum bycatch without decreasing the number of flounder taken. It was also noted

however, that the study was limited in spatial coverage and that the overall number of red drum

captured was relatively low. In 2005, a FRG was conducted in southeastern North Carolina to

determine the effect of gill net tie-downs on fish and bycatch rates in the flounder and American

shad fisheries (Thorpe et al. 2005). While the study did not find a significant difference in the catch

rates of red drum using tie-downs, the study did report that distance from shore (<80 ft) and net

129

orientation (perpendicular to shore) were significant factors in increasing the incidence of red drum

capture in the shad fishery from January through April. It was not apparent from the study if shad or

flounder species were impacted by these variables. A third FRG conducted in 2005 and 2006 was

designed to characterize the flounder gill net fishing techniques and bycatch in the Pamlico River

(Hassell 2007). Unlike the previous studies, results of this study showed some decrease in flounder

catches with increasing distance from shore. At a minimum distance from shore of 50 yards

flounder catches were reduced by 22% while red drum bycatch was reduced by 76%. The author

suggests an alternative option should be to explore a 25 yard buffer where the results indicated that

flounder catches would be reduced by 11% with red drum catches reduced by 48%.

To address this question more thoroughly, IGNS data was analyzed for legal size southern

flounder with catch rates reported for sets m

ade at less than or greater than 50 yards from shore

(

Table 42). Results for the rivers from the IGNS support the findings of Hassell (2007) and show

that catches of flounder outside 50 yards were reduced. Reductions in the IGNS rivers region were

uch more significant (61%) than those of Hassell (22%). Fishing methods in the IGNS may not be

typical for flounder fishermen in this area. For instance, the average depth fished in the Hassell

study was approximately 5 ft where sets made in the IGNS are typically either less than 3 ft or

greater than 6 ft. These differences may explain why the IGNS saw such a drastic decline in catch

rates in the rivers for sets made outside 50 yards where sets were typically made in water >6 ft.

Catch rates in Pamlico Sound (Hyde County) showed no differences in CPUE values for southern

flounder from sets made less than or greater than 50 yards while red drum bycatch was reduced by

96% in the offshore sets in this area (

Table 40). The Pamlico Sound (Dare County) saw a 22%

reduction in legal size flounder catches in gill net sets m

ade outside of 50 yards with a

corresponding reduction in sub-legal red drum bycatch of 35%.

Table 42. CPUE of southern flounder captured in IGNS from 2001 to 2006 in gill net

sets m

ade either less than or greater than 50 yards from shore.

Region

50 yds

>50 yds % reduction

Pamlico/Pungo/Neuse Rivers 0.67 0.26 61%

Pamlico Sound (Hyde County) 1.1 1.1 0%

Pamlico Sound (Dare County) 1.4 1.09 22%

CPUE

note: corresponding reductions of red drum are given in Table 16

An important criterion in deciding if and when regulations are needed should be to determine

hen the potential impacts are the greatest. The number of trips made in the gill net fishery

fluctuates with season, but red drum discard mortality for a given unit of gill net effort will primarily

be determined by two factors: 1) the mortality associated with being captured and 2) the availability

or catch rate of red drum to the gear being fished. In order to investigate how the cumulative effect

of these two factors has the potential to impact sub-legal red drum discard mortality throughout the

year, the relative index of abundance by month from the IGNS was multiplied by the mean monthly

acute mortality rate associated with gill net capture. Results indicate that the greatest potential

impact in the large mesh gill net fishery increases in June through August with a large peak in

130

September (Figure 32). Impacts are minimal in February, March, November and December.

Considering these im

pacts, the third factor to consider is fishing effort. Based on trip ticket

information, large mesh gill net trips are relatively high throughout the year but peak in October and

March. Based on this analysis the greatest potential impact for bycatch mortality of sub-legal red

drum in the large mesh gill net fishery would be for the period of June through October with the

month of September having by far the largest potential impact (

Figure 32).

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

February March April May June July August September October November December

Month

Acute gill net mortality rate x IGNS CPUE

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

# of Large Mesh Gill Net Trips

Large Mesh Trips

Acute Mortality X CPUE

Figure 32. Potential impact of large mesh gill nets per unit of effort based on the availability of sub-

legal red drum

(CPUE from IGNS) and the % acute mortality associated with capture in a

gill net by month. Based on samples collected from 2001 to 2006.

Small Mesh Gill Net Fishery

As stated in the background of this report, North Carolina took action as part of the 2001 NC

red drum

FMP to reduce red drum bycatch in the estuarine gill net fishery. The restrictions require

the seasonal attendance of small mesh gill nets (<5” stretch mesh) and have been in place since

October of 1998. Small mesh gill nets select for red drum less than 18” TL and can be a significant

source of the bycatch mortality, particularly in months when water temperatures are high. Current

North Carolina regulations require the attendance of small mesh gill nets from May 1 through

October 31 in areas known to be critical for juvenile red drum. These include all primary and

secondary nursery areas, areas within 200 yards of any shoreline, and the extensive area of shallow

grass flats located behind the Outer Banks. An exemption to this rule lifts the attendance

requirement for the region from Core Sound to the South Carolina border in October to allow for the

fall spot fishery. In this fishery, observed trips by NCDMF noted that gill netters tended to set nets

at least 100 yards from shore and were able to avoid red drum bycatch.

When attendance rules were debated during the development of the 2001 Red Drum FMP,

uch discussion centered on the potential need for attendance to extend into November. At the

time, data were unavailable on the incidence of red drum bycatch during this period. Data collected

since that time indicates that sub-legal red drum have their highest catch rates during November and

although the acute mortality rate associated with this month is lower, it is still >40% (

Figure 31;

131

Table 41).

Analysis was done for small mesh gill nets, as with large mesh gill nets, to determine the

onths when the greatest potential impact per unit of gill net effort occurred for sub-legal red drum.

The results indicate that the months of August through November have the greatest potential impact

with a peak in September (Figure 33). Mortality is likely already greatly reduced due to attendance

regulations currently in place from May 1 through October 31. Of the remaining months, November

and December have the greatest potential for dead sub-legal discards.

February March April May June July August September October November December

Month

Acute gill net mortality rate x IGNS CPUE

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

# of Small Mesh Gill Net Trips

Small Mesh Trips

Acute Mortality X CPUE

Figure 33. Potential impact of small mesh gill nets per unit of effort based on the availability of sub-

legal red drum

(CPUE from IGNS) and the % acute mortality associated with capture in a

gill net by month. Based on samples collected from 2001 to 2006.

It is extremely difficult to predict how commercial gill net landings will be impacted by any

regulations. Reductions based on m

inimum distance from shore cannot account for the potential

adaptability of commercial users. Some landings, particularly for small mesh fisheries, may shift to

other gears such as run-around gill nets. The simplest exercise to understand potential impacts may

be to look at how landings shifted in the periods before and after the current attendance rule went

into place in October of 1998. Key species that were likely to be impacted by past attendance

regulations include those typically taken in small mesh gill nets: bluefish, Spanish mackerel,

menhaden, striped mullet, sea mullet, spot, weakfish, spotted seatrout and white perch (Table 43).

Landings after the attendance requirements were implemented in late 1998 show an overall 15%

increase over the pre-attendance period. By species, bluefish, Spanish mackerel, menhaden, spot

and white perch increased in landings, while striped (jumping) mullet, sea mullet, weakfish and

spotted seatrout landings decreased. Overall landings increased despite a 14% decrease in the

number of trips made and a 6% decrease in the ex-vessel value. Additional analysis indicates that

overall, there was no major shift to run-around gill nets and away from anchored gill nets since

attendance rules were implemented (Table 44). It appears that for those fisheries impacted by the

attendance requirements, gill netters were able to locate suitable fishing grounds outside the

attendance areas or were willing to attend their gillnets without major reductions in landings.

132

Table 43. Average annual landings, trips and value of key species captured in the estuarine gill net fishery

before (1994-1998) and after (1999-2006) the sm

all mesh gill net rules were implemented. Species

included are those typically taken in the small mesh gill net fishery. These data include both

anchored and run-around gill net landings.

1994-1998 1999-2006 1994-1998 1999-2006 1994-1998 1999-2006

Species Pre-attendance Attendance % change Pre-attendance Attendance % change Pre-attendance Attendance % change

Bluefish 277,235 335,646 21% 7,170 6,236 -13% 73,658$ 83,351$ 13%

Mackerel, Spanish 128,006 138,230 8% 1,625 1,200 -26% 72,036$ 130,154$ 81%

Menhaden 198,216 738,872 273% 668 3,433 414% 18,754$ 80,602$ 330%

Mullets, Jumping 1,772,629 1,700,232 -4% 11,748 8,477 -28% 1,153,276$ 867,614$ -25%

Sea Mullet 47,651 37,089 -22% 2,973 2,290 -23% 41,289$ 36,060$ -13%

Spot 493,543 647,588 31% 6,596 7,593 15% 179,944$ 305,350$ 70%

Weakfish 342,333 123,736 -64% 9,813 6,488 -34% 198,686$ 80,335$ -60%

Trout, Speckled 198,945 172,753 -13% 9,853 7,214 -27% 231,783$ 219,384$ -5%

White Perch 122,086 209,871 72% 5,316 4,902 -8% 93,631$ 136,966$ 46%

Total 3,580,644 4,104,018 15% 55,764 47,834 -14% 2,063,056$ 1,939,817$ -6%

Average Landings (lbs) Average Trips Average Value

Table 44. Average annual landings for key species captured in the small mesh estuarine gill net

fishery before (1994-1998) and after (1999-2006) the sm

all mesh gill net rules were

implemented. Results are broken down into either anchored or run-around/drift gill nets.

Species included are those typically taken in the small mesh gill net fishery.

1994-1998 1999-2006

Gear Species Pre-attendance Attendance % change

Anchored Gill Nets Bluefish 265172 324815 22%

Mackerel, Spanish 123981 135048 9%

Menhaden 196119 715089 265%

Mullets, Jumping 851131 714349 -16%

Sea Mullet 46963 36526 -22%

Spot 443381 603629 36%

Weakfish 339261 122123 -64%

Trout, Speckled 169378 127865 -25%

White Perch 120958 205755 70%

Total 2556344 2985197 17%

Run-around/Drift Gill Nets Bluefish 12063 10832 -10%

Mackerel, Spanish 4025 3182 -21%

Menhaden 2097 23783 1034%

Mullets, Jumping 921498 985884 7%

Sea Mullet 688 563 -18%

Spot 50162 43959 -12%

Weakfish 3072 1613 -47%

Trout, Speckled 29567 44889 52%

White Perch 1129 4116 265%

Total 1024300 1118821 9%

Average Landings (lbs)

133

Current Authority

North Carolina Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (15A NCAC)

03J.0103 Gill Nets, Seines, Identification, Restrictions

03R.0112 Attended Gill Net Areas

Management Options/Impacts

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

Set small mesh (<5 inches stretch) estuarine gill net management options:

1) Status quo

+ No additional rules or burden for commercial fishery

- Continued bycatch and discards of sub-legal red drum

- Potentially reduced SPR and escapement rates

2) Extend attendance duration

+ Reduce red drum bycatch mortality

+ Decreased bias in stock assessment

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Potential for some reduced landings of target species

3) Extend attendance areas

+ Reduce bycatch and discard mortality in habitats where sub-legal red drum are abundant

+ Reduced mortality of juvenile red drum and decreased bias in stock assessment

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

+ Continued use of gears/methods that have less impact (run-around gill nets, attended nets)

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Potential for some reduced landings of target species

4) Require minimum depth for the use of set small mesh gill nets

+ Reduce red drum bycatch mortality in areas where sub-legal red drum are abundant

+ Decreased bias in stock assessment

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

+ Continued use of gears/methods that have less impact (run-around gill nets, attended nets)

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Increased potential for reduced landings of target species

5) Require minimum distance from shore for the use of set small mesh gill nets

+ Reduce red drum bycatch mortality in areas where sub-legal red drum are abundant

+ Decreased bias in stock assessment

134

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

+ Continued use of gears/methods that have less impact (run-around gill nets, attended nets)

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Potential for some reduced landings of target species

Set large mesh (>5 inches stretch) estuarine gill net management options:

1) Status quo

+ No new rules or additional burden for commercial fishery

- Continued bycatch and discards of sub-legal red drum

- Potentially reduced SPR and escapement rates

2) Require attendance seasons

+ Reduce red drum bycatch mortality during periods when discard mortality is high

+ Decreased bias in stock assessment

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Potential for some reduced landings of target species

3) Require nets to be set at a minimum distance from shore

+ Reduce red drum bycatch bycatch mortality in areas where sub-legal red drum are abundant

+ Decreased bias in stock assessment

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

+ Continued use of gears/methods that have less impact (run-around gill nets, attended nets)

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Potential for some reduced landings of target species

4) Require nets to be set at a minimum depth of water

+ Reduce bycatch and discard mortality in areas where sub-legal red drum are abundant

+ Reduced mortality of juvenile red drum and decreased bias in stock assessment

+ Reduce bycatch of other unmarketable species

+ Continued use of gears/methods that have less impact (run-around gill nets, attended nets)

- Additional rules with increased burden for commercial fishery

- Difficult to enforce

- Increased potential for some reduced landings of target species

135

Management Recommendations

DMF Recommendation

Small Mesh (<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round attendance requirements:

Extend attendance within 200 yards of shore to include the area of the lower Neuse out to the mouth of

the river.

Seaasonal attendance requirements:

Modify the seasonal attendance requirements for small mesh gill nets (currently May 1 to October 31) to

include the period of May 1 through November 30 in:

1) all primary and permanent secondary nursery areas and all m

odified no-trawl areas (shallow

grass beds in eastern Pamlico and Core Sound)

2) Within 200 yards of any shoreline for the areas of Pam

lico, Pungo, Neuse, and Bay Rivers

3) Within 50 yards of any shoreline in areas of Pam

lico and Core Sound and in all coastal

waters south to NC/SC line

4) Area from HWY 58 bridge south is excluded from

shoreline requirement during October

and November

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to be set a minimum of 10 yards from any shoreline from

June through October

RDAC Recommendation

Small Mesh (<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round attendance requirements:

Extend attendance within 200 yards of shore to include the area of the lower Neuse out to the mouth

of the river (and)

Require year-round attendance of small mesh nets in Primary and Permanent Secondary Nursery

Areas north of the Wainwrights in Carteret County

and exempting the Albemarle Sound Management

Area

Seaasonal attendance requirements:

Modify the seasonal attendance requirements for small m

esh gill nets (currently May 1 to October 31)

to include the period of May 1 through November 30 in:

a) all primary and permanent secondary nursery areas

b) all modified no-trawl areas (shallow grass beds in eastern Pam

lico and Core Sound)

c) all areas within 200 yards of any shoreline, exem

pting the areas of Core Sound and south

from the 200 yards of any shoreline requirement during the months of October and November

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to be set a m

inimum of 10 yards from any shoreline

136

MFC Selected Management Option:

Small Mesh (<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round attendance requirements:

Extend attendance within 200 yards of shore to include the area of the lower Neuse out to the

mouth of the river.

Seaasonal attendance requirements:

Modify the seasonal attendance requirements for small mesh gill nets (currently May 1 to

October 31) to include the period of May 1 through Novem

ber 30 in:

5) all primary and permanent secondary nursery areas and all modified no-trawl areas

(shallow grass beds in eastern Pamlico and Core Sound)

6) Within 200 yards of any shoreline for the areas of Pamlico, Pungo, Neuse, and Bay

Rivers

7) Within 50 yards of any shoreline in areas of Pamlico and Core Sound and in all coastal

waters south to NC/SC line

8) Area from Core Sound and south is excluded from shoreline requirement during

October and November

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to be set a minimum of 10 yards from any shoreline

from June through October

Research Recommendations

• Conduct research to determine the extent of red drum interactions with the small mesh gill

net fishery in the areas of Core Sound and south during the months of October and

November.

• Continue and expand estuarine gill net observer program to collect data across various key

fisheries by season and area.

• Collect data from observer program or through other sources on the catch rates of red drum

and targeted species with regard to distance from shore.

• Conduct a comprehensive survey of gill net fishers including information on species

targeted, gear characteristics, areas fished.

• Conduct studies that explore ways to reduce red drum interactions while allowing for

retention of targeted species.

• Conduct additional research to determine the release mortality of red drum captured in gill

nets.

• Continue and enhance collection of fishery dependent data.

137

10.2.5.2 Red Drum Discard Byctatch in the Pamlico, Pungo and Neuse Rivers

Issue

Red drum discarded bycatch in the small mesh gill net fishery of the Pamlico, Pungo, and

Neuse rivers, N.C.

Background

Bycatch is defined as the “ the portion of a catch taken incidentally to the targeted catch

because of non-selectivity of the fishing gear to either species or size differences” (ASMFC 1994).

The 2001 Red Drum FMP stipulates that the take of red drum is allowed solely as bycatch, one may

not target or direct fishing effort toward red drum. Therefore any take of red drum meets the

definition of bycatch. Bycatch can be further divided into two components: incidental catch

(retained or marketable non-targeted species), and discard (portion of catch returned to the waters as

a result of regulatory, economic or personal considerations). Current management allows the

commercial harvest of up to 7 red drum, provided an equal weight of other commercially marketable

species is also taken. This harvest would be considered incidental catch, and any other take would

be “discard”. The distinction between these two categories is often overlooked in the public

discussion of “bycatch issues”.

The Neuse River small mesh gill net fisheries have become a focal point for these

discussions. During the developm

ent of the initial 2001 Red Drum FMP the issue of red drum

discards in large and small mesh gill net fisheries was debated and the following management

measures were enacted to reduce the discard and minimize impacts to other ongoing targeted

fisheries (striped mullet, speckled trout, etc.):

Rule NCAC 03J .0103 (Gill net, seines, identification, restrictions) sets up sm

all mesh (< 5

inches stretched mesh) net attendance requirements for referenced areas either year round or

seasonally from May 1 through 31 October. This rule also grants the Director broad proclamation

authority for gill nets and seines.

Rule NCAC 03R. 0112 (Attended gill net areas) specifies the year round locations (upper

Neuse, Pam

lico and Pungo rivers and within 200 yards of shore within portions of these systems)

and the seasonal areas (primary nursery, permanent secondary nursery, no trawl, Outer Banks

Mechanical Methods prohibited, within 200 yards of any shoreline).

The existing Rule NCAC 03O .0302 (Authorized gear for Recreational Com

mercial Gear

License) limits RCGL small mesh (defined as less than 5 ½ inch stretch mesh) to 100 yards per

person and not more than 200 yards when two or more RCGL holders are onboard a vessel. All

RCGL small mesh must be attended (within 100 yards) at all times. In inland water under the

Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) no gill nets are allowed. During the development of the

2001 FMP whether to include the month of November as part of the seasonal attendance period was

debated but tabled due to a lack of adequate data. This issue paper will summarize independent

survey information that is now available.

138

The public concern about red drum discard in this system has intensified. The Division

(DMF) and the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) have received numerous complaints about red

drum discard in the tributaries and requests to eliminate small mesh gill nets. The recreational print

media have also highlighted this concern with several articles. This issue paper will summarize for

the Neuse and Pamlico river systems red drum discard rates, mortality rates, commercial effort and

harvest trends, and other relevant information in order to provide a sound basis for discussing

potential management actions.

Data Sources

Data for this issue paper were obtained from two fishery-independent programs (462, and

915), and two fishery-dependent programs (estuarine gill net sampling and the trip ticket program),

which are briefly described below. All analysis and discussion are based on seasons (October–

December) area (Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers) and anchored set gill nets with mesh size (3.5”,

4”, 4.5”). These mesh sizes are commonly used in the small mesh fisheries of Pamlico, Pungo and

Neuse rivers.

Trip Ticket Data

In 1994, NCDMF implemented a mandatory Trip Ticket Program, which is a landings

inform

ation record keeping system for each commercial harvest trip. Under this program licensed

fishermen can only sell commercial catches to licensed NCDMF fish dealers. The dealer is required to

complete a trip ticket every time a licensed fishermen lands fish. Trip tickets capture data on gears

used to harvest fish, area fished, species harvested, and total weights of each individual species. Gear

codes to distinguish large and small mesh gill nets were initiated in 2004. Care must be used in the

interpretation of landings assigned to a specific gear and waterbody. Up to three gears and one

waterbody may be reported on an individual trip ticket. On tickets with more than one gear,

assignment of landings to a specific gear is a judgment call. The method described in the “Bycatch

and Discards of Red Drum in the North Carolina Estuarine Gill Net Fishery” issue paper was used to

determine small mesh catches. The landings for the complex of targeted small mesh species

identified in the referenced Issue paper were used to represent this fishery in the Trends Section of

this paper.

Program 462 Independent Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study

Due to the aforementioned concerns the DMF initiated a study to quantify catch rates and

ortality of red drum, spotted sea trout, southern flounder, and striped bass during months in which

small mesh gill net attendance is not required. A total of 288 small mesh gill net samples were

collected in creeks off the Neuse and Bay rivers during the months of October - December 2005 &

2006 (Figure 34). This study utilized three separate gangs of nets with each gang consisting of three

nets (3½, 4, and 4½” stretched mesh, each 30 yards long by 8 feet deep). Each individual 30 yard

set composed a sample. Nets were set perpendicular and as close to shore as possible, left

unattended and then fished each following day with a target soak time of 24 hours in a manner that

closely mirrored commercial fishing practices.

139

Figure 34. Program 462 gill net sampling areas.

Data collected included: water depth; temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen; time gear set

and retrieved, GPS coordinates of set, species

captured, length (FL or TL), and condition (alive,

dead, spoiled). Individual weights were calculated based on length/weight relationships obtained

from DMF age sampling. Upon retrieval of the nets, fish were enumerated by mesh size, measured

to the nearest mm and a total group weight obtained (kg). This program provided information on red

drum mortality, CPUE, and size and species composition, of small mesh gill nets.

Program 915 Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey

The DMF began an independent gill net survey (IGNS) in Pamlico Sound in 2001. The

program

was expanded to include the Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers in 2003. One objective of

this study was to provide a relative index of abundance for key species, including red drum.

The IGNS utilizes a stratified random sampling design where locations are selected based on

strata and depth. Sam

pling is divided into four regions: eastern Pamlico Sound (Dare County),

western Pamlico Sound (Hyde County), Neuse River, and Pamlico/Pungo River. Each of these

sampling regions is further divided into four evenly sized strata (Figure 35). A one-minute by one-

minute (one square nautical mile) grid system is laid over each stratum. Each stratum is sampled

twice monthly. A sample consisted of two shots of gill net and shots are made up of an array of

panels, with each panel being 30 yards in length. Panels vary in mesh size ranging from 3 to 6 ½

inches stretch mesh by ½ inch intervals. For each sample, one shot was placed in deep (>

6 ft) and

one shot was placed in shallow (<6 ft) water. Gill nets were set at dusk and fished the following

morning with a target soak time of 12 hours. Nets set close to shore are either set perpendicular or

parallel based on conditions and common fishing practice in the area.

140

Individual species captured are enumerated, measured and condition of fish at capture is

recorded (alive, dead or spoiled). Pertinent environmental data such as: salinity, temperature,

dissolved oxygen, bottom type, attached grass species, depth, and distance from shore are also noted.

Data from this program was used to obtain species composition, size data, and CPUE estimates for

small mesh gill nets.

Figure 35. Independent gill net (Program 915) sampling grids for the Neuse, Pamlico, and Pungo,

rivers.

Program 461 Dependent Estuarine Gill Net Sampling

Sampling of the estuarine gill net fishery was initiated by the DMF in April 1991 to

determ

ine age, size, and composition of species taken in the gill net fishery. Trip information is

gathered on waterbody fished, total length of nets (feet), soak time (minutes), specific net type (i.e.

float, sink, etc.), mesh size (bar mesh, inches), net depth (float nets, recorded in feet), vertical fishing

depth (sink nets, recorded in feet), twine size, average water depth (meters) and incidental species.

Information from this program was used to estimate average yardage by mesh size of small mesh

nets fished in the river system, which was then used to obtain estimates of red drum CPUE in the

commercial fishery.

Trend Analysis

Landings for the targeted small mesh gill net fishery in the rivers have averaged 663,591

pounds since 1994, while other estuarine water small mesh landings have averaged 3.3 million

pounds during the same time frame. Landings for both areas have shown an upward trend since

1994 (Figure 36). The number of trips in the rivers has remained relatively stable and had averaged

4, 074 since 1994 (Figure 37). Although landings for other waters have shown an upward trend the

number of trips is declining (Figure 38) and have averaged 24,184 trips per year. Both areas have

shown a declining trend in the number of participants, with 282 fishermen on average working the

rivers and, 1,362 in other areas of the state (Figure 39). The small mesh fishery in the rivers

accounts for 17% of the poundage and participation, and 14% of the trip of the statewide estuarine

small mesh fishery.

141

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Pounds

Other

River

Figure 36. Reported landings for targeted small mesh gill net species. River includes Pamlico,

Pungo, and Neuse rivers; other includes all other estuarine waters of the state. Targeted

species are bluefish, red drum

, kingfish, Spanish mackerel, Atlantic Menhaden (bait),

striped mullet, white perch, spotted seatrout, spot, and weakfish.

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Number

Other

River

Figure 37. Numbers of trips for targeted small mesh gill net species. River includes Pamlico,

Pungo, and Neuse rivers; other includes all other estuarine waters of the state.

142

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Number

Other

River

Figure 38. Numbers of participants targeting small mesh gill net species. River includes Pamlico,

Pungo, and Neuse rivers; other includes all other estuarine waters of the state.

Species Composition

Species composition by river system is shown for October and November/December in order

to contrast catch composition between attendance and non-attendance periods.

Trip Ticket Species Composition

Based on annual landings the seasonal percentage by species using small mesh gill nets in

the Neuse River, October through December, were spotted seatrout (41.9%), spot (40.9%), striped

mullet (32.8%), red drum (22%) and bluefish (15.2%). October accounts for 8% of all gill net

landings in the Neuse River, while November accounts for 5%, and December 3% (Table 45). For

the Pamlico/Pungo complex, 66% of the weakfish were landed from October through November

(Table 46). Other species with significant landings during this three month period are; Sea mullet

(65%), striped mullet (39%), red drum (33%), and spotted sea trout (32%). October landings for this

system are 10% of the total, followed by November (8%), and December (7%).

Program 462 Species Composition

Percent species composition for Program 462 sampling includes all species captured.

Looking at all species, striped mullet were the primary species captured in October accounting for

41% of the total collection weight (Table 47). Other commercially important species captured

during this month included, red drum (10.1%), spotted seatrout (6.8%), southern flounder (3.9%)

and weakfish (0.9%).

143

When only the top five marketable species for October are included, percentages shifted to

for striped mullet (67.4%), red drum (19.8%), spotted seatrout (7.5%), bluefish (4.3%) and spot

(1%). For November and December, red drum (49.7%) were more abundant than striped mullet

(35%).

For all species during November and December red drum were the most abundant species

captured in this study accounting for 49.7% of the total weight (Table 48). Striped m

ullet accounted

for 35.1% of the catch, followed by spotted seatrout (14.2 %), spot (1.0 %) and no bluefish.

Program 915 Species Composition

Data from the shallow water sets (< 6’) were used in this analysis because the vast majority

of commercial effort is prosecuted within shallow waters. Furthermore, 94 % of the red drum were

caught in shallow sets (

Table 49), and these sets are similar to those made in Program 462. Red

drum

were the primary species captured in October and accounted for 34.4% of the total collection

weight for the Neuse River (

Table 50). When only the top five marketable species for October are

included, percentages shifted to for red drum

(64.3%), striped mullet (19.0 %), spotted seatrout (9.6

%), bluefish (4.7 %) and spot (2.3 %). November and December show similar species compostion.

For the Pamlico and Pungo rivers red drum were the most abundant species accounting for

26.8% of

the total catch (Table 51). Other economically important species captured were striped

mullet (18.4%), striped bass (6.2%), and southern flounder (3.7%).

When looking only at the top five marketable species for October, percentages shifted for red

drum

(52.5%), striped mullet (45.1 %), spotted seatrout (0.5 %), bluefish (0 %) and spot (1.9 %).

Again, November and December also have similar species composition.

During November and December red drum accounted for 30.6% of the catch in the Neuse

River (Table 52). Striped bass accounted for 13.6% of the catch, followed by striped m

ullet

(13.1%), spotted sea trout (3.3%), and southern flounder (1.1%). Catches from the Pamlico and

Pungo rivers for this time frame were dominated by gizzard shad [35.9% (Table 53)]. Red drum was

the second most abundant species and accounted for 14.1% of the catch. This was followed by

striped bass (11.9%), and striped mullet (11.2%).

144

Table 45. Average monthly landings (pounds) for targeted small mesh gill net species in the Neuse River, NC 2001 – 06, set nets only.

Month

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Bluefish . 1 76 2,854 579 59 16 434 872 819 53 2 5,764

Red drum 465 395 412 601 1,190 899 716 838 1,330 1,179 577 178 8,780

Sea mullet . 0 6 74 9 0 2 3 5 48 10 1 159

Spanish mackerel . 8 . 1 30 4 65 7,724 4,813 1,011 18 . 13,673

Atlantic menhaden 3,341 35,380 30,923 15,109 1,406 3 36 247 269 674 595 825 88,807

Mullets 5,987 3,649 2,224 4,063 2,406 1,999 1,846 2,338 3,791 6,589 5,045 2,167 42,103

White perch 63 202 275 92 5 3 4 8 7 8 84 112 864

Spotted sea trout 1,458 898 669 1,212 1,129 491 160 277 375 818 2,183 1,822 11,491

Spot 11 1 94 2,672 1,633 551 506 398 1,049 4,003 761 13 11,691

Weakfish 40 75 179 801 130 17 10 26 105 364 284 190 2,221

All 11,365 40,608 34,860 27,479 8,518 4,026 3,360

12,292 12,614 15,512 9,610 5,310 185,554

Table 46. Average monthly landings (pounds) for targeted small mesh gill net species in the Pamlico, Pungo rivers, NC 2001 – 06, set nets only.

Month

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Bluefish . . 1 968 326 81 2 97 220 34 2 . 1,731

Red drum 184 144 119 131 163 259 486 689 618 778 437 168 4,175

Sea mullet . 3 0 6 6 1 0 1 4 14 9 16 60

Spanish mackerel . . . 2 289 144 147 1,303 2,199 393 1 . 4,477

Atlantic menhaden 2,717 13,520 24,530 2,603 58 114 31 28 11 7 47 35 43,702

Mullets 12,594 4,517 7,395 5,488 4,226 4,005 1,760 3,179 5,107 13,009 8,701 9,026 79,007

White perch 2,328 2,528 3,162 767 234 60 25 185 156 290 1,338 1,078 12,150

Spotted sea trout 2,430 251 254 464 1,297 571 111 128 253 543 1,281 898 8,480

Spot . 3 48 1,893 1,505 702 142 436 640 866 44 2 6,282

Weakfish 3 8 112 508 63 6 2 17 142 578 851 258 2,546

All 20,255 20,973 35,620 12,829 8,165 5,941 2,706

6,064 9,351 16,514 12,709 11,481 162,609

145

Table 47. Species composition from Program 462, Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study, Neuse River

NC, October, 2005 - 06.

Species

Number

of nets

Mean

catch

weight

(kg)

Percent

total

weight

Mean

catch

num

ber

Percent

total

number

Mean

weight

(kg)

Total

num

ber

Total

weight

(kg)

Striped mullet 54 1.8 41.0 2.3 22.4 0.8 126 96.6

Gizzard shad 54 1.0 23.5 2.4 23.1 0.4 130 55.5

Red drum 54 0.4 10.1 0.7 6.6 0.6 37 23.9

Spotted seatrout 54 0.3 6.8 0.3 2.5 1.1 14 16.0

Atlantic menhaden 54 0.3 6.0 2.1 19.8 0.1 111 14.0

Southern flounder 54 0.2 3.9 0.5 4.6 0.4 26 9.3

Blue crab 54 0.1 2.2 0.6 5.7 0.2 32 5.1

Black drum 54 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.9 0.8 5 4.2

Pinfish 54 0.1 1.7 1.0 9.3 0.1 52 3.9

Weakfish 54 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.6 0.2 9 2.1

Spot 54 0.0 0.8 0.1 1.4 0.2 8 1.8

Striped bass x white 54 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.2 1 1.2

Bluefish 54 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 2 0.8

Atlantic croaker 54 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 2 0.4

White perch 54 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 1 0.4

Silver perch 54 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 3

0.3

Southern kingfish 54 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 1 0.3

Ladyfish 54 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 1 0.2

White shrimp 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0

146

Table 48. Species composition from Program 462, Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study, Neuse

River NC, Novem

ber - December, 2005 - 06.

Species

Number

of nets

Mean

catch

weight

(kg)

Percent

total

weight

Mean

catch

num

ber

Percent

total

number

Mean

weight

(kg)

Total

num

ber

Total

weight

(kg)

Red drum 234 1.2 30.2 1.7 24.1 0.7 388 273.1

Striped mullet 234 1.0 25.6 1.2 17.0 0.8 274 230.9

Spotted seatrout 234 0.6 14.3 0.5 6.9 1.2 112 129.2

Gizzard shad 234 0.5 13.4 1.1 15.6 0.5 251 121.2

Atlantic menhaden 234 0.2 5.2 1.4 20.5 0.1 330 47.1

Southern flounder 234 0.1 3.4 0.3 4.9 0.4 79 30.7

White perch 234 0.1 1.9 0.2 3.2 0.3 51 17.3

Longnose gar 234 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 1.8 6 10.5

Striped bass x white 234 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 8 9.0

Bowfin 234 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 1.4 5 7.2

Black drum 234 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.4 0.3 22 6.6

Blue crab 234 0.0 0.7 0.2 3.3 0.1 53 6.5

Striped bass 234 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.7 8 5.5

Spot 234 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 6 2.5

White catfish 234 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.8 3 2.4

Pinfish 234 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 9

0.6

Sheepshead 234 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 2 0.4

Tarpon 234 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1 0.2

Hogchoker 234 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1 0.1

Ladyfish 234 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1 0.1

147

Table 49. Program 915 sampling effort and number of red drum by month in

shallow

(<6ft) and deep (>6ft) water gill net sets. Data is combined

for all river systems sampled, Pamlico, Pungo and Neuse rivers. Set

is defined as each 30 yard net (3 ½, 4, and 4 ½”).

Total sets made Red drum captured in sets

Month/year Shallow Deep Shallow Deep

Sep-05 12 18 12 1

Oct-05 33 33 107 0

Nov-05 31 31 40 7

Dec-05 15 15 0 0

Feb-06 14 15 0 0

Mar-06 30 30 1 0

Apr-06 30 30 13 0

May-06 30 30 21 0

Jun-06 29 30 23 0

Jul-06 30 30 8 0

Aug-06 29 31 5 5

Sep-06 24 30 19 4

Oct-06 30 30 5 3

Nov-06 29 30 75 0

Dec-06 15 15 7 0

Total 381 398 336 20

Percent of total 49% 51% 94% 6%

148

Table 50. Neuse River species composition data from

Program 915, Pamlico Sound Independent

Gill Net Survey, October, 2005 - 06.

Species

Number

of nets

Mean

catch

weight

(kg)

Percent

total

weight

Mean

catch

num

ber

Percent

total

number

Mean

weight

(kg)

Total

num

ber

Total

weight

(kg)

Red drum 24 3.9 34.4 3.4 11.5 1.2 27 31.4

Gizzard shad 24 3.0 25.9 6.8 23.0 0.4 54 23.7

Atlantic menhaden 24 1.8 15.7 13.9 47.2 0.1 111 14.4

Striped mullet 24 0.9 7.6 1.0 3.4 0.9 8 6.9

Spotted seatrout 24 0.5 4.4 0.5 1.7 1.0 4 4.1

Southern flounder 24 0.2 2.2 0.6 2.1 0.4 5 2.0

Striped bass 24 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.4 1.8 1 1.8

Bluefish 24 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.9 0.7 2 1.4

Black drum 24 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.4 1.3 1 1.3

Atlantic sturgeon 24 0.2 1.4 0.3 0.9 0.7 2 1.3

Atlantic croaker 24 0.1 0.9 0.4 1.3 0.3 3 0.8

Pinfish 24 0.1 0.6 0.5 1.7 0.1 4 0.6

Blue crab 24 0.1 0.6 0.5 1.7 0.1 4 0.6

Sheepshead 24 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 1 0.5

Ladyfish 24 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1

0.2

Weakfish 24 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1 0.2

Spot 24 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1 0.2

Cownose ray 24 . . 0.6 2.1 . 5 .

149

Table 51. Pamlico and Pungo rivers species composition data from Program 915, Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey, October, 2005 - 06

Species

Number

of nets

Mean

catch

weight

(kg)

Percent

total

weight

Mean

catch

num

ber

Percent

total

number

Mean

weight

(kg)

Total

num

ber

Total

weight

(kg)

Red drum 39 6.3 26.8 6.5 13.9 1.0 85 82.5

Gizzard shad 39 5.7 24.1 14.2 30.2 0.4 184 74.1

Striped mullet 39 4.4 18.4 5.6 12.0 0.8 73 56.7

Striped bass 39 1.5 6.2 1.6 3.4 0.9 21 19.1

Atlantic menhaden 39 1.1 4.5 7.5 16.1 0.1 98 14.0

Southern flounder 39 0.9 3.7 2.2 4.8 0.4 29 11.4

Carp 39 0.9 3.7 0.8 1.6 1.1 10 11.4

Moxostoma suckers 39 0.8 3.5 0.9 2.0 0.9 12 10.7

Bowfin 39 0.6 2.4 0.4 0.8 1.5 5 7.3

Blue crab 39 0.6 2.3 4.6 9.8 0.1 60 7.2

White perch 39 0.2 1.0 0.8 1.6 0.3 10 3.1

Largemouth bass 39 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.7 4 2.9

White catfish 39 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.7 3 2.2

Atlantic croaker 39 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 3 1.3

Spot 39 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 3

1.1

Spotted seatrout 39 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.0 1 1.0

Yellow bullhead 39 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 1 0.6

Pinfish 39 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.1 6 0.5

Black drum 39 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 0.5

Black crappie 39 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 0.4

150

Table 52. Neuse River species composition data from

Program 915, Pamlico Sound Independent

Gill Net Survey, November - December 2005 - 06.

Species

Number

of nets

Mean

catch

weight

(kg)

Percent

total

weight

Mean

catch

num

ber

Percent

total

number

Mean

weight

(kg)

Total

num

ber

Total

weight

(kg)

Red drum 36 3.7 30.6 4.5 15.8 0.8 54 44.3

Gizzard shad 36 2.0 16.2 4.7 16.4 0.4 56 23.5

Atlantic menhaden 36 1.7 14.5 13.9 48.8 0.1 167 21.0

Striped bass 36 1.6 13.6 0.8 2.9 2.0 10 19.7

Striped mullet 36 1.6 13.1 2.0 7.0 0.8 24 19.0

Spotted seatrout 36 0.4 3.3 0.3 0.9 1.6 3 4.8

Black drum 36 0.3 2.4 1.2 4.1 0.2 14 3.5

Bowfin 36 0.2 1.5 0.1 0.3 2.2 1 2.2

Southern flounder 36 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 2 1.6

White catfish 36 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 2 1.5

White perch 36 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.5 2 1.0

Spot 36 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 2 0.7

Atlantic sturgeon 36 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 0.6

Largemouth bass 36 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 0.6

Bluefish 36 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 1

0.6

Hickory shad 36 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 0.5

151

Table 53. Pamlico and Pungo rivers species composition data from Program 915, Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey, Novem

ber - December 2005 - 06.

Species

Number

samples

Mean

catch

weight

(kg)

Percent

total

weight

Mean

catch

num

ber

Percent

total

number

Mean

weight

(kg)

Total

num

ber

Total

weight

(kg)

Gizzard shad 57 6.4 35.9 14.0 39.1 0.5 266 121.6

Red drum 57 2.5 14.1 3.6 10.0 0.7 68 47.8

Striped bass 57 2.1 11.9 1.7 4.9 1.2 33 40.3

Striped mullet 57 2.0 11.2 3.1 8.5 0.7 58 37.8

Bowfin 57 1.8 9.8 0.9 2.5 2.0 17 33.3

Atlantic menhaden 57 1.0 5.5 8.8 24.7 0.1 168 18.7

White perch 57 0.5 2.8 1.5 4.1 0.3 28 9.6

Moxostoma suckers 57 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.9 1.1 6 6.4

Carp 57 0.3 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.8 6 4.9

Largemouth bass 57 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 5 3.9

Silver redhorse 57 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.4 1.3 3 3.8

White catfish 57 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.6 4 2.3

Southern flounder 57 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 5 2.2

Black crappie 57 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 3 1.5

Spotted seatrout 57 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 1

1.3

Chain pickerel 57 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 1 1.3

Suckers 57 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.0 1 1.0

Yellow bullhead 57 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.9 1 0.9

Blue crab 57 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.1 6 0.7

152

Discussion

Length Frequency

Independent gill net survey data indicates that small mesh gill nets used from October -

Decem

ber in the Neuse River predominately take red drum under 18 inches (Figure 39, Figure 40,

and Figure 41). Ninety-nine percent of red drum captured in program 462 were sublegal (<18”) and

none were above the upper slot limit (>27”). Eighty-nine percent of red drum captured in program

915 were sublegal (<18”) and none were above the upper slot limit (>27”).

100

120

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Size Class (inches)

Frequency

3.5" (N = 219)

4" (N = 149)

4.5" (N = 57)

Figure 39. Red drum length frequency from October - Decem

ber 2005 and 2006 from Neuse River,

NC. Samples taken from NCDMF Program 462 independent Estuarine Gill Net

Sampling.

153

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Size Class (inches)

Frequency

3.5" (N = 40)

4" (N = 26)

4.5" (N = 15)

Figure 40. Red drum length frequency from October-December 2005 and 2006 from Neuse River,

NC. Sam

ples taken from NCDMF Program 915 Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net

Survey.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Size Class

(

inches

)

Frequency

3.5" (N = 81)

4" (N = 49)

4.5" (N = 20)

Figure 41. Red drum length frequency from October-Decem

ber 2005 and 2006 from Pamlico,

Pungo rivers, NC. Samples taken from NCDMF Program 915 Pamlico Sound

Independent Gill Net Survey.

154

Mortality

Overall, mortality rates estimated from sampling indicate October having the highest rate

(46.0-58.6%), while November (28.3-40.0%) and December (0-14.5%) were lower (Table 54, Table

55, and Table 56). Mortality varied by mesh size and month for both Program 915 and 462 but

showed the same overall trend (Table 54, Table 55, and Table 56), generally declining with

increasing mesh size.

Table 54. Program 462 mortality estimates for red drum by mesh and month for Neuse River,

NC, 2005 and 2006 (N = Num

ber captured).

3.5" 4" 4.5" Total

Month N % Mortality N % Mortality N % Mortality N % Mortality

October 22 40.9 8 75.0 7 28.6 37 46.0

November 162 38.3 132 25.0 41 19.5 335 30.8

December 35 14.3 9 33.3 9 .0 53 15.1

Total 219 34.7 149 28.2 57 17.5 425 30.1

Table 55. Program 915 mortality estimates for red drum by mesh and month for Neuse River,

NC, 2005 and 2006 (N = Num

ber captured).

3.5" 4" 4.5" Total

Month N % Mortality N % Mortality N % Mortality N % Mortality

October 9 66.7 11 54.6 7 42.9 27 55.6

November 29 41.4 15 20.0 8 0 52 28.9

December 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Total 40 45.0 26 34.6 15 20.0 81 37.0

Table 56. Program 915 mortality estimates for red drum by mesh and month for Pamlico

Pungo rivers NC, 2005 and 2006 (N = Num

ber captured).

3.5" 4" 4.5" Total

Month N % Mortality N % Mortality N % Mortality N % Mortality

October 27 51.9 39 59.0 16 31.3 82 51.2

November 52 51.9 8 50.0 3 0 63 49.2

December 2 50.0 2 0.0 1 0 5 20.0

Total 81 51.9 49 55.1 20 25.0 150 49.3

CPUE

A total of 8,640 yards of small mesh gill net was set for Program 462 yielding a CPUE of one

red drum captured for every 20.3 yards of small mesh net fished. A total of 3,600 yards of small

mesh gill net was set for Program 915 yielding a CPUE of one red drum captured for every 44.4

yards of small mesh net fished. Catch rates from Program 915 and 462 were used to estimate the

number of red drum captured per trip by commercial fisherman on the Neuse River, NC (Table 57).

The November estimates of red drum CPUE per trip (37.5) for the two programs (462, and 915)

were the same; however, the estimate from Program 915 was double the amount estimated for

155

Program 462 in October and half of what was estimated for December (Table 57). The average

number of small mesh trips taken in the Neuse River from October through December was used to

expand the estimated red drum captured per trip shown in the last column in Table 57. The

estimated number of red drum captured by month (October through December) for the Neuse River

is shown in Table 58. Using this information, an estimated number of red drum taken in the Neuse

River small mesh gill net fishery was generated (Table 58). Table 59 and Table 60 give the same

information for the Pamlico/Pungo river complex, however only data from Program 915 was used

for the expansions. When comparing just the trip estimates based on the Program 915 data, the

estimates for the Pamlico/Pungo rivers were slightly higher in October than those for the Neuse

River (36.6 fish per trip versus 28.2). The reverse was true in November with the Neuse River rate

being 49.3,as opposed to 31.4 for the Pamlico/Pungo rivers. Trip estimates were similar in

December (Neuse 7.0, Pamlico/Pungo 5.2) (Table 57 and Table 59). The estimated take of red drum

for these systems was ~3,400 to 3,700 fish in the Neuse River and ~1,200 fish for the Pamlico/Pungo

rivers.

It is important to note that fishery independent gill net samples for Program 915 were

random

ly selected and no attempt was made to avoid areas that may or may not have a high density

of red drum, or commercial fishing activity. Additionally, the estimated red drum captured per trip

during October represent the worst-case scenario for this month. During this month commercial

fisherman are required to attend their nets and the soak times used for extrapolation were 12 hours

(Program 915) and 24 hours (Program 462).

For the Neuse River it does appear that there was a small shift (~10%) from set nets to

runaround/drift nets during the attendance period [May through October (Table 61)]. However,

there is no apparent difference in net use before the net attendance rule was put in place and after,

during the Novem

ber through April time period (Table 61). The overall trend for small mesh gill net

trips in this system is down, but there is a rebound in the number of trips beginning in 2004 (Figure

42). Changes in the Pamlico/Pungo river complex are shown in Table 62. For this system there

appears to be an 8 to 10% shift from set nets to run around/drift nets. The number of small mesh

trips in this system is stable with no apparent upward or downward trend (Figure 43). While the

change in effort is not substantially large, there has been a shift in the percent contribution of target

species that set and run around small mesh nets capture (Table 63). Overall there has been a 34%

decline in the percent contribution that set nets made to the total small mesh gill net landings for the

ten listed target species. While the set net contribution declined, the run around gill net contribution

increased by 49% (Table 63).

156

Table 57. Neuse River estimated red drum CPUE for commercial small mesh fishery from October – December

(2005-06 com

bined). Data from Program 915- Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey, Program

462-Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study and Program 461 – Estuarine Gill Net Sampling were used to

estimate commercial discards.

3.5" 4" 4.5" Total

Program Month

Mean yards

fished

Red drum

CPUE per

yard

Est. red

drum per

trip

Red drum

CPUE per

Est. red

drum per

trip

Red drum

CPUE per

Est. red

drum per

trip

Red drum

CPUE per

Est. red

drum per

trip

462 October 704.0 0.04 28.2 0.01 7.0 0.01 7.0 0.02 14.1

November 704.0 0.11 77.4 0.08 56.3 0.02 14.1 0.07 49.3

December 704.0 0.05 35.2 0.01 7.0 0.01 7.0 0.02 14.1

915 October 704.0 0.04 28.2 0.04 28.2 0.03 21.1 0.04 28.2

November 704.0 0.12 84.5 0.06 42.2 0.03 21.1 0.07 49.3

December 704.0 0.02 14.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.01 7.0

- CPUE was estimated from two Independent Gill Net Surveys.

- This value represents the average yards fished by a commercial fisherman in the Neuse River, source program 461.

157

Table 58. Neuse River estimated number of red drum captured in commercial small mesh gill nets based on

ortality and month from October – December (2005-06 combined). Data from Program 915- Pamlico

Sound Independent Gill Net Survey, Program 462-Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study, and Trip Ticket

Program were used to estimate commercial mortality.

Discarded Incidental harvest

Program Month

Estimated

red drum

per trip

Trip

Ticket

estim

ated

number of

trips

Estimated

number of

red drum

captured

Percent

sublegal

dead

Sublegal

dead

Percent

sublegal

alive

Sublegal

alive

Percent

legal

Number

legal

462 October 14.1 58 817.8 41.0% 331.2 51.0% 420.3 8.0% 66.2

November 49.3 63 3105.9 30.0%

934.9 69.0% 2143.1 1.0% 28.0

December 14.1 44 620.4 15.0%

93.7 85.0% 526.7 0 0

Total (Nov-Dec) 3726.3

1028.6

2669.8 28.0

915 October 28.2 58 1635.6 48.0% 790.0 35.0% 564.3 17.0% 281.3

November 49.3 63 3105.9 28.0%

879.0 64.0% 1994.0 8.0% 232.9

December 7.0 44 308.0 0

0 100% 308.0 0 0

Total (Nov-Dec) 3413.9

879.0

2302.0 232.9

– Average for 2005 – 2006.

158

Table 59. Pamlico - Pungo river estimated red drum CPUE for commercial small mesh fishery from October –

December (2005-06 combined). Data from Program 915- Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net

Survey, Program 462-Estuarine Gill Net Selectivity Study, and Program 461 – Estuarine Gill Net

Sampling were used to estimate commercial discards.

3.5" 4" 4.5" Total

Program Month

Mean yards

fished

Red drum

CPUE per

yard

Est. red

drum per

trip

Red drum

CPUE per

Est. red

drum per

trip

Red drum

CPUE per

Est. red

drum per

trip

Red drum

CPUE per

Est. red

drum per

trip

915 October 523.5

0.07 36.6 0.11 57.6 0.04 20.9 0.07 36.6

November 523.5

0.14 73.3 0.02 10.5 0.01 5.2 0.06 31.4

December 523.5

0.01 5.2 0.01 5.2 0.01 5.2 0.01 5.2

- CPUE was estimated from 915 Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey.

- This value represents the average yards fished by a commercial fisherman in the Pamlico-Pungo rivers, source data Program 461.

– No samples for 4.5” mesh. Estimated based on 4.5” from Neuse River information.

Table 60. Pamlico - Pungo estimated number of red drum captured in commercial small mesh gill nets based on

mortality and month from October – December (2005-06 combined). Data from Program 915-

Pamlico Sound Independent Gill Net Survey and Trip Ticket Program were used to estimate

commercial mortality.

Discarded Incidental harvest

Program Month

Estimated

red drum

per trip

Trip

Ticket

estim

ated

number of

trips

Estimated

number of

red drum

captured

Percent

sublegal

dead

Sublegal

dead

Percent

sublegal

alive

Sublegal

alive

Percent

legal

Number

legal

462 October

36.6 34 1244.4 40.5% 504.0 45.1% 561.5 7.3% 91.1

November

31.4 33 1036.2 30.1% 311.9 49.2% 509.9 1.5% 16.5

December

5.2 21 109.2 15.1% 16.5 80.0% 87.4 0% 0

Total (Nov-Dec)

1145.4

328.4

597.3 16.5

Average for 2005 and 2006.

159

160

Table 61. Percentage of reported trips in the Neuse River using various types of gill nets before

the attendance rule was im

plemented (1994 - 1998), and after it was implemented.

Post attendance Pre attendance Post attendance Pre attendance

Nov - April Nov - April May - Oct May - Oct

Year run&drift setnet run&drift setnet run&drift setnet run&drift setnet

1994

10% 90%

11% 89%

1995

11% 89%

33% 67%

1996

31% 69%

46% 54%

1997

38% 62%

51% 49%

1998

28% 72%

47% 53%

1999 28% 72%

46% 54%

2000 20% 80%

42% 58%

2001 27% 73%

43% 57%

2002 30% 70%

37% 63%

2003 25% 75%

65% 35%

2004 31% 69%

55% 45%

2005 39% 61%

60% 40%

2006 33% 67%

63% 37%

Total 28% 72% 25% 75% 49% 51% 39% 61%

Total trips 1,708 4,312 1,070 3,163

2,140 2,196 1,633 2,520

Avg trips 214 539 214 633 268 275 327 504

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Number of trips

run&drift setnet

Figure 42. Neuse River small mesh gill net trips (all gears combined), and overall trend for gill

net trips in this river, 1994 – 2006.

161

Table 62. Percentage of reported trips in the Pamlico/Pungo river complex using various types

of gill nets before the attendance rule was im

plemented (1994 -1998), and after it

was implemented.

Post attendance Pre attendance Post attendance Pre attendance

Nov - April Nov - April May - Oct May - Oct

Year run&drift setnet run&drift setnet run&drift setnet run&drift setnet

1994

2% 98%

1995

1% 99%

21% 79%

1996

5% 95%

20% 80%

1997

6% 94%

19% 81%

1998

9% 91%

19% 81%

1999 5% 95%

25% 75%

2000 8% 92%

24% 76%

2001 19% 81%

36% 64%

2002 14% 86%

22% 78%

2003 17% 83%

36% 64%

2004 20% 80%

27% 73%

2005 8% 92%

27% 73%

2006 10% 90%

22% 78%

Total 12% 88% 5% 95% 27% 73% 17% 83%

Total trips 481 3421 108 2074

694 1850 284 1386

Avg trips 60 428 22 415 87 231 57 277

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Number of trips

setnet

run&drift

Figure 43. Pamlico, Pungo rivers small mesh gill net trips (all gears combined), and overall

trend for gill net trips in this system

, 1994 – 2006.

162

Table 63. Percent contribution (landings) of targeted species for small mesh gill net

fisheries by gear type (set nets, and run around), pre and post sm

all mesh

attendance rules, Pamlico, Pungo, and Neuse rivers landings data combined.

1994 – 2006, trip ticket data.

Set nets Run around/drift

Species

Pre

attendance

Post

attendance

Percent

change

Pre

attendance

Post

attendance

Percent

change

Bluefish 92.7 71.7 -22.7

7.3 28.3 288.1

Red drum 88.4 84.3 -4.6

11.7 15.7 34.7

Sea mullet 99.8 63.5 -36.3

0.2 36.5 15212.5

Spanish Mackerel 93.8 83.0 -11.5

6.2 17.0 174.4

Atlantic menhaden 100.0 82.7 -17.3

0.0 17.3

Mullets 55.0 31.3 -43.0

45.0 68.7 52.5

White perch 95.9 86.5 -9.7

4.1 13.5 226.4

Spotted seatrout 75.1 54.5 -27.4

25.0 45.5 82.3

Spot 93.9 71.3 -24.1

6.1 28.8 369.5

Weakfish 96.8 90.5 -6.5

3.2 9.5 195.8

All (weighted avg) 58.6 38.5 -34.3 41.4 61.5 48.5

Current Authority

The MFC has granted proclamation authority to the Director to specify the

means/methods to take red drum, in addition to other parameters (NCAC 15A 3M .0501). The

MFC also has granted proclamation authority to the Director to impose a variety of restrictions

on gill nets (3J. 0103(b)) and passed rules related to gill net attendance (3J. 0103 (g)(h)). A

listing of the current rules as they apply to red drum can be found in Section 4.7.

Management Options/Impacts (See section 10.2.5.1 Statewide Estuarine Gill Net Bycatch

Estimates

)

Research Recommendations (See section 10.2.5.1 Statewide Estuarine Gill Net Bycatch

Estimates

)

10.2.5.3 Other Gill Net Issues

Issue

Consider possible alterations to the current gill net attendance (modified no-trawl) area

along the eastern Pamlico Sound based on public comments received during FMP process.

163

Background

During the public comment period for Amendment 1 to the North Carolina Red Drum

FMP gill net fishers expressed concerns over the need for possible changes to the small mesh gill

net attendance line along the eastern Pamlico Sound. Three separate issues were raised: 1)

modifications to the current small mesh gill net attendance line along the Outer Banks and 2)

small mesh gill net attendance requirements under the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area

and 3) consideration for exemptions to small mesh attendance for deepwater areas within the

attendance line where red drum discards are minimal.

Gill netters fishing water bodies in eastern Pamlico Sound between Rodanthe and Gull

Island requested a slight m

odification to the current gill net attendance line to allow for

additional areas to be fished with small mesh gill nets without requiring that they be attended.

Gill netters fishing in the area of Hatteras requested consideration for allowing unattended small

mesh gill nets in a region near Olivers Reef if attendance was extended into November. The

Northeast Advisory Committee voted unanimously to request that NCDMF review these requests

as part of the FMP process. Additionally, at the April 2008 MFC meeting, the fishermen from

the areas of Hatteras and Ocracoke requested the DMF and the MFC consider allowing some

deep water small mesh gill netting with unattended nets in areas within the attendance line.

The current small mesh gill net attendance line (modified “No Trawl”) along the Outer

Banks region is designed to protect the shallow grass beds to the east while allowing fishers to

set nets in deep w

ater areas to the west (Figure 44). The protected area to the east of the line

includes shallow shoals and flats often characterized by dense SAV (submerged aquatic

vegetation, i.e. eelgrass, widgeon grass, etc.), and is the primary habitat for sub-legal red drum

along the Outer Banks. The current small mesh gill net attendance line in this area was

developed and modified by the NCDMF from the “No Trawl” line as listed in the current rules.

Later modifications were made, based on public comment, in areas where the “No Trawl” line

extended further out into the sound than necessary, possibly putting commercial fishers in the

direct path of working trawlers and outside of productive deep water fishing grounds. The DMF

considered the recommendations of local fishers in developing the gill net attendance line and

then made some additional modifications in order to straighten the line to relieve some of the

difficulty in enforcement.

Discussion

1) Modifications to the current small mesh gill net attendance line along the Outer Banks

During the 2001 Red Drum FMP process, modifications were made in response to

concerns raised by com

mercial fishers along the ‘Outer Banks’ during the development of the

current small mesh gill net attendance line,. The contention among these fishers was that the

original attendance area along the ‘Outer Banks’ extended to far offshore outside shallow areas,

unnecessarily forcing gill net fishers into less productive and potentially hazardous conditions

created by the deeper water. Modifications made addressed the majority of the concerns raised

and were considered a successful compromise in the approved plan. During the process of

developing Amendment 1 to the NC Red Drum FMP, additional concerns were raised in the

164

areas of Rodanthe to Gull Island and in the area of Hatteras, near Oliver Reef. NCDMF

investigated the proposed changes and is recom

mending to the NCMFC that the following

changes can be made without any substantive increase in red drum discards.

Area 1: Rodanthe to Gull Island

Gill netters fishing the area from Rodanthe to Gull Island have requested the

straightening of the attendance line along the area from

just south of Rodanthe channel to

Gull Island (Figure 44; Area 1). This rule change would require the removal of a single

point along the current gill net attendance line. Changing the line in this manner affords

additional access to productive fishing ground to the west of the line during the

attendance period. The change also makes it easier for gill netters in this area to know

they are in compliance with the rule by making it straight and therefore more easily

discerned on the water. The area to the west of this modified change consists primarily

of habitat that is deeper than where sub-legal red drum are typically captured and is not

likely to result in any substantive increase in discards.

Area 2: Hatteras, near Oliver Reef

Gill netters fishing in this region requested that the attendance line be moved inshore

from

its current location to allow for additional access to deep water fishing grounds

where attendance would not be required. NCDMF investigated the area and is

recommending that an additional area of deep water along Oliver Reef be excluded from

the attendance line (Figure 44; Area 2). The modification to the rule would extend the

current attendance line inshore from Beacon “36” to Beacon “35” along Rollinson

Channel where it would then run southwesterly to a “Danger” Beacon offshore of Austin

Reef before merging back with the current line. These changes would only exclude deep

water habitat and it has the added advantage of being clearly marked by visible beacons

on the water.

2) Small Mesh Gill Net Attendance Requirements under the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted

Area

During 2000, the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area (PSGNRA) was established by

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and created a perm

anent closure of Pamlico Sound to

large mesh gillnets (> 4 ¼ in. stretch mesh, FR Vol. 67, No 173 56931) from September 1 to

December 15 each year. The PSGNRA was established due to increased observations of sea

turtle strandings, and subsequent observed gillnet interactions in 1999 along the Outer Banks

(Gearhart 2001). NCDMF pursued and received a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit along the

mainland side and Outer Banks of Pamlico Sound to allow a limited, shallow water gillnet

fishery to continue to operate. The permit establishes conditions (e.g., restricted fishing areas,

reporting requirements, observer coverage) that must be met in order for the fishery to continue.

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) within Section 10 Incidental Take Permit (ITP)

requires an extensive m

onitoring program in permitted area which has been in place since 2000.

165

The primary goal each year in the management of the PSGNRA is to monitor and reduce sea

turtle interactions in com

mercial gillnets with the assumption that these will result in decreased

sea turtle strandings in Pamlico Sound from September through December of each year. Fishery

management measures within HCPs restrict areas, seasons, gear, mandate observer coverage, and

require weekly reporting. These actions protect sea turtles, allow a limited shallow water gillnet

fishery, and characterize catch, effort, and bycatch along the Outer Banks and mainland side of

Pamlico Sound from September through December of each year.

One of the conditions of the current Section 10 ITP is that all small mesh gill nets fished

within the perm

itted area must be attended from September 15 through October 31 of each year.

This condition increases the attendance areas beyond those established by the 2001 NC Red

Drum FMP along the Outer Banks and forces fishermen out into deeper water during this period.

NCDMF has requested and the NMFS has agreed to allow NCDMF to manage small mesh gill

nets in this area through the current rule passed as part of the 2001 NC Red Drum FMP.

3) Consideration for exemptions to small mesh attendance for deepwater areas within the

attendance line.

The current attendance line, as previously stated, was designed to minimize the mortality

associated w

ith sub-legal red drum discards in the small mesh gill net fishery during the months

when discard rates and mortality are the highest. Several changes have been made to the

existing attendance line at the request of the public. Modifications, when made, have been

allowed in the past because the areas being excluded were not deemed as areas where red drum

interactions typically occur with gill nets. DMF has documented habitat types that are

commonly associated with red drum abundance along the Outer Banks region. The primary

factor associated with the presence of sub-legal red drum is shallow depth, although submerged

aquatic vegetation and close proximity to a shoreline tend to also be important. DMF data

indicate that red drum bycatch is highest in gill nets set in shallow water (<3 ft) and can be

significantly reduced by >90% when compared to nets set at depths of 6 feet or greater.

Gill netters asked DMF and MFC to consider allowing unattended gill nets to be set in

existing deep water habitats within the current attendance line. Based on com

ments received, the

majority of the small mesh effort in these areas would be directed at menhaden, bluefish, trout

and sea mullet in depths of 6 to 12 feet of water. Criteria for opening these areas would be an

average minimum depth of at least 6 feet in an area that is easily distinguished. Small deep

sloughs surrounded by shallow habitat would not be suitable candidates due to the difficulty in

enforcing and the increased potential for red drum interactions.

The primary area of concern expressed during public comment was for the deep water

habitat located betw

een Rollinson Channel and Cape Channel. These areas of deep water fall

within the current attendance line. NCDMF staff investigated this area to determine if

significant deep water areas existed that could be delineated without the inclusion of significant

shallow water habitat. The conclusion of this investigation was that while significant areas of

deep water are present, there are also significant areas of shoals and submerged aquatic

vegetation. There was no apparent way to delineate an area of deep water habitat without the

166

inclusion of considerable shallow water habitat. A second consideration, allowing unattended

gill nets to be set at a m

inimum depth (i.e. 7 ft), was not considered enforceable.

Figure 44. Map of the current gill net attendance area along the Outer Banks. The black-

dashed line denotes the m

odified attended gill net area (AGNA) along the Outer

Banks of Pamlico Sound. Proposed changes to “Area 1” near Rodanthe and “Area

2” behind Hatteras would allow for additional deep water areas to be fished outside

the attendance area.

167

Current Authority

North Carolina Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (15A NCAC)

03J.0103 Gill Nets, Seines, Identification, Restrictions

03R.0112 Attended Gill Net Areas

Management Options/Impacts

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

1) No Action/Maintain current small mesh attendance line

+ Reduced bycatch of undersized red drum

+ Maintain established areas for attendance

- Potential economic burden for fishers

- More difficult to enforce/more difficult for gill netters to comply

2) Modify current attendance line in 15A NCAC 03R0.112 (b)(2) between Rodanthe and Gull

Island striking the point along the attendance line at the location described as ‘west of Salvo’ and

located at 35

° 32.6000' N - 75° 31.8500' W.

+ Increased area for small mesh gill nets to be set unattended

+ More protected from elements of open waters

+ Deeper area with less likelihood of red drum bycatch

+ Straight line easier to discern and enforce

- Potential that some additional red drum discards may occur

3) Modify current attendance line in 15A NCAC 03R0.112 (b)(2) in the area of Oliver Reef,

near Hatteras.

+ Increased area for small mesh gill nets to be set unattended

+ More protected from elements of open waters

+ Deeper area with less likelihood of red drum bycatch

+ Line easier to discern and enforce due to use of existing beacons

- Potential that some additional red drum discards may occur

4) Consider exempting large deepwater areas within the current attendance area along the Outer

Banks.

+ Increased area for small mesh gill nets to be set unattended

+ More protected from elements of open waters

- Very difficult to enforce

- Potential for some increased red drum discards

Management Recommendations

168

RDAC - Modify current attendance line in 15A NCAC 03R0.112 (b)(2) between

Rodanthe and Gull Island striking the point along the attendance line at the

location described as ‘west of Salvo’ and located at 35

° 32.6000' N - 75°

31.8500' W.

DMF - Modify current attendance line between Rodanthe and Gull Island striking the

point along the attendance line at the location described as ‘west of Salvo’

and located at 35

° 32.6000' N - 75° 31.8500' W and modify current

attendance line in 15A NCAC 03R0.112 (b)(2) in the area of Oliver Reef,

near Hatteras.

MFC Selected Management Option

Modify current attendance line between Rodanthe and Gull Island striking the

point along the attendance line at the location described as ‘west of Salvo’ and

located at 35° 32.6000' N - 75° 31.8500' W and modify current attendance line in

15A NCAC 03R0.112 (b)(2) in the area of Oliver Reef, near Hatteras.

Other actions being taken by NCDMF:

For the period of September 1 to October 31, NCDMF asked NMFS to consider allowing the gill

net attendance line established in 15A NCAC 03R0.112 (b)(2) to be the area where sm

all mesh

gill net attendance is required as opposed to the PSGNRA that has been used (see part (2) of

discussion above). NMFS had no objection to this request and DMF was allowed to make this

change without violating the current Section 10 ITP issued by NMFS. The changes were made

effective with the 2008 fishing year through proclamation authority.

169

11. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

A management program has been developed in an effort to meet the goals and objectives

this FMP as listed in Section 4.2. This section outlines the need for additional data in order to

improve our ability to assess the status of the red drum stocks, details the selected management

strategy as approved by the NC MFC, and summarizes the research needs covered in this plan.

11.1 Data Needs

Additional data are needed to improve red drum stock assessments, to better evaluate the

fects of current management actions, and to identify additional management actions that will

allow for the long-term sustainability of the North Carolina red drum stock. A listing of data

needs, based on reviews by Vaughan and Carmichael (2000) and Takade and Paramore (2007) is

provided below.

1. Improved Fishery-Dependent Sampling.

Currently available catch statistics may not be complete for a number of reasons that are

described in detail below. Failure to account for all removals from the population, and to

properly allocate harvest and discard losses into size and age categories, contributes to

uncertainty and bias in stock assessment results. In addition, adequate monitoring of non-harvest

losses is necessary to develop management measures that prevent waste.

There is limited sampling of at-sea discarding in commercial fisheries which should be

continued and expanded. Although red drum

are considered a bycatch species, as noted in the

description of commercial fisheries (Section 7.1), they are encountered by many different

fisheries throughout the state. Given the restrictive allowable harvest of red drum, the mortality

associated with discarding by these fisheries represents a potentially significant, but largely

unknown, removal from the population. In addition to estimates of total removals, data are also

needed on the size and age distribution of bycatch losses.

Sampling of the recreational fishery should be im

proved. Recreational harvest accounts

for greater than half of the total North Carolina harvest each year, so reliable and precise

estimates of total harvest and adequate characterization of the length, weight, and age

composition of the harvest are crucial. The number of MRFSS intercepts should be increased,

collection of biological samples from the recreational harvest should be improved, and additional

sampling, especially at night when many directed recreational trips occur, should be pursued.

Data on the length distribution of recreational discards is severely needed. Although important

for many species, this is especially critical for red drum because of both the steadily increasing

proportion of red drum that are released and the nature of the management program. Since red

drum are managed through a possession limit and a slot size limit, red drum may be discarded

that are below the minimum size, above the maximum size, or in excess of the possession limit.

Methods for determining size distribution on an annual basis should be investigated.

170

2. Improved Fishery-Independent Sampling

Surveys at age are needed to better monitor the abundance of red drum. Prior

assessments on red drum in North Carolina have utilized the red drum juvenile abundance index

generated from the NCDMF Red Drum Seine Program. More recently, NCDMF initiated an

independent gill net survey in estuarine waters designed to provide an index of abundance for

sub-adult red drum in North Carolina. Sampling of sub-adults should improve estimates of

recruitment and better warn of recruitment failure and could provide more accurate data for

estimates of SPR and escapement. The index generated from this survey was used in the most

recent stock assessment. Sampling of the adult population is needed to provide data on the age

structure of the population and long-term sampling could possibly provide an index of the

spawning stock that could potentially be used to estimate spawning stock abundance and

biomass. During 2007, NCDMF initiated a Red Drum Longline Survey designed to provide an

index of abundance of adult red drum over time. As with all monitoring studies, the strength of

the data is dependent upon maintaining a long-term database to track changes over time.

3. Improved Estimates of Vital Rates

Assessment and population model results are sensitive to input parameters such as natural

mortality, fecundity, and growth rates. Research should be directed at estimating these important

vital rates for red drum in North Carolina.

4. Improved Tagging Programs

Red drum tagging programs have been conducted by DMF for many years. Recent

improvements in modeling techniques have made this data useful in providing estimates of both

the selectivity and fishing mortality rates of red drum at age (Bacheler et al. 2007). Selectivity

patterns estimated from North Carolina’s tagging data were used in the most recent assessment

to provide critical information on the length frequency of red drum released in the recreational

fishery (Burdick et al. 2007). Estimates of mortality rates calculated from well designed tagging

studies could provide a useful complement to traditional assessment techniques, particularly for

red drum, where results are complicated by the lack of an adult index, a high proportion of

captured and released fish, and an atypical dome shaped selectivity curve centered around

juvenile fish. In the future, tagging studies conducted by North Carolina should be better

designed to limit potential biases and improve mortality estimates. In particular, studies should

include methods to estimate the non-reporting rate of tag recaptures, tag loss rates over time and

the mortality associated with the tagging event. Additionally, effort should be made to ensure

proper mixing of tagged individuals into the population.

171

11.2 Management Strategies and Proposed Actions

Listed below are the management strategies as selected from each of the management issues in

Section 10.2. Each numbered strategy is followed by a reference to the Principal Issue and

Management Option section that supports it, e.q. (10.1.1) and the Objectives from Section 4.2

that it addresses, e.q. [2,3]. Changes to the current rules required to implement these actions are

found in Appendix 1.

11.2.1 Adult Harvest Limits

Issue: The potential modification of the rule prohibiting the harvest and possession of red drum

greater than 27 inches in total length.

Management Options:

1) Status quo (prohibit all possession and sale of red drum >27 in TL)

2) Trophy fishery (1 fish 55 in TL or greater) through the use of a trophy tag

3) Special Permit to retain 1 fish > 27 in TL

4) Harvest of adults (>27 in TL) while maintaining a 30% SPR threshold

5) No harvest of adults (>27 in TL) while maintaining a 40% SPR target

Management Recommendations

DMF and RDAC

- Status quo (no harvest over 27 inches TL)

MFC Selected Management Strategy

Selects DMF and RDAC recommendation.

(Section 10.2.1), [Objectives 1,2]

11.2.2 Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum

Issue: The directed recreational catch and release fishery for adult red drum and the concerns and

potential risks of this fishery.

Management Options:

1) Status quo (prohibit all possession and sale of red drum >27 in TL)

2) Trophy fishery (1 fish 55 in TL or greater) through the use of a trophy tag

3) Special Permit to retain 1 fish > 27 in TL

172

4) Harvest of adults (>27 in TL) while maintaining a 30% SPR threshold

5) No harvest of adults (>27 in TL) while maintaining a 40% SPR target

Management Recommendations

DMF and RDAC

- Status quo (no harvest over 27 inches TL)

MFC Selected Management Strategy

Selects DMF and RDAC recommendation.

(Section 10.2.2), [Objectives 1, 2 and 5]

11.2.3 Recreational Bag and Size Limits

Issue: The recreational bag limit for red drum is currently 1 fish per person per day from 18 to 27

inches TL. The North Carolina fishery management plan for red drum may consider options to

modify the current bag limit and other recreational management measures.

Management Options:

1) Status quo (1 fish 18-27 inches TL)

2) Increase the bag limit and change size range

Management Recommendations

DMF and RDAC

- Status quo (1 fish 18-27 inches TL)

MFC Selected Management Strategy

Selects DMF and RDAC recommendation.

(Section 10.2.3), [Objectives 1, 2 and 4]

11.2.4 Commercial Harvest Limits

Issues: Can the current bycatch allowance in the Red Drum FMP of 7 fish be increased?

Avoiding closures in the commercial red drum bycatch fishery.

Management Options:

1) Status quo (7 fish limit with 50% bycatch provision, DMF Director maintains proclamation

173

authority to increase trip limit and adjust the bycatch provision as needed)

2) Increase the bycatch allowance

3) Allow for possession of some red drum while actively fishing gear even if adequate finfish

(excluding m

enhaden) have not yet been obtained.

4) Allow for the possession of some red drum without requiring that they be bycatch

(Exam

ple would be to allow three red drum to be landed without requiring other finfish to

be present; additional landed red drum would be subject to bycatch provision)

5) Implement a split season on the commercial fishing year, capping the period of September

1 to April 30 at 150,000 lb and conserving the rem

aining portion of the cap (100,000 lb)

for the period of May 1 to August 31. Unused cap in Period 1 can be carried forward to

Period 2.

Management Recommendations:

DMF and RDAC –

1) Status quo (7 fish trip limit with 50% bycatch provision). Director retains authority to

modify the trip limit and bycatch provisions as needed.

2) Allow for the possession of up to 3 fish while engaged in red drum without requiring

that they be subject to the 50% bycatch provision. Upon landing/sale all red drum

possessed would be subject to any bycatch requirements.

3) Implement a split season on the commercial fishing year, capping the period of

September 1 to April 30 at 150,000 lb and conserving the remaining portion of the cap

(100,000 lb) for the period of May 1 to August 31. Unused cap in period 1 can be

carried forward to period 2. Any annual commercial harvest limit that is exceeded one

year will result in the poundage overage being deducted from the subsequent year’s

commercial harvest limit.

MFC Selected Management Strategy

Selects DMF and RDAC recommendations.

(Section 10.2.4), [Objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5]

174

11.2.5 Bycatch in the Estuarine Gill Net Fishery

Issue: The occurrence and magnitude of regulatory and unmarketable red drum discards in the

estuarine gill net fishery.

Management Options:

Set small mesh (<5 inches stretch) estuarine gill net management options:

1) Status quo

2) Extend attendance duration

3) Extend attendance areas

4) Require minimum depth for the use of set small mesh gill nets

5) Require minimum distance from shore for the use of set small mesh gill nets

Set large mesh (>5 inches stretch) estuarine gill net management options:

1) Status quo

2) Require attendance seasons

3) Require nets to be set at a minimum distance from shore

4) Require nets to be set at a minimum depth of water

Management Recommendations:

DMF Recommendation

Small Mesh (<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round attendance requirements:

Extend attendance within 200 yards of shore to include the area of the lower Neuse out to the mouth

of the river.

Seaasonal attendance requirements:

Modify the seasonal attendance requirements for small mesh gill nets (currently May 1 to October

31) to include the period of May 1 through November 30 in:

1) all primary and permanent secondary nursery

areas and all modified no-trawl areas

(shallow grass beds in eastern Pamlico and Core Sound)

2) Within 200 yards of any shoreline for the areas of Pam

lico, Pungo, Neuse, and Bay

Rivers

3) Within 50 yards of any shoreline in areas of Pam

lico and Core Sound and in all coastal

waters south to NC/SC line

4) Area from HWY 58 bridge south is excluded from

shoreline requirement during October

and November

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to be set a minimum of 10 yards from any shoreline from

175

June through October

RDAC Recommendation

Small Mesh (<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round attendance requirements:

Extend attendance within 200 yards of shore to include the area of the lower Neuse out to the

mouth of the river (and)

Require year-round attendance of small mesh nets in Primary and Permanent Secondary Nursery

Areas north of the Wainwrights in Carteret County

and exempting the Albemarle Sound

Management Area

Seaasonal attendance requirements:

Modify the seasonal attendance requirements for small m

esh gill nets (currently May 1 to October

31) to include the period of May 1 through November 30 in:

1) all primary and permanent secondary nursery areas

2) all modified no-trawl areas (shallow grass beds in eastern Pam

lico and Core Sound)

3) all areas within 200 yards of any shoreline, exem

pting the areas of Core Sound and south

from the 200 yards of any shoreline requirement during the months of October and

November

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to be set a m

inimum of 10 yards from any shoreline

MFC Selected Management Strategy

Small Mesh (<5” stretch mesh)

Year-round attendance requirements:

Extend attendance within 200 yards of shore to include the area of the lower Neuse out to

the mouth of the river.

Seaasonal attendance requirements:

Modify the seasonal attendance requirements for small mesh gill nets (currently May 1 to

October 31) to include the period of May 1 through Novem

ber 30 in:

5) all primary and permanent secondary nursery areas and all modified no-trawl areas

(shallow grass beds in eastern Pamlico and Core Sound)

6) Within 200 yards of any shoreline for the areas of Pamlico, Pungo, Neuse, and Bay Rivers

7) Within 50 yards of any shoreline in areas of Pamlico and Core Sound and in all coastal

waters south to NC/SC line

8) Area from Core Sound and south is excluded from shoreline requirement during October

and Novem

ber

Large Mesh (>5” stretch mesh)

Require all unattended large mesh gill nets to be set a minimum of 10 yards from any

shoreline from June through October

(Section 10.2.5), [Objectives 1, 2 and 5]

176

11.3 Habitat and Water Quality Management Recommendations

At the state level, North Carolina has developed a strategy to protect and restore habitats critical

to North Carolina’s coastal fishery resources through the im

plementation of the Coastal Habitat

Protection Plan (CHPP). This plan recognizes those habitats that have been identified to provide

critical habitat functions or that are particularly at risk due to imminent threats, vulnerability or

rarity. Areas meeting these criteria are to be designated as “Strategic Habitat Areas” (SHAs) and

given the highest priority for protection. In addition to its overall goals, the CHPP has specific

recommendations that will benefit habitat used by red drum. Additional red drum habitat

research needs identified in this Red Drum FMP Amendment are:

• Determine juvenile habitat preference and examine if recruitment is habitat limited.

• Examine ecological use and importance of shell bottom to red drum.

• Identify coastal wetlands and other habitats utilized by juvenile red drum and assess

relationship between changes in recruitment success and changes in habitat conditions.

• Assess cumulative impact of large-scale beach nourishment and inlet dredging on red

drum and other demersal fish that use the surf zone.

• Determine location and significance of spawning aggregation sites throughout the coast.

• Determine if navigational dredging between August and October significantly impacts

spawning activity.

• Determine if designation of spawning areas by MFC is needed, and if specific protective

measures should be developed.

(Section 9.0), [Objective 6]

11.4 Research Needs Summary

The following research needs were compiled from those listed in the issue papers in

Section 10.0 as w

ell as those outlined in Section 11.1 Data Needs. Improved management of red

drum is dependent upon research needs being met. Research needs are not listed in order of

priority.

• Assess the size distribution of recreational discards.

• Improved catch and effort data for the red drum recreational fishery, particularly for the

fishery that occurs at night.

• Development of independent surveys to monitor both the sub-adult and adult red drum

populations. (Underway).

• Improved length frequency data for adult red drum in the recreational and commercial

fisheries.

177

• Conduct studies to determine the magnitude of red drum interactions and discards in the

small mesh gill net fishery from Core Sound and south during November and December.

• Continue tagging efforts of adult red drum through the NCDMF Volunteer Tagging

Program.

•

Update and/or continue to monitor age, growth and maturity data for the red drum.

• Conduct studies on the diet of red drum in North Carolina.

• Further identification of the spawning areas for adult red drum in North Carolina.

• Economic analysis of the adult red drum fishery.

• Improved social and economic data collection on the recreational and commercial fishery,

including information on current conflicts and the potential for future conflicts in this

fishery.

• Characterize the trophy recreational fishery (tackle, geographic location, bait, water

temperature, seasonality, hook types, etc.).

• Incorporate information on conservative angling practices for red drum into future fishing

guides and make the information available on the NCDMF website.

• Expand independent gill net survey to other parts of the state.

• Continue and expand estuarine gill net observer program to collect data across various key

fisheries by season and area.

• Collect data from the observer program or through other sources on the catch rates of red

drum and targeted species with regard to distance from shore in estuarine gill nets.

• Conduct a comprehensive survey of gill net fishers including information on species

targeted, gear characteristics, areas fished.

• Conduct studies that explore ways to reduce red drum interactions with commercial gear

while allowing for retention of targeted species.

• Conduct additional research to determine the release mortality of red drum captured in gill

nets.

• Continue and enhance collection of fishery dependent data.

• Continue and improve tagging studies to estimate mortality rates in the red drum fishery.

11.5 Review Cycle

As provided in the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, the Red Drum

Fishery Management Plan will

be reviewed and revised at least every five years with the support of advisors.

178

12. LITERATURE CITED

Aguilar, R. 2003. Short-term post-hooking mortality and m

ovement of adult red drum in the Neuse

River, North Carolina. MS, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 138 p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1984. Fishery Managem

ent Plan for

Red Drum. Fisheries Management Report No. 5. ASMFC, Washington, DC. 107 p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1994. Fishery Managem

ent Plan for

Red Drum – Amendment # 1. Fisheries Management Report No. 19. ASFMC,

Washington, DC, 123 p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1999. ASMFC guidelines for

evaluating fishing gear im

pacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and determining

mitigation strategies. ASMFC, Washington, DC. 34p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2000. Evaluating fishing gear im

pacts

to submerged aquatic vegetation and determining mitigation strategies. ASFMC Habitat

Management Series 5, 38p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2002. Am

endment 2 to the Interstate

fishery management plan for red drum. Fisheries Management Report No. 38. Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 142 p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006. 2006 Review of the ASMFC fishery

anagement plan for red drum (

Sciaenops ocellatus). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, Washington, DC. 16 p.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007. The importance of habitat

created by m

olluscan shellfish to managed species along the Atlantic coast of the United

States. ASMFC, Washington, DC, ASMFC Habitat Management Series #8, 128p.

Auster, P. J. and R.W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. p. 150-187

in L.

Benaka (ed.). Fish habitat: essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Md. Symp. 22, 459p.

Bacheler, N. M. , J. E. Hightower, L. M. Paramore, J. A. Buckel, and K. H. Pollock. 2008.

age-dependent tag return model for estimating mortality and selectivity of an estuarine-

dependent fish with high rates of catch and release. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 137:1422-1432.

Bacheler, N.M., L.M. Paramore, J.A. Buckel. In Press. Abiotic and biotic factors influence the

habitat use of an estuarine fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series.

Bahr, L. M. and W. P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the south Atlantic

coast: a com

munity profile. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC,

FWS/OBS/81.15. 105 p.

Bales, J. D. and D.J. Newcomb. 1996. North Carolina wetland resources. p. 297-302

in R.M.

Hirsch (dir). National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. U.S. Geological Survey,

Atlanta, GA, USGS Water-Supply Paper 2425.

179

Baltz, D. M., J. W. Fleeger, C. R. Rakocinski, and J. N. McCall. 1998. Food, density, and

icrohabitat: factors affecting growth and recruitment potential of juvenile saltmarsh

fishes. Environmental Biological Fisheries 53(1): 89-103.

Barrios, A. T. 2004. Use of passive acoustic monitoring to resolve spatial and temporal patterns

of spanwing activity for red drum

Sciaenops ocellatus, in the Neuse River Estuary,

North Carolina. MS, NCSU, Raleigh, NC, 97p.

Barrios Beckwith, A.T., G.H. Beckwith, Jr., and P.S. Rand. 2006. Identification of critical s

pawning

habitat and male courtship vocalization characteristics of red drum,

Sciaenops ocellatus, in

the lower Neuse River estuary of North Carolina. North Carolina Sea Grant Fishery

Research Grant Program, Final Report 05-EP-05. 39 p.

Beckwith, Jr., G.H. and P.S. Rand. 2004a. Investigating post-hooking recovery and m

ortality of red

drum in the Neuse River. North Carolina Sea Grant Fishery Research Grant Program, Final

Report 02-FEG-03. 31 p.

Beckwith, Jr., G.H. and P.S. Rand. 2004b. Large circle hooks and short leaders with fixed weights

reduce incidence of deep hooking in angled adult red drum

. Fisheries Research. 71(2005)

115-120.

Brown, C. A., G.A. Jackson, S.A. Holt, and G.J. Holt. 2005. Spatial and temporal patterns in

odeled particle transport to estuarine habitat with comparisons to larval fish settlement

patterns. Estuarine, coastal, and shelf science 64(1): 33-46.

Brown, S. S., G.R. Gaston, C.F. Rakocinski, and R.W

. Heard. 2000. Effects of sediment

contaminants and environmental gradients on macrobenthic community trophic structure

in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 23(3): 411-424.

Buckel, J.A., R.J. Hines, and T.C. McArthur, Jr. 2006. Incidental catch and discard of red drum

Sciaenops ocellatus, in a large mesh Paralichthyidae gillnet fishery: experimental

evaluation of a fisher’s experience at limiting bycatch. Fisheries Management and

Ecology 13: 1-7.

Burdick, S.M., J.E. Hightower, J.A. Buckel, L.M. Paramore and K.H. Pollock. 2007. Movement

and selectivity of red drum

and survival of adult red drum: an analysis of 20 years of

tagging data. Completion Report. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries,

Morehead City, NC. 85 p.

Buzzelli, C. P., R.A. Luettich Jr., S.P. Powers, C.H. Peterson, J.E. McNinch, J.L. Pinckney, and

H.W

. Paerl. 2002. Estimating the spatial extent of bottom water hypoxia and habitat

degradation in a shallow estuary. Marine ecology progress series 230: 103-112.

Cahoon, L. B., M.H. Posey, T.D. Alphin, D. Wells, S. Kissling, W

. H. Daniels, and J. Hales.

2002. Shrimp and crab trawling impacts on estuarine soft-bottom organisms. UNC-

Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, 17p.

Carraway, R. J. and L.J. Priddy. 1983. Mapping of subm

erged grass beds in Core and Bogue

Sounds, Carteret County, North Carolina, by conventional aerial photography. CEIP

Report No. 20, 88p.

180

Chmura, G. L. and N.W. Ross. 1978. Environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. Rhode

Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, RI, P675; RIU-T-78-005.

COE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. The New York District's biological m

onitoring

program for the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan section beach

erosion control project. USACOE, Vicksburg, MS, Final report , 103p.

COE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Effects of dredged m

aterial beach disposal on surf

zone and nearshore fish and benthic resources on Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak

Island, and Holden Beach, North Carolina: Interim study findings. Versar, Inc.,

Columbia, Md.

Coen, L. D., M.W. Luckenbach, and D.L. Breitburg. 1999. The role of oyster reefs as essential

fish habitat: a review of current knowledge and som

e new perspectives. p. 438-454

L.R. Benaka (ed). Fish habitat: Essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. American

Fisheries Societs, Bethesda, Md, Symposium 22, 459 p.

Collie, J. S., G.A. Escanero, and P.C. Valentine. 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic

egafauna of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155: 159-182.

Connell, B. and T. Murphey. 2004. A preliminary evaluation on the effects of dock shading on

density and coverage of shoal grass (

Halodule wrightii). DENR, DMF, Morehead City,

NC, 13p.

Cooper, S. R. and G.S. Brush. 1991. A 2500 year history of anoxia and eutrophication in the

Chesapeake Bay. Science 254: 992-1001.

Cross, F. A., D.S. Peters, and W.E. Schaaf. 1985. Implications of waste disposal in coastal

waters on fish populations. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessm

ent: Seventh

Symposium, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 383-399.

Currie, D. R. and G.D. Parry. 1996. Effects of scallop dredging on a soft sedim

ent community: a

large-scale experimental study. Marine Ecological Progress Series. 134: 131-150.

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands - losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, W

ashington, D.C., Report to Congress, 13p.

Daniel, L. B. III. 1988. Aspects of the biology of juvenile red drum,

Sciaenops ocellatus and

spotted seatrout,

Cynoscion nebulosus (Pisces: Sciaenidae) in South Carolina. M. S.

Thesis, College of Charleston, 58 p.

Dauer, D. M., J.A. Ranasinghe, and S.B. Weisberg. 2000. Relationships between benthic

com

munity condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use

patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23(1): 80-96.

Davis, G. J. and M.M. Brinson. 1990. A survey of submersed aquatic vegetation of the

Currituck Sound and the W

estern Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system. DNRCD,

Albermarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Project No. 89-10, 135p.

DEHNR (NC Dept. of Environment Health and Natural Resources). 1990. North Carolina

coastal m

arinas: water quality assessment. DEHNR, Raleigh, NC, 90-01, 69p.

181

DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 1990. Justification for subm

erged aquatic

vegetation critical habitat designation. DMF , Unpub. rep. 15p.

DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2001a. North Carolina oyster fishery

anagement plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of

Marine Fisheries, 225 p.

DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2006. North Carolina shrim

p fishery

management plan. NC DMF, Morehead City, NC.

Donoghue, C. R. 1999. The influence of swash processes on

Donax variabilis and Emerita

talpoida. PhD Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va, 197 p.

Durako, M. J. 1994. Seagrass die-off in Florida Bay (USA): changes in shoot dem

ographic

characteristics and population dynamics in

Thalassia testudinum. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 110: 59-66.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2000a. Water quality progress in North

Carolina in 1998-1999, 305(b) report. DENR, Division of W

ater Quality, Raleigh, NC,

34p.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2000b. A citizen's guide to water quality

anagement in North Carolina. DENR, Div. Water Quality, Planning Branch, Raleigh,

NC, 156p.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2002a. Neuse River Basinwide Water

uality Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,

http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/nepp.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2002b. Pasquotank River Basinwide Water

uality Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,

http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/nepp.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2003. Lumber River Basinwide Water

uality Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,

http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/nepp.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2004. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water

uality Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,

http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/nepp.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water

uality Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,

http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/nepp.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2006. Annual report of fish kill events, 2006.

ivision of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.

DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2007. White Oak River basinwide water

quality plan. N

.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

182

Dyer, K. R. and R.J. Orth. 1994. Changes in fluxes in estuaries: implications from science to

anagement. Olsen and Olsen, Fredenburg, Denmark.

Eby, L., L. Crowder, and C. McClellan. 2000. Neuse River estuary modeling and monitoring

project Stage 1: ef

fects of water quality on distribution and composition of the fish

community. Water Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, Report N. 325-C, 2p.

EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2006. 2005-2006 Annual report. EEP, Raleigh, NC,

17p.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Hydrom

odification chapter factsheet.

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/hydro.html, 12/2001.

Feierabend, S. J. and J.M. Zelazny. 1987. Status report on our nation's wetlands. National

ildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 50p.

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.

Fonseca, M. S. 1996a. The role of seagrasses in nearshore sedimentary processes: a review. p.

261-286

in C. Roman and K. Nordstrom (eds). Estuarine Shores: Hydrological,

Geomorphological and Ecological Interactions. Blackwell, Boston, MA.

Funderburk, S. L., J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, and D. Riley. 1991. Habitat requirements for

Chesapeake Bay living resources. Habitat Objectives W

orkgroup, Living Resources

Subcommittee and Chesapeake Research Consortium with assistance from Maryland

Department of Natural Resources, Solomons, MD.

Garbisch, E. W., P.B. Woller, W.J. Bostian, and R.J. McCallum. 1973. Biotic techniques for

shore stabilization. p. 405-407

in L.E. Cronin (ed.). Estuarine Research. Academic

Press Inc., New York, NY, II.

Gearhart J. 2001. Sea turtle bycatch monitoring of the 2000 fall flounder gillnet fishery of

southeastern Pam

lico Sound, North Carolina. Completion Report for ITP 1259. North

Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine

Fisheries. 26pp.

Goldsborough, W. J. and W.M. Kemp. 1988. Light responses of submersed macrophytes:

plication for survival in turbid waters. Ecology 69: 1775-1786.

Grabowski, J. H., D. Pettipas, M.A. Dolan, A.R. Hughes, and D.L. Kimbro. 2000. The economic

and biological value of restored oyster reef habitat to the nursery f

unction of the estuary.

NC Sea Grant, Morehead City, NC, FRG # 97-EP-6, 29p.

Graff, L. and J. Middleton. 2003. Wetlands and fish: catch the link. NOAA, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD, 48p.

Gray, J. S., R. S. Wu, and Y.Y. Or. 2002. Effects of hypoxia and organic enrichm

ent on the

coastal marine environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 238: 249-279.

183

Guthrie, J. F. and C. W. Lewis. 1982. The clam

-kicking fishery of North Carolina. Marine

Fisheries Review 44(1): 16-21.

Haab, T. , J. Whitehead, and Ted McConnell. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational

Fishing in the Southeast United States: 1997 Southeast Econom

ic Data Analysis.,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL. 2000.

Hackney, C. T., J. Grimley, M. Posey, T. Alphin, and J. Hyland. 1998. Sedim

ent contamination

in North Carolina's estuaries. Center for Marine Science Research, UNC-W, Wilmington,

NC, Publication #198, 59p.

Hackney, C. T., M.H. Posey, S.W. Ross, and A.R. Norris. 1996. A review and synthesis of data

on surf zone fishes and invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the potential im

pacts

from beach renourishment. Prepared for Wilmington District, US Army Corps of

Engineers. UNC-Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, 111 p.

Hare, J. O., J.A. Quinlan, F.E. Werner, B.O. Blanton, J.J. Govini, R.B. Forward, L.R. Settle, and

D.E. Hoss. 1999. Larval transport during winter in the SABRE study area: results of a

coupled vertical larval behavior-three-di

mensional circulation model. Fisheries

Oceanography. 8(2): 57-76.

Hassell, J. 2007. Characterization of flounder gill net fishing techniques and bycatch in the

Pam

lico river. North Carolina Sea Grant Fishery Research Grant Program, Final Report

06-FRG-04. 52 p.

Hawkins, J. H. 1980. Investigations of anadromous fishes of the Neuse River, North Carolina.

DMF, Morehead City, NC, Special Science Report No. 34, 111p.

Heath, R. C. 1975. Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pam

lico region, North Carolina: a preliminary

report on the impact of agricultural developments. US Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations 80(44): 1-85.

Hettler, W. F. and A.J. Chester. 1990. Temporal distribution of ichthyoplankton near Beaufort

Inlet, North Carolina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 68: 157-168.

Holt, S. A., G.J. Holt, and C.R. Arnold. 1989. Tidal stream transport of larval fishes into non-

stratified estuaries. p. 100-104

in J.H.S. Blaxter, J. C. Gamble J. Westernhagen. The

early life history of fish. The third ICES Symposium, Bergen, 3-5 October 1988.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Bergen.

Iannuzzi, T. J., M.P. Weinstein, K.G. Sellner, and J.C. Barrett. 1996. Habitat disturbance and

arina development: An assessment of ecological effects. I. Changes in primary

production due to dredging and marina construction. Estuaries 19(2A): 257-271.

IMPLAN PRO version 2.0 (2000). Stillwater, MN: Minnesota IMPLAN Group.

IPPC (Intergovenrmental Panel on Climate Change). 2002. Clim

ate Change 2001: Synthesis

report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Johnson, J. C., and M. K. Orbach. 1996. Effort management in North Carolina fisheries: a total

system

s approach. Fisheries Research Reports to the Fisheries Moratorium steering

184

Committee, North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, UNC-SG-96-08, Institute for

Coastal and Marine Resources East Carolina University, Technical Report 96-07.

Jutte, P. C., R.F.Van Dolah, and M.V.Levison . 1999. An environmental monitoring study of the

Myrtle Beach renourishing project: intertidal benthic com

munity assessment. Phase II-

Myrtle Beach. Final Report, prepared by Marine Resources Division; submitted to US

Army Corps of Engineers. SC Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, SC, 34p.

Kenworthy, W. J. and D.E. Haunert. 1991. The light requirem

ents of seagrasses: proceedings of

a workshop to examine the capability of water quality criteria, standards and monitoring

progress to protect seagrasses. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Beaufort, NC, Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-287, 181p.

Kirby, J., W. Maher, and F. Krikowa. 2001. Selenium, cadmium, copper, and zinc

concentrations in sedim

ents and mullet (

Mugil cephalus) from the southern basin of Lake

Macquarie, NSW Australia. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology

40(2): 246-256.

Knutson, P. L. 1977. Planting guidelines for m

arsh development and bank stabilization. US

Army Corps of Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va.

Laney, R. W. 1997. The relationship of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) ecological value

to species m

anaged by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASFMC):

Summary for the ASMFC SAV Subcommittee. In Atlantic coastal submerged aquatic

vegetation: a review of its ecological role, anthropogenic impacts, state regulation, and

value to Atlantic coastal fisheries (C.D. Stephan and T.E. Bigford, editors). ASFMC

Habitat Management Series #1, 78 p.

Lenihan, H. S., and C. H. Peterson. 1998. How habitat degradation through fishery disturbance

enhances im

pacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological Applications 8(1): 128-140.

Levin. P.S. and G.W. Stunz. 2005. Habitat triage for exploited fishes: Can we identify essential

"Essential Fish H

abitat?". Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 70-78.

Lindquist, N. and L. Manning. 2001. Impacts of beach nourishment and beach scraping on

critical habitat and productivity of surf fishes. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Fisheries

Resource Grant 98-EP-05: 41 .

Llanso, R. J., S.S. Bell, and F.E. Vose. 1998. Food habits of red drum and spotted seatrout in a

restored m

angrove impoundment. Estuaries 21(2): 294-306.

Loflin, R. K. 1995. The effects of docks on seagrass beds in the Charlotte Harbor estuary.

Florida Scientist 58(2): 198-205.

Lowerre-Barbieri, S.K., F.E. Vose and J.A. Whittington. 2003. Catch-and-release fishing on a

spawning aggregation of com

mon snook: does it affect reproductive output? Transactions of

the American Fisheries Society. 139: 940-952.

Luckenbach, M. W. and P.G. Ross. 2003. An experim

ental evaluation of the effects of scale on

oyster restoration. A final report to VA Sea Grant Consortium. 120p.

185

Luczkovich, J. J., H. J. Daniel, III, and M. W. Sprague. 1999. Characterization of critical

spawning habitats of weakfish, spotted seatrout and red drum

in Pamlico Sound using

hydroplane surveys. Completion Report, F-62, NC Division of Marine Fisheries,

Morehead City, NC. 128 p.

Luettich, R. A., J.E. McNinch, J.L. Pinckney, M.J. Alperin, C.S. Martens, H.W. Paerl, C.H.

Peterson, and J.T. W

ells. 1999. Neuse River estuary modeling and monitoring project,

final report: Monitoring phase. Water Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, 190p.

Lyon, D. D. and M. R. Fisher. 1998. Temperature and pH-related mortality of red drum larvae

in fertilized culture ponds. Progressive Fish-Culturist 60(3): 227-230.

Mallin, M. A., K.E. Williams, E.C. Esham, and R.P. Lowe. 2000b. Effect of human

developm

ent on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological

Applications 10(4): 1047-1056.

Marburger, J. E., W.E. Johnson, T.S. Gross, D.R. Douglas, and J. Di. 2002. Residual

organochlorine pesticides in soils and fish from

wetland restoration areas in central

Florida. Wetlands 22(4): 705-711.

Marcus, J. M. and T.P. Stokes. 1985. Polynuclear arom

atic hydrocarbons in oyster tissue around

three coastal marinas. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:

835-844.

Marks, R. E., and G. DiDominico, 1996. Life History Aspects of Selected Marine Recreational

Fishes in North Carolina. Tagging Studies, Maturity, and Spawning of Red Drum

(

Sciaenops ocellatus) in North Carolina. Completion Report F-43, Segment 1, NC

Division of Marine Fisheries, Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC 38 p.

Meeder, J. F. and L.B. Meeder. 1989. Hurricanes in Florida: a dominant physical process.

Bulletin of Marine Science 44(1).

MFC (North Carolina Fisheries Commission) 1997. North Carlina fisheries rules for coastal

waters 1999-2000. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 206 p.

Mercer, L. P. 1984. A biological and fisheries profile of red drum

Sciaenops ocellatus. North

Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Special Scientific Report 41. Morehead City,

NC.

Meyer, D. L., E.C. Townsend, and P.L. Murphey. 1996. Final report for the project evaluation

of restored wetlands and enhancem

ent methods for existing restorations. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Habitat Conservation Restoration

Center, Silver Springs, MD.

Micheli, F. M. and C. H. Peterson. 1999. Estuarine vegetated habitats as corridors for predator

ovement. Conservation Biology 13(4): 869-881.

Miller, J. M., L.B. Crowder, and M.L. Moser. 1985. Migration and utilization of estuarine

nurseries by juvenile fishes: an evolutionary perspective. p. 338-352

in M.A. Rankin

(ed.). Migration: mechanisms and adaptive significance. Contributions to Marine Science

(Supplement). 27.

186

Mitsch, W. J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold,

New York, NY, Second Edition, 772p.

Mock, C. R. 1966. Natural and altered estuarine habitats of penaeid shrimp. Proceedings Gulf

Caribbean Fish Institute 19th Annual Session. 86-98.

Montgomery, J. 2003. What effect does setting a flounder net close to the marsh have on the

incidental by catch of red drum

? North Carolina Sea Grant Fishery Research Grant

Program, Final Report, Final Report 02-FEG-18. 13 p.

Moore, J. W. 1991. Inorganic contaminants of surface water, research and monitoring priorities.

Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, Springer series on environm

ental management. 334p.

Moore, L. J., J.H. List, D. Stolper, and S.J. Williams. 2006. Modeling the large-scale

orphodynamics of barrier island coasts under conditions of rising sea level. EOS

Transactions, American Geophysical Union 87 (36 supp).

Music, J. L., Jr., and J. M. Pafford. 1984. Population dynamics and life history aspects of major

arine sportfishes in Georgia’s coastal waters. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources,

Coastal Resources Division, Coastal Fisheries Section, Final Report Study VI F-31, 382 p.

Neill, W. H. 1987. Environmental requirements of red drum. In G.W. Chamberlain, R. J. Miget

and M. G. Haby (eds.), Manual on Red Drum

Aquaculture. Preliminary draft of invited

papers presented at the Production Short course of the 1987 Red Drum aquaculture

Conference on 22-24 June, 1987 in Corpus Christi, Texas A&M University, College

Station.

North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF). 1997. State of the Coast Report 15(4). 19p.

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 1998. Blue Crab Public Inform

ation

Document. Morehead City, NC.

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2001. Red Drum

Fishery Management

Plan. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 110 p. +

appendices.

North Carolina Sea Grant. 1997. Coastal water quality. NC State University, Raleigh, NC,

UNC-SG-97-04 , 72 p.

Orth, R. J., J. Simons, J. Capelli, V. Carter, L. Hindm

an, S. Hodges, K. Moore, and N. Rybicki.

1986. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and

tributaries - 1985. US EPA, Washington, DC, Final report.

Paerl, H., M. M. Mallin, C. A. Donahue, M. Go, and B. L. Peierls. 1995. Nitrogen loading

sources and eutrophication of the Neuse River, NC: direct and indirect roles of

atm

ospheric deposition. Publication 291. Water Resources Research Institute, UNC,

Chapel Hill, NC.

Pate, P. P., Jr., and R. Jones. 1981. Effects of upland drainage on estuarine nursery areas of

Pam

lico Sound, North Carolina. UNC Sea Grant Pub. No. UNC-SG-WP-10. 24 p.

187

Pearsall, S. and B. Poulter. In press. Adapting coastal lowlands to rising seas.

in M. Groom, ed.

Principles of Conservation Biology . Sinauer Press.

Pearson, J. C. 1929. Natural history and conservation of the redfish and other commercial

sciaenids on the Texas coast. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 44:129-214.

Peters, D. S., L.R. Settle, and J.D. Fuss. 1995. Larval fish abundance in the vicinity of Beaufort

Inlet prior to berm

construction. NMFS, Beaufort, NC, NMFS Progress Report , 20 p.

Peters, K. M. and J. R.H. McMichael. 1987. Early life history of the red drum,

Sciaenops

ocellatus (Pisces: Sciaenidae) in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries 10(2): 92-107.

Peterson, B. J. and R.W. Howarth. 1987. Sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen isotopes used to trace

organic m

atter flow in the salt-marsh estuaries of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Limnology and

Oceanography 32(6): 1195-1213.

Peterson, C. H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers. 2003. Quantitative enhancement of fish

production by oyster reef habitat: restoration valuation. Marine Ecology Progress Series

264: 249-264.

Peterson, C. H. and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina: A

com

munity profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-79/39, 73 p.

Peterson, M. S., B.H. Comyns, J.R. Hendon, P.J. Bond, and G.A. Duff. 2000c. Habitat use by

early life-stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine landscape:

difference between natural and altered shoreline sites. W

etland, Ecology, and

Management 8(2-3): 209-219.

Powell, A. B. and R.E. Robbins. 1998. Ichthyoplankton adjacent to live-bottom habitats in

Onslow Bay, North Carolina. NOAA , Seattle, W

ashington, Tech. Rep. NMFS 133, 32p.

Powers, M. J. and D. Gaskill. 2004. Recruitment, growth, and habitat utilization of red drum

Sciaenops ocellatus, in North Carolina estuaries. North Carolina Sea Grant Extension

Program, FRG project #00-EP-04 , 40p.

Price, A. B. and J.L. Gearhart. 2002a. Small Mesh (< 4.5-inch) Gillnet Discard Mortality of

spotted seatrout (

Cynoscion nebulosus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), southern flounder

(

Paralichthys lethostigma), and red drum (Sciaenops ocellata) in Roanoke Sound, Core

Sound, and the Neuse River, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Marine

Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina.

Price, A. B. and J.L. Gearhart. 2002b. Large Mesh (>

5-inch) Gillnet Discard Mortality of

Spotted Seatrout (

Cynoscion nebulosus), Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), Southern

Flounder (

Paralichthys lethostigma), and Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellata) in Roanoke

Sound, Core Sound, and the Neuse River, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of

Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina.

Rakocinski, C., S.E. LeCroy, J.A. McLelland, and R.W. Heard. 1993. Responses by

acroinvertebrate communities to beach renourishment at Perdido Key, Florida: benthic

recovery. US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service.

188

Reagan, R. E. 1985. Species profiles: life histories and environm

ental requirements of coastal

fishes and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – red drum. US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC. Biological Report 82 (11.36). 16 p.

Reilly, F. J. Jr. and B.J. Bellis. 1983. The ecological impact of beach nourishment with dredged

aterials on the intertidal zone at Bogue Banks, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.

Riggs, S. R. 1996. Sediment evolution and habitat function of organic-rich m

uds within the

Albemarle estuarine system, North Carolina. Estuaries 19(2A): 169-185.

Riggs, S. R., E.R. Powers, J. T. Bray, P.M. Stout, C. Ham

ilton, D. Ames, R. Moore, J. Watson ,

S. Lucas, and M. Williamson. 1989. Heavy metal pollutants in organic rich muds of the

Pamlico River estuarine system: their concentration, distribution, and effects upon

benthic environments and water quality: Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. Project

No. 89-06. US EPA and NC DNRCD, Raleigh, NC, 108p.

Riggs, S. R., J.T. Bray, E.R. Powers, C. Hamilton, D. Am

es, D. Yeates, K. Owens, S. Lucas, J.

Watson, and M. Williamson. 1991. Heavy metal pollutants in organic-rich muds of the

Neuse River Estuary: their concentration and distribution. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine

Study Report. Project no. 90-07. DENR, Raleigh, 168p.

Rooker, J. R., G. J. Holt, S. A. Holt. 1998. Vulnerability of newly settled red drum (

Sciaenops

ocellatus) to predatory fish: Is early-life survival enhanced by seagrass meadows?

Marine Biology 131(1): 145-151.

Rooker, J. R., S.A. Holt, G.J. Holt, and L.A. Fuiman. 1999. Spatial and temporal variability in

grow

th, mortality, and recruitment potential of postsettlement red drum,

Sciaenops

ocellatus, in a subtropical estuary. Fisheries Bulletin 97(3): 581-590.

Ross, J. L., and T. M. Stevens. 1992. Life history and population dynam

ics of red drum

(

Sciaenops ocellatus) in North Carolina waters. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Marine

Fisheries Research Completion Report Project F-29, , 130 p.

Ross, J. L., T. M. Stevens, and D. S. Vaughan. 1995. Age, growth, mortality, and reproductive

biology of red drum

s in North Carolina waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 124:37-54.

Rozas, L. P. and W.E. Odum. 1987. The role of submerged aquatic vegetation in influencing the

abundance of nekton on contiguous tidal freshwater m

arshes. Journal of Experimental

Marine biology and Ecology 114(2-3): 289-300.

Scharf, F. S. 2000. Patterns in abundance, growth, and mortality of juvenile red drum across

estuaries on the Texas coast with im

plications for recruitment and stock enhnacement.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 1207-1222.

Schoof, R. 1980. Environmental impact of channel modification. Water Resources Bulletin

16(4): 697-701.

Shafer, D. J. 1999. The effects of dock shading on the seagrass

Halodule wrightii in Perdido

Bay, Alabama. Estuaries 22(4): 936-943.

189

Simmons and Breuer, 1962. A study of redfish (

Sciaenops ocellatus Linnaeus) and black drum

(

Pogonias cromis Linnaeus). Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, University

of Texas 8:184-211.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1990. The Atlantic coast red drum

fishery management plan, including an environmental impact statement and regulatory

impact review. SAFMC, Charleston, SC in cooperation with MAFMC, Dover, Delaware,

106 p.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final habitat plan for the south

Atlantic region: essential fish habitat requirem

ents for fishery management plans of the

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. SAFMC, Charleston, SC, 457 p.

Stevenson, J. C., L.W. Staver, and K.W. Staver. 1993. Water quality associated with survival of

subm

erged aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16(346-361).

Stewart, C. B. 2006. Spatial and temporal variability in recruitment timing, relative abundance,

and m

ortality of juvenile red drum (

Sciaenops ocellatus) in southeastern North Carolina.

MS, UNC-W, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 69 p.

Street, M. W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal

Habitat Protection Plan. DENR, DMF, Morehead City, 607p.

Stunz, G. W., P. S. Levin, and T.J. Minello. 2001. Selection of estuarine nursery habitats by

wild-caught and hatchery-reared juvenile red drum

in laboratory mesocosms.

Environmental Biology of Fishes 61(3): 305-313.

Stunz, G. W. and T.J. Minello. 2001. Habitat-related predation on juvenile wild-caught and

hatchery-reared red drum

Sciaenops ocellatus. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology

and Ecology 260(1): 13-25.

Stunz, G. W., T.J. Minello, and P.S. Levin. 2002. A comparison of early juvenile red drum

densities am

ong various habitat types in Galveston Bay, Texas. Estuaries 25(1): 76-85.

Sutter, L. 1. 1999. DCM wetland mapping in coastal North Carolina. DENR, Raleigh NC, 33p.

Takade, H. and L.M. Paramore. 2007. Stock status of the northern red drum stock. North

Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 47 p. + appendices.

Tarplee, W. H. Jr., D.E. Louder, and A.J. Weber . 1971. Evaluation of the effects of

channelization on fish populations in North Carolina's coastal plain stream

s. North

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.

Tenore, K. R. 1972. Macrobenthos of the Pamlico River estuary, North Carolina. Ecological

Monographs 42: 51-69.

Thayer, G. W., W. Kenworthy, and M. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the

Atlantic Coast: a com

munity profile. FWS/OBS-84/02. 147 p.

Thorpe, T., D. Beresoff, and K. Cannady. 2001. Gillnet bycatch potential, discard mortality, and

condition of red drum

(

Sciaenops ocellatus) in southeastern North Carolina. Final Report

to the Marine Fisheries Commission, Fishery Resource Grant Program. 00-FEG-14. 72 p.

190

Thorpe, T., D. Beresoff. 2005. Effects of gillnet tie-downs on fish and bycatch rates associated

with Am

erican shad (

Alosa sapidissima) and flounder (Paralichthys spp.) fisheries in

southeastern North Carolina. Final Report to Marine Fisheries Commission, North

Carolina Sea Grant 04-FEG-03. 111 p.

Twilley, R. R., W.M. Kemp, K.W. Staver, J.C. Stevenson, and W.R. Boynton. 1985. Nutrient

enrichm

ent of estuarine submersed vascular plant communities. 1. Algal growth and

effects on production of plants and associated communities. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 23: 179-191.

Van Dolah, R. F., P. H. Wendt, and M. V. Levisen. 1991. A study of the effects of shrim

trawling on benthic communities in two South Carolina sounds. Fisheries Research 12:

139-156.

Van Dolah, R. F., P. P. Maier, M. H. Fulton, and G. I. Scott. 1997. Comparison of

azinphosm

ethyl toxicity to juvenile red drum (

Sciaenops ocellatus) and the mummichog

(

Fundulus heteroclitus). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(7): 1488-1493.

Vaughan, D. S., and T. E. Helser. 1990. Status of the red drum stock of the Atlantic coast:

Stock assessm

ent report for 1989. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-263. 117 p.

Vaughan, D.S. 1996. Status of the red drum stock on the Atlantic coast: Stock assessment

report for 1995, SEFSC, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC. NOAA Tech. Report

NMFS-SEFC-380. 50p.

Vaughan, D.S., and J. T. Carmichael. 2000. Assessment of Atlantic Red Drum for 1999:

Northern and Southern Regions. NOAA Tech. Mem

. NMFS-SEFSC-447.

Vaughan, D.S. and J.T. Carmichael. 2001. Bag and size limit analyses for red drum in northern

and southern regions of the U. S. Atlantic. NOAA Technical Mem

orandum NMFS-

SEFSC-454, 37 p.

Voudrias, E. A. and C.L. Smith. 1986. Hydrocarbon pollution from marinas in estuarine

sedim

ents. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sciences 22: 271-284.

Wannamaker, C. M. and J.A. Rice . 2000. Effects of hypoxia on movements and behavior of

selected estuarine organism

s from the southeastern United States. Journal of

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 249: 145-163.

Waters, C. T. and C.D. Thomas. 2001. Shoreline hardening effects on associated fish

assem

blages in five North Carolina coastal rivers. North Carolina Wildlife Resources

Commission, Raleigh, NC, 20p.

Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish,

Cape Fear River, NC. Fisheries Bulletin 2: 339-357 .

Weinstein, M. P., S.L. Weiss, R.G. Hodson, and L.R. Gerry. 1980. Retention of three taxa of

postlarval fishes in an intensively flushed tidal estuary, Cape Fear River, North Carolina.

fishery Bulletin 78(2): 419-436.

191

Weis, J. S. and P. Weis. 1989. Effects of environmental pollutants on early fish development.

Aquatic Sciences 1(1): 45-55.

Weis, J. S., P. Weis, and T. Proctor . 1998. The extent of benthic impacts of CCA-treated wood

structures in A

tlantic coast estuaries. Archives of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 34(4): 313-322.

Wendt, P. H., R.F. Van Dolah, M.Y. Bobo, and J.J. Manzi. 1990. Effects of marina proximity

on certain aspects of the biology of oysters

and other benthic macrofauna in a South

Carolina estuary. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston,

SC, South Carolina Marine Resources Center Tech. Rep. No. 74, 49p.

Wenner, C. A., W. A. Roumillat, J. E. Moran, Jr., M. B. Maddox, L. B. Daniel, III, and J. W.

ith. 1990. Investigations on the life history and population dynamics of marine

recreational fishes in South Carolina: Part 1. Final Rep., Proj. F-37, SC Wildl. Mar.

Resour. Dept., Mar. Resour. Res. Inst., 180p.

White, K. 1996. Restoration of channelized streams to enhance fish habitat.

http://www.ies.wisc.edu/research/ies900/kim

channelization.htm, Dec. 2003.

Yokel, B. 1966. A contribution to the biology and distribution of red drum,

Sciaenops ocellata.

MS Thesis. University of Miami, Miami.

Zieman, J. C. 1982. The ecology of seagrasses of south Florida: a community profile. US Fish

and W

ildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/25. 123 p.

192

Appendix 1 – Rule Changes Necessary to Implement Red Drum FMP

Amendment One.

RULES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT RED DRUM FMP AMENDMENT

MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES SELECTED BY THE MFC

Changes to implement Red Drum FMP Amendment are underlined and highlighted.

Issue: Recreational Targeting of Adult Red Drum

SUBCHAPTER 03J - NETS, POTS, DREDGES, AND OTHER FISHING DEVICES

SECTION .0300 – POTS, DREDGES, AND OTHER FISHING DEVICES

NEW RULE PROPOSED

15A NCAC 03J .0306 HOOK-AND-LINE

It is unlawful to use any hook larger than 4/0 from July 1 through September 30 in the internal coastal fishing waters

of Pamlico Sound and its tributaries south of the Albemarle Sound Management Area as defined in 15A NCAC 03R

.0201 and north of a line beginning at a point 34° 59.7942' N - 76° 14.6514'

W on Camp Point; running easterly to a point at 34° 58.7853' N - 76° 09.8922' W on Core Banks while using natural

bait from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. unless the terminal tackle consists of:

(1) A circle hook defined as a hook with the point of the hook directed perpendicularly back toward

the shank, and with the barb either compressed or removed.

(2) A fixed sinker not less than two ounces in weight, secured not more than six inches from the fixed

weight to the circle hook.

History Note: Authority G.S. 113-182; 113-182.1; 143B-289.52.

Eff.???

Issues: Recreational Bag and Size Limit

Commercial Cap and Fishing Year

The Use of Gigs, Gaffs or Spears to take Red Drum

SUBCHAPTER 03M - FINFISH

Section .0500 – other finfish

15A NCAC 03M .0501 RED DRUM

(a) The Fisheries Director, may by proclamation, impose any or all of the following restrictions on the

taking of red

drum:

(1)

Specify areas.

(2)

Specify seasons.

(3)

Specify quantity.

(4)

Specify means/methods.

(5)

Specify size.

(b)(a) It is unlawful to remove red drum from any type of net with the aid of any boat hook, gaff, spear, gig, or similar device.

(b) It is unlawful to take or possess red drum taken by gigs, gaffs ,spears, or similar device.

(c)(b)(c) It is unlawful to possess red drum less than 18 inches total length or greater than 27 inches total length.

193

(d)(c)(d) It is unlawful to possess more than one red drum per person per day taken-by hook-and-line or for recreational

purposes.

(e)(d)(e) The annual commercial harvest limit (September 1 through August 31) for red drum is 250,000 pounds. The annual

commercial harvest limit will be allotted in two periods: September 1 through April 30 at 150,000 pounds, and May 1 through

August 31 at 100,000 pounds plus any remainder from the first period allotment. Any annual commercial harvest limit that is

exceeded one year will result in the poundage overage being deducted from the subsequent year’s commercial harvest limit and

the Fisheries Director shall adjust the period allotments accordingly. If the harvest limit is projected to be taken, taken in any

period, the Fisheries Director shall, by proclamation, prohibit possession of red drum taken in a commercial fishing operation.

operation for the remainder of that period.

History Note: Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-182; 113-221; 143B-289.52;

Eff. January 1, 1991;

Issues:

Estuarine Gill Net Discarded Bycatch of Red Drum

SUBCHAPTER 03J - NETS, POTS, DREDGES, AND OTHER FISHING DEVICES

SECTION .0100 - NET RULES, GENERAL

15A NCAC 03J .0103 GILL NETS, SEINES, IDENTIFICATION, RESTRICTIONS

(a) It is unlawful to use gill nets:

(1) With a mesh length less than 2 ½ inches.

(2) In internal waters from April 15 through December 15, with a mesh length 5 inches or greater and less

than 5 ½ inches.

(b) The Fisheries Director may, by proclamation, limit or prohibit the use of gill nets or seines in coastal waters, or any

portion thereof, or im

pose any or all of the following restrictions on the use of gill nets or seines:

(1) Specify area.

(2) Specify season.

(3) Specify gill net mesh length.

(4) Specify means/methods.

(5) Specify net number and length.

recreational purposes, or any gill nets in internal waters unless nets are m

arked by attaching to them at each end two

separate yellow buoys which shall be of solid foam or other solid buoyant material no less than five inches in diameter

and no less than five inches in length. Gill nets, which are not connected together at the top line, are considered as

individual nets, requiring two buoys at each end of each individual net. Gill nets connected together at the top line are

considered as a continuous net requiring two buoys at each end of the continuous net. Any other marking buoys on gill

nets used for recreational purposes shall be yellow except one additional buoy, any shade of hot pink in color,

constructed as specified in this Paragraph, shall be added at each end of each individual net. Any other marking buoys on

gill nets used in commercial fishing operations shall be yellow except that one additional identification buoy of any color

or any combination of colors, except any shade of hot pink, may be used at either or both ends. The owner shall be

identified on a buoy on each end either by using engraved buoys or by attaching engraved metal or plastic tags to the

buoys. Such identification shall include owner's last name and initials and if a vessel is used, one of the following:

(1) Owner's N.C. motor boat registration number, or

(2) Owner's U.S. vessel documentation name.

(d) It is unlawful to use gill nets:

(1) Within 200 yards of any pound net set with lead and either pound or heart in use, except from August

15 through Decem

ber 31 in all coastal fishing waters of the Albemarle Sound, including its tributaries

to the boundaries between coastal and joint fishing waters, west of a line beginning at a point 36°

04.5184' N - 75° 47.9095' W on Powell Point; running southerly to a point 35° 57.2681' N - 75°

48.3999' W on Caroon Point, it is unlawful to use gill nets within 500 yards of any pound net set with

lead and either pound or heart in use;

194

(2) From March 1 through October 31 in the Intracoastal Waterway within 150 yards of any railroad or

highway bridge.

(e) It is unlawful to use gill nets within 100 feet either side of the center line of

the Intracoastal Waterway Channel south

of the entrance to the Alligator-Pungo River Canal near Beacon "54" in Alligator River to the South Carolina line, unless

such net is used in accordance with the following conditions:

(1) No more than two gill nets per vessel may be used at any one time;

(2) Any net used must be attended by the fisherman from a vessel who shall at no time be more than 100

yards from

either net; and

(3) Any individual setting such nets shall remove them, when necessary, in sufficient time to permit

unrestricted boat navigation.

(f) It is unlawful to use drift gill nets in violation of 15A NCAC 03J .0101(2) and Paragraph (e) of this Rule.

(g) It is unlawful to use unattended gill nets with a mesh length

less than five inches in a commercial fishing operation in

the gill net attended areas designated in 15A NCAC 03R .0112(a).

(h) It is unlawful to use unattended gill nets with a mesh length less than five inches in a com

mercial fishing operation

from May 1 through October 31 November 30 in the internal coastal and joint waters of the state designated in 15A

NCAC 03R .0112(b).

(i) It is unlawful to use more

than 3,000 yards of gill net with a mesh length 5 1/2 inches or greater per vessel in internal

waters regardless of the number of individuals involved. For gill nets with a mesh length five inches or greater, it is

unlawful:

(1) To use more than 3,000 yards of gill net per vessel in internal waters regardless of the number of

individuals involved.

(2) From June through October, for any portion of the net to be within 10 feet of any point on the

shoreline while set or deployed, unless the net is attended.

(j) For the purpose of this Rule and 15A NCAC 03R .0112, shoreline is defined as the mean high water line or marsh

line, whichever is most seaward.

History Note: Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-173; 113-182; 113-221; 143B-289.52;

Eff. January 1, 1991;

Amended Eff. August 1, 1998; March 1, 1996; March 1, 1994; July 1, 1993; September 1, 1991;

Temporary Amendment Eff. October 2, 1999; July 1, 1999; October 22, 1998;

Amended Eff. April 1, 2001;

Temporary Amendment Eff. May 1, 2001;

Amended Eff. December 1, 2007; September 1, 2005; August 1, 2004; August 1, 2002.

SUBCHAPTER 03R - DESCRIPTIVE BOUNDARIES

SECTION .0100 - DESCRIPTIVE BOUNDARIES

03R .0112 ATTENDED GILL NET AREAS

(a) The attended gill net areas referenced in 15A NCAC 03J .0103 (g) are delineated in the following areas:

(1) Pamlico River, west of a line beginning at a

point 35° 27.5768' N - 76° 54.3612' W on Ragged Point;

running southwesterly to a point 35° 26.9176' N - 76° 55.5253' W on Mauls Point;

(2) Within 200 yards of any shoreline in Pamlico River and its tributaries east of the line beginning at a

point 35° 27.

5768' N - 76° 54.3612' W on Ragged Point; running southwesterly to a point 35° 26.9176'

N - 76° 55.5253' W on Mauls Point; and west of a line beginning at a point 35° 22.3622' N - 76°

28.2032' W on Roos Point; running southerly to a point at 35° 18.5906' N - 76° 28.9530' W on

Pamlico Point;

(3) Pungo River, east of the northern portion of the Pantego

Creek breakwater and a line beginning at a

point 35° 31.7198' N - 76° 36.9195' W on the northern side of the breakwater near Tooleys Point;

running southeasterly to a point 35° 30.5312' N - 76°35.1594' W on Durants Point;

(4) Within 200 yards of any shoreline in Pungo River an

d its tributaries west of the northern portion of the

Pantego Creek breakwater and a line beginning at a point 35° 31.7198' N - 76° 36.9195' W on the

northern side of the breakwater near Tooleys Point; running southeasterly to a point 35° 30.5312' N -

76° 35.1594' W on Durants Point; and west of a line beginning at a point 35° 22.3622' N - 76°

195

28.2032' W on Roos Point; running southerly to a point at 35° 18.5906' N - 76° 28.9530' W on

Pamlico Point;

(5) Neuse River and its tributaries northwest of

the Highway 17 highrise bridge;

(6) Trent River and its tributaries;

(7) Within 200 yards of any shoreline in Neuse River and its tributaries east of the Highway 17 highrise

bridge and west of a line beginning at a point 34° 57.9116' N - 76° 48.2240' W on Wilkinson Point;

running southerly to a point 34° 56.3658' N - 76° 48.7110' W on Cherry Point. south and west of a line

beginning on Maw Point at a point 35° 09.0407' N – 76° 32.2348' W; running southeasterly near the

Maw Point Shoal Marker "2" to a point 35° 08.1250' N - 76° 30.8532' W; running southeasterly near

the Neuse River Entrance Marker "NR" to a point 35° 06.6212' N – 76° 28.5383' W; running

southerly to a point 35° 04.4833' N - 76° 28.0000' W near Point of Marsh in Neuse River. In Core and

Clubfoot creeks, the Highway 101 Bridge constitutes the attendance boundary.

(b) The attended gill net areas referenced in 15A NCAC

03J .0103 (h) are delineated in the following internal

coastal

and joint waters of the state south of a line beginning on Roanoke Marshes Point at a point 35° 48.3693' N - 75° 43.7232'

W; running southeasterly to a point 35° 44.1710' N - 75° 31.0520' W on Eagles Nest Bay to the South Carolina State line: