Limited access alternatives for the Pacific groundfish fishery

Despite its wide acceptance in other fisheries, limited access remains a controversial topic among Pacific coast groundfish fishermen and fishery managers. It is controversial because it immediately opens a wide array of public policy issues. How should the public conserve fish stocks, and who should benefit from harvesting those fish? What are the costs and benefits to the public, the taxpayer, the fishing industry, and the coastal communities supporting the groundfish industry? Should the government push the industry to be economically efficient in harvesting; or should it discourage technical efficiency to conserve fish stocks? Should management preserve the economic status quo by protecting existing harvest shares? These are the broad issues occupying the discussions of policy makers and academic writers concerned with resource management. The goal of this introductory section is to define limited access, to dispel some basic misunderstandings about limited access, to clarify the optional forms oflimited access, and to review the various resource management objectives addressed. This should set the stage for the following more lengthy discussions. By reducing the scope of needless misunderstandings, it should also help to make future discussions of limited access more productive. (PDF file contains 52 pages.)

Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina

This paper reviews the scientific data on the ecosystem services provided by shoreline habitats, the evidence for adverse impacts from bulkheading on those habitats and services, and describes alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization, which minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline ecosystem. Alternative shoreline stabilization structures that incorporate natural habitats, also known as living shorelines, have been popularized by environmental groups and state regulatory agencies in the mid-Atlantic. Recent data on living shoreline projects in North Carolina that include a stone sill demonstrate that the sills increase sedimentation rates, that after 3 years marshes behind the sills have slightly reduced biomass, and that the living shoreline projects exhibit similar rates of fishery utilization as nearby natural fringing marshes. Although the current emphasis on shoreline armoring in Puget Sound is on steeper, higher-energy shorelines, armoring of lower-energy shorelines may become an issue in the future with expansion of residential development and projected rates of sea level rise. The implementation of regulatory policy on estuarine shoreline stabilization in North Carolina and elsewhere is presented. The regulatory and public education issues experienced in North Carolina, which have made changes in estuarine shoreline stabilization policy difficult, may inform efforts to adopt a sustainable shoreline armoring strategy in Puget Sound. A necessary foundation for regulatory change in shoreline armoring policy, and public support for that change, is rigorous scientific assessment of the variety of services that natural shoreline habitats provide both to the ecosystem and to coastal communities, and evidence demonstrating that shoreline armoring can adversely impact the provision of those services.