processors in Dallas, Kemah, Seadrift, and Port O’Connor, Texas, and two additional processors in Saraland, Alabama and Panacea, Florida, the other processors and thus their communities rely heavily if not entirely on shrimp with respect to their processing activities. Again, how much of that shrimp comes from domestic production cannot be known with certainty, though Keithly et. al’s (2005) analysis suggests a likely estimate of 60%. Communities that appear to have a very strong relationship with shrimp processing activities, though not nearly as much so with harvesting and wholesaling activities, would include Delcambre, Louisiana, Tampa, Florida, D’Iberville, Mississippi, and Bon Secour, Alabama. Undoubtedly, many of the processors in these communities receive product from nearby communities that have closer ties to harvesters and dealers. For example, recent field research suggests a strong relationship between dealer/wholesalers and vessel owners in Abbeville, Louisiana, who also have a strong relationship with vessels ported in Intracoastal City, Louisiana, with processors in Delcambre, Louisiana.
Upon taking into account all of the presented placed-based information regarding the Gulf shrimp fishery, some ranking of communities according to the strength of their relationship with the fishery should be possible. Although this ranking is somewhat subjective, it does take into account all of the place-based factors that have been discussed, both in terms of how high each community ranked and how many factors for which it was highly ranked. Some emphasis has been placed on factors that are specific to the EEZ component of the fishery, and thus this
ranking should be seen in this light. The rankings are presented in Table 4.8. It is worth noting that the top four ranked communities (Brownsville, Port Arthur, Port Isabel, and Palacios) are all in Texas.
In addition to the place-based fishery data above, additional information can be gleaned by looking at the socio-demographic composition of these communities. As per Executive Order 12898, of specific interest are communities that have relatively high percentages of minorities, communities which are lower than average with respect to important socioeconomic factors, such as level of education, average household income, and poverty rates, and communities which have a relatively strong economic dependence on the fishing industry in general. These factors would be evaluated relative to national averages. For example, nationally, slightly more than 29% of the population is composed of minorities: Blacks/African Americans (12.3%), American Indians/Native Alaskans (0.9%), Asians (3.6%), and Hispanics/Latinos (12.5%). Average household income is $41,994 and 12.4% of the population lives in poverty. Over 80.4% of the population have a high school education or better, while 24.4% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. This information generally comes from the Census Bureau (2000) but, in the case of some Louisiana communities, additional insights were gleaned from IAI’s report (2004) regarding the identification of fishing communities. For current purposes, the focus is on the communities noted above that have the strongest relationship with the fishery.
Upon an analysis of the Census data for each community, many communities (24) appear to be relatively vulnerable to social and economic impacts as a result of adverse management changes, or adverse changes due to other factors. That is, these communities would find it more difficult to adjust to or “absorb” adverse impacts because, relative to other communities, they lack the sufficient human, physical, and financial capital to do so. From a social justice perspective, the impacts of the Gulf shrimp fishery management changes on these communities should be given additional consideration. More specifically, the twenty-four communities can be subjectively broken into three groups: 1) communities which reflect all five of the attributes noted above (Group 1), 2) communities which indicate at least four of the attributes noted above (Group 2),