[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
~0 An Assessme~q4~2qit of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Fur~6qd~6qed ~q#~qIE~'~. Oregon Department [email protected] Fis h and Wildlife [email protected][email protected] for tie- Oregon Coastal Zone Mana ~q?nt Association, Inc. N~6qe~0qM~0qm~qr~qt ~2q=~q31 Pr~0qe~4qp~0qB~4qd~0qb~0qy The Mayo Associates Na~4qW Resource [email protected]~0qmers 1~6q0~0q8 Sou~4qh Washir~qp~6qp~2qn S~6qt~6qi~4qke 204 HD Seat~4qde, WA 981 D4 9469 S3 07 1988 November 30~q,1988 slim ~0 An Assessment of Private ~4qta~qlmon Ranching in Oregon/ ~4qF~qL~6qr~4qd~6qB~4qd by ~4qt~0qe Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P~qr~ ed for the Oregon Coastal Zone~2q7anage~0qf~0qf~4qw~' ~q?nt Association, Inc. [email protected]~6qM Oreg~0qo~qi ~2qR~0qq~8qx~qr~2qed by ~4q7he Mayo [email protected] N~4qd~qi~4qM P~8qW~8qw~8qw Pl~qe~8qnners 1~0q0~4qBSo~qL~4qt~qi~'Wa~8qf~8qt~0qY~4qg~2qbn Su~qke 204 Sea~4qf~4qf~4qle, WA 981~4q04 November 30~q,1988 MAYO ASSOCIATEB uite 204 - 10E3 S. WaShington St. Seattle. WA 9EB104 (206] 223-1551 Cable: MAYO November 30, 1988 Jay Rasmussen Director Oregon Coastal Zone Management Aslociation PO Box 1033 Newport, Oregon 97365 Subject: An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Dear Jay, This is to transmit 100 copies of this assessment. This completes our services on this assignment. We can say, without fear of contradiction, that this, has been one of the more interesting studies we have undertaken. Working with you, your staff and the Advisory Committee has been a real pleasure. A, special thanks to all. A special thanks also to the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife and the Private Salmon Ranching Industry. Though, it appears that their relationship has troubled moments, we should not lose sight of what they have accomplished together. No other state has had the courage to undertake such a experiment in technical and institutional cooperation. Respectfully-s bmitted, Ronald D. Mayo The Mayo Associates Cvil Eng,rieer-ng. Sanitary Engineering, Sio-Eng,neenng, Nature Resource Planning. Managerrier-it Consult,mg An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Table of Contents Table of Contents Study Participants Summary and Analysis I This Report I Background I Status 3 Statutes and Regulations 4 Issues 4 An Economic Comparison of Scenarios 6 Factors In the Choice of Scenarios 6 The Assessment 9 Part I - Background and Update 11 A. The Origin of Salmon Ranching 11 B. The Chronology of Salmon Ranching 12 C. The Statistics of Oregon's Salmon Ranching 16 D. Technology & Research 27 E. Existing Ocean Ranching Operations 29 F. Near-Term Private Salmon Ranching "Operating Scenados" 30 G. Nature's Role 30 Part 2 - The Statutes and Regulations 31 A. Background 31 B. The Private Hatchery Permit 31 1. Timing 32 2. Egg Sources 32 3. Sites 32 4. Deparlmental Reviews: Resource and Economic Considerations 32 5. Departmental Review: Land Use Considerations 33 6. The Public Hearing 33 7. The Decision 34 8. The Permit's Condition's 34 C. The Wildlffe Propagation License 35 D. State Dredge and Fill Permits 35 E. Federal Dredge and Fill Permits 35 F. Reservoir Construction Permit 36 G. Water Rights Permit 36 H. Water Discharge Permit 37 1. Dealers Licenses 38 J.Processing and Marketing: State Regulations 38 K. Processing and Marketing: Federal Regulations 38 L. Summary 38 Table of Contents An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Part 3 - Issues 39 A. Operational Expectations - Chum Salmon Returns 39 B. Absolute Fishery Contribution - Coho 40 C. Relative Fishery Contribution and Its Determination- Coho 40 D. Fishery Contribution - Chinook 44 E. Market Competition - Rogue River Spring Chinook 45 F. Market Competition - Private Salmon 46 G. Attitudes of Oregon!s Salmon Fishing Industry 47 H. Harvest Management 48 1. The *Fair Rent* Concept 49 J. Free Market/Full Ownership Concept 50 K. Carrying Capacity 61 L. The Stability of the Ocean Ranching Permits 52 M. Genetic Implications 51 N. The Straying of Returning Adults 55 0. Private Salmon Ranching and the State's Wild Fish Polkles 55 P. An Economic Comparison of Scenarios 57 1. Background 57 2. Economic Comparison Criteria 58 3. Economic Comparison of Scenarios 63 0. Variations in Private Production 65 R. ODFW's Policy on the Support of Private Salmon Ranching 65 S. The Cost of Replacing Production Capacity 68 Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios 71 A. The Scenarios 71 B. Public Support for Private Salmon Ranching 71 i. The Questionnaire 71 2. The Response 73 3. A Comparison of Scenarios 76 4. Summary on Public Supporl 77 C. ODFW Policy 80 D. Nature's Impacts 80 E. Concern for Natural Production 81 F. Economic Agreements 81 G. Return on Investment and the Perception of Risks 82 H. The Economic Comparison of Scenarios 82 1. Equivalent Public Investment 82 J. Comparison of Public Harvest Levels 82 K. Individual Initiative 82 L. Harvest Management 83 M. The Prescriptive Solutions 63 1. Expansion 83 2. Closure 84 3. Status Quo 84 N. The Choice of Scenarios 84 Appendix Appendix I Coho Balance Master Appendix 2 Economic Contribution Table Appendix 7 Economic Contrib. Table 11 Appendix 9 Planting Master Appendix 11 Returns Master Appendix 13 Table of Contents An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Study Participants The following Is a partial list of Individuals who participated In this assessment either as part of the Advisory Committee, through Interviews and/or by receiving partial drafts. The names with an * participated in Advisory Committee activities. Names with " participated in the opinion questionnaire decribed In Part 4. While they are not responsible for the oontent of this study, their help in its preparation is gratefully acknowledged. Bakke, Bill - Oregon Trout, Portland, Oregon* Barth, Don - Yaquina Say Bank, Newport, Oregon* Becker, Mike - Troller, Newport, Oregon *9 Becker, Tom - Oregon Salmon Development, Newport, Oregon Berg, Roger A. - OCZMA Board* Berry, Rick - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Portland, Oregon Boley, Scott - Troller, Gold Beach, Oregon ** Bowden, Roy - Northwest Steelheaders, Gaston, Oregon Bradbury, Bill - Oregon State Senate, Bandon, Oregon Bradshaw, Bill , Harbormaster, Winchester Bay, Oregon Brenneman, John - Oregon Stale Senate, Newport, Oregon Butsch, Don - Oregon House of Representatives, Newport, Oregon Christenson, Don - Oregon Guides & Packers, Newport, Oregon Creasy, Gerald - Commissioner, Tillamook, Oregon ** Cummings, Ed - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Portland, Oregon* Dalziel, C. Joanne - OCZMA Boardr* Dukes, Joan - Oregon State Senate, Astoria, Oregon Duncan, Devin - Oregon Council, Federation of Fly Fishen;, Salem, Oregon Edmunds, Basil - Oregon Economic Development Dept. Tillamook, Oregon Elliot, Arlo - American Sport Fish Alliance, Portland, Oregon Emlen, John - NFR Center, Seattle, Washington Feldner, Jeff - Troller, Logsden, Oregon Ganzaom, Jack - Ocean Ranching ** Garrison, Bob - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon Gowan, Ron - Anadromous Inc., Corvallis, Oregon* Hamilton, Dr. J. Roy - OSU, Beaverton, Oregon Hanlon, Tom - Oregon House of Representatives, Cannon Beach, Oregon Hanneman, Paul - Oregon House of Representatives, Cloversdale, Oregon Heikkila, Paul - Marine Extension Agent, Coquille, Oregon Horton, Dr. Howard - OSU, Corvallis, Oregon Jackets, Jeff - OCZMA Board" Johnson, Jim - Independent Troll Fishermen of Oregon, C harleston, Oregon* Kdzhaber, John - Oregon State Senate, Roseburg, Oregon Koo, Buck - Brockings, Oregon Korpela, Eldon - STEP, Astoria, Oregon Labhart, Mark - STEP, Tillamook, Oregon Lannan, Dr. Jim - Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon Lewis, Ernie - Oregon Salmon Development, Portland, Oregon* Liss, Dr. William - Fish & Wildlife OSU, Corvallis, Oregon Martin, Jim - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Portland, Oregon McIntyre, Jack - US Fish and Wildlife Service McMillin, Norma - OCZMA Board" McNeil, Dr. Bill - Haff ield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon McTeague, Dave - Oregon House of Representatives, Milwaukee, Oregon Meuret, Forrest - Oregon Wildlife Federation, Madras, Oregon Mohr John - OCZMA Board** Moser, Gerald - OCZMA Board" Nicholas, Jay - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon Phillips, Ron - Newport-Pacific Corportation, Newport, Oregon* Pullen, Bob - Former charterboat operator, Charleston, Oregon* Study Participants An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Radtke, Hans Ph.D. - Agricultural & Resource Economist, Yachats, Oregon Rasmussen , Jay - OZCMA Executive Director" Robinson, Tom - Oregon Salmon Commission, Newport, Oregon* Robison, Fred - OCZMA Board" Rompa, Bill - Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon Ross, Gordon - OCZMA Board" Schlip, Dave - Troller, Pacific City, Oregon Schreck, Dr. Carl - Oregon Coop Fishery Research Unit, OSU, Corvallis, Oregon Schroeder, Waft - Oregon House of Representatives, Gold Beach, Oregon Severson, Dick - Oregon Aqua-Foods, Springfield, Oregon' ** Smith, Blanchard - Assc. of Northwest Steelheaders, Uncoln City, Oregow Smith, George K - OCZMA Board" Smrekar, Jack - Troller, Florence, Oregon Sowa, Larry - Oregon House of Representatives, Oregon City, Oregon Strycker, Warren - Oregon Coast Association, Newport, Oregon Stuart, Harry - Oregon Wildlif e Federation, McMinnville, Oregon* Tate, Jim - Depoe Bay Charterboat Association, Depoe Ba, , Oregon Temyik, Wilbur - Mayor, Florence, Oregon Tobolski, Jeff - Fisheries Consultant, Lake Oswego, Oregon Uldght, Eldon - OCZMA Board" Voss, Chuck - American Sportfishing Alliance, Tigard, Oregon Wagner, Harry - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildide, Portland, Oregon* Warrens, Frank - Oregon Charlerboat Association, Portland, Oregon Whitty, Jim - Oregon House of Representatives, Coos Bay, Oregon Wilkinson, Keith - Troller, Brookings, Oregon Williams, Carla - OCZMA Boarcr* Zirges, Malcom - Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Newport, Oregon Study Participants An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Summary and Analysis This Report This report was authorized by the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association in June, 1988 and funded by the Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife. It was carried out by The Mayo Associates of Seattle with advice from an- advisory committee appointed by OCZMA. The focus of this assessment is: On providing a history of the private ocean ranching of salmon in the state of Oregon in the context of public and private salmon ranching and farming throughout the world, On a discussion of the issues of special concern to private ocean ranching, On the current status of Private Ocean Ranching in terms of its chances for survival, and On the factors that might influence future choices for Oregon's private ocean ranching. No attempt is made to decide if private ocean ranching is clood or bad. That decision is one of individual choice. However, information is presented to suggest ocean ranching can be encouraged (or discouraged) once a decision is made. Background Ocean ranching in this context is the release and later harvest of salmon. It has been practiced over much of the temperate world for over a 100 years with some of the first private salmon hatcheries being constructed in Oregon in the 1870's. It has been a part of the successful transplanting of salmon to New Zealand, Chile and the Great Lakes. Public hatcheries have been a common feature in the Columbia Basin for 50 years where they were constructed to mitigate damage from dam construction. Though these and other mitigation efforts were not generally successful in the 1940's and 1950's, technical advances in the 1960's provided enough good examples to bring public ocean ranching into public favor. In the late '60's and early'70's a number of enthusiasts began to visualize the possibilities of private ocean ranching as a commercial undertaking. The availability of salmon propagation technology being developed by state and federal agencies and a common perception that private industry could do it better, encouraged investors in nearly every temperate country to "think salmon". The four western states each took on the issue of "Should private salmon ranching be permitted and if so, under what conditions?" and each took a different direction: Alaska bought the concept and put fisherman owned, private non-profit (PNP) cooperatives in control. A number of facilities have been built from harvest taxes. Their program appears to be successful and expanding. California passed a law allowing private ocean ranching and then issued only one permit. The returns are minimal and private ocean ranching is not considered a success. Washington refused the concept, except for several small, non-profit efforts. Attempts to change the legislative mind have failed and salmon pens and tank farms appear to be the form of the future, siting issues notwithstanding. Summary and Analysis- An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Oregon, in the early 1970's, passed laws to make private ocean ranching possible and became Arnerica's testing grounds for the concept. In four short years (1974/8) twelve permits were issued and significant construction undertaken. In 1977, Crown Zellerbach (C-Z) made application and the same Issues that defined the legislative debates were reargued, but this time, the courts made the decision and the C-Z application was rejected. it Is generally, considered that this reversal resulted in the current moratorium on new andtor expanded permits. Other salmon programs continue to develop In other parts of the world and the si esses, especially In Japan, where hatchery production contributes approximately 50 million salmon per year to the harvest, continue to fuel Interest In ocean ranching. Today there is no major salmon program that does not rely, to some degree. on hatcheries. This Includes Oregon where, as a example, 85% of the coastal coho harvests is based on hatchery production, with the private hatcheries contributing about 16% of that amount. This contribution is root however, universally appreciated and the course of private ocean ranching has not been smooth. For example: In 1983 the Bumt Hill Salmon Ranch, Inc owners turned the facility over to the creditors. ft was sold to the high bidder, Ocean-Pacific Salmon Ranch. In 1983 Domsea made their last releases in Siuslaw Bay. In 1983/84 "El Nino", an ocean condition widely blamed for low salmon retums, was at its *worst". Total survival (harvest and escapernent) in these years from private coho plants averaged below 1%. In 1985 the retunns of private hatchery chum salmon were at a peak, 3,220 fish. This return of approximately 0.12% effectively ended significant interest in chum salmon. In 1985 the Weyerhaeuser Company, Oregon AqUa-Foods owners, announced their desire to sell the company. In 1985 legislation was introduced to require tagging of all privately released fish. Though it did not pass, it was considered generally representative of legislation unfriendly to private ocean ranching that is introduced most years. In 1987 Govemor Goldschmidt vetoed legislation that would have made the purchase and operation of Oregon Aqua-Foods by a state sponsored non-profit organization possible. The veto message , however, focuses on a need to nol split the management of the salmon resource and the "excessive" fee that would be charged the commercial fishermen. The effect was to put a "public" solution on the back burner and leave the field to private investors. In 1987, as a result of concems over perceived irnpacts on natural stocks in the Yaquina River, ODFW reviewed Oregon Aqua-Foods' coho operations and directed series of actions to provide data on impacts and the control of impacts. In June, 1988 the Weyerhaeuser Company announced plans to sell Oregon Aqua-Foods to Oregon Salmon Development, Inc., a private group. In October, 1988 the stock offering to finance this sale was withdrawn by underwriters who cited the *arbitrary nature of (ODFW commission) decisions which fundamentally after the future prospects for (private) salmon ranching.0 This referred to a commission action In the Coos drainage which was, at best, an example of poor communication between the commission, the local advisory committee, the ODFW staff, and the ocean ranchers. Summary and Analysis- 2 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Status Today there are 12 permitted Private Salmon Hatcheries in the state. However, with all due credit to the rest of the permittees In the state, Oregon private ocean ranching consists of only three substantial operations: Anadromous, which has release sites at Coos Bay and a freshwater rearing facility near Fort Klamath. In 1988 this group planned to irelease 1.2 million coho and 1.075 million spring chInook. The 1988 release numbers are an 80% decrease from the prior year for chinook and a more than double for coho. The 1989 plans are not yet set but they Indicate that recent commission action has caused them to drop all plans for a 1989 release of chinook salmon. Operations started In 1974 by private Investors but control has since been purchased by British Petroleum-North America. The present management Indicates that they expect to be marginally profitable soon but that their concern over regulatory and harvest Issues together with other Issues related to parent company Interest is causing them to direct their attention to other aspects of aquaculture. Oregon Aqua-Foods, which has a release she aft Newport and a freshwater rearing she at Springfield. In 1988 this group planned to release 3.8 million coho and 2.3 million chinook, mainly Rogue River Spring Chinook, RRSC. These release numbers area small decrease from the prior year. Ocean ranching operations started in 1974 and in 1975 the Company was purchased by the the Weyerhaeuser Company. In 1985 the present owners announced a desire to sell the company. This desire to sell grows in part from changing corporate objectives but It also reflects concerns over state regulatory actions. The present management indicates that they are approaching prof hability but that this is due to a broadening of their sales of smolts, pan sized fish and eggs rather than from ocean ranching. In 1987, the sale of harvested fish from ocean ranching was only 20% of the total income. Oregon-Paclflc Salmon Ranch, which has a release she on Burnt Hill Creek south of Gold Beach and an inland fresh water rearing site nearby. In 1988, this group planned to release 850,000 chinook (RRSC). This release number is a small increase over the prior two years, Operations started in 1980 but the original owners were unable to continue operation in 1983 and the assets were sold to Oregon Pacffic, Inc. The present owners indicate that they are marginally profitable but that they are interested in new investors. A fourth operation that could have significance is the Domsea facility at Siuslaw Bay. Its largest releases were about 800,000 chinook and coho in 1979. It is in a location considered by some to be a good one and has a relatively large freshwater supply at the release site. Releases stopped in 1983, after a period of disappointing returns and the facilities have deteriorated a great deal. Thus, the above three operating facilfties, planned to release just under 6 million chinook and 5.2 million coho in 1988. The permits of the above four operations would allow annual releases of over 32 million oDho and 37 million chinook. Thus current release levels are a relatively small part of the nominal authorization. Still, even at this level, private hatcheries contributed 147,000 coho and 45,000 chinook to the average annual public harvest in the 1985-87 period. In general terms, the fish propagation technology and the applied research that is a part of private ocean ranching is somewhat ahead of that at ODFW haWleries. This is a relatively recent event and is a product of the more focused incentives of private industry which have been applied to a foundation that was supplied, in large measure, by ODFW. By and large, ODFW is well acquainted with the private technology and, where funding allows, are adopting elements of ft. Summary and Analysis- 3 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Statutes and Regulations The statutes and regulations which control private ocean ranching are numerous and complex. Their impact on the Industry is significant without a doubt Inhibiting. Views as to whether this inhibition is justifiable vary a great deal with the ODFW opinion being expressed In these words: "To prospective salmon ranchers, the variety and detail of the regulations, permits, and licenses to which a salmon ranch Is subject may seem an Insurmountable barrier. Moreover, there can be little doubt that the complexity of the regulatory process Itself is somewhat of a constraint on the Industry's development. This Is rmt necessarily an Improper or unnecessary situation. Salmon ranching Is a complex proposition that affeds coastal and fishery resources and may potentially affect commercial and recreational salmon fishing In unknown ways. The number of regulations which surround ocean ranching, In large measure, ref lects public concern about the values and resources which are potentially affected. These are legitimate Issues and important public concems.0 There are a number of Issues which were considered as part of this assessment of private ocean ranching. As each issue was considered a consensus response was arrived at representing a reasonable combination of views of the those involved in the preparation of this analysis, the advisory committee and others whose views were sought out. The more Important of these Issues and the proposed consensus responses were: Relative Fishery Contribution and its Determination- Coho - The private hatcheries are making a signif icant contribution to coho harvest and that contribution is generally increasing. These contributions are generally weloomed, even If not at full mfa(;e value". The naturally spawning ooho are contributing about the same today as the private hatcheries but their contribution is well down from the past. The public hatcheries are contributing about 65% of the harvest today but their contribution is also well down from the past. While harvests are declining, escapements appear to be fairly constant. The impact of hatcheries on natural production is of concern to some. Fishery Contribution - Chinook- It is clear that "private" chinook have made a contribution to the Oregon fishery with the potential to exceed the coho contribution. As the use of the Rogue River Spring Chinook is a new undertaking in the two larger hatcheries, its impact is not yet clear. The impact of hatcheries on natural production is of concern tosome. Market Competition - Private Salmon - On a world scale (or even within the US), private salmon ranching in Oregon is not a significant determinate of the price of salmon. At a local level there may be minor.impacts but these could be mitigated by better total local harvest. The use of Rogue River Spring Chinook by private growers may have some impact the commercial fisherman's market for early harvest chinook. This Is viewed by some as being of benefit to the consumer and the state economy. Options for minimizing the Impact on the frollers may be available. Attitudes of Oregon's Salmon Fishing Industry to Private Salmon Ranching Initially and Today.- This has no clearly defined consensus with the views ranging from: Both the commercial and recreational sectors of Oregon's salmon fishing industry now strongly support private salmon ranching. This Is In contrast with their earlier view. to Both the commercial and recreational sectors of Oregon's salmon fishing industry now strongly oppose private salmon ranching. This is similar to their earlier view. Summary and Anaiys is- 4 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Harvest Management as a Means to Insure a Specific Public/Private Harvest Split- The chances for the survival of private ocean ranching would be improved by a clearly enunciated policy for harvest management that would provide the growers with a consistent and adequate share of the returning fish of private origin. ODFW has the capability to approach, as a long term average, some specif 1c publictprivate division objective. The propriety of such action Is a separate question. The "Fair Rent" Concept- The Fair Rent Concept, offers an opportunity to improve the stability of private salmon ranching and Increase its contribution to the ocean fishery. However, the challenge of expanding the concept into a quantified and enforceable agreement that will find adequate acceptance Is a major one. Success Is not Insured by agreement in concept. Free MarketlFull Ownership Concept - A Free Markot/Full Ownership Concept could be a viable rnethod for providing stability to private salmon ranching and it Is, at least in theory, a better approach than a lair rent" system based on special Interest negotiations. However, this may be too small a problem to be solved by so large a change In public policy. Still, as our present systems for distribution of this resource is satisfying few and providing little effective protection, a look at aftematives In this direction Is easily justified. Carrying Capacity - Release Strategies have eliminated much of the concern over river carrying capacity as relates to smolls. (The straying of adults into the rivers is a different issue.) Concerns for the ocean's carrying capacity should be small except at maximum levels of release. As the maxirnum scenario is approached caution may be appropriate but only within the framework of all of the North Pacific Salmon Programs. Genetic Implications of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon - The genetic Implications of private salmon ranching in Oregon can, at best, be seen only dimly and it is unlikely that a clearer vision will be available in the short-term. While caution is reasonably advised at this point, even the meaning of caution is unclear. There is general agreement that the genetic implications of harvest management are more profound than the genetic implications of hatchery management. In general, the private ocean ranching would appear to carry no greater risk than any other hatchery program in the state assuming the same number of fish are produced. On review by others involved in these issues the above discussion was generally accepted but with a number of reservations to suggest that practices in both ODFW and the private facilities are more sensitive to genetic impact concems than is generally appreciated by those not involved in the operation of the hatchery facilities. Conclusions are drawn and decisions made that are based on genetic understanding and implications. The Straying of Returning Adults - The private hatchery fish will stray from their acclimatization sites as will all salmon stocks. However, evidence suggest that straying may be greater from some release strategies and thus should be of special concern. Improved release strategies should improve past performance but at, perhaps, some cost. Ouantif ication of the degree of straying would be useful in defining damages but at this time sufficient hard data is not available. Damages or benefits may accrue from straying and they are best defined on a case by case basis. Private Salmon Ranching and the State's Wild Fish Policies - The state's wild fish policies have the potential for providing stability to the private hatcheries operations but this has riot been very effective in practice. These same policies have shifted reflecting changing views by the legislature and ODFW. An Economic Comparison of Scenarios - To provide a foundation for an economic comparison of different "future" a series of 5 near-term scenarios were defined that reflect the probable range of where Oregon's private ocean ranch will be by the year 2000. These scenarios are: 1. Closure - This assumes closure of all operations, Ore Aqua Foods, Anadrornous, Oregon Pacific, Domsea. Summary and Analysis- 5 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 2. Limited Operations This assumes operation of Ore Aqua Foods, Anadromous, Oregon Pacific but only at reduced level as may be related to providing stock for salmon farming and egg sale. Total release levels: chinook=3.8 million, cohoul.0 million. 3. Status Ouo - This assumes operation of Ore Aqua Foods, Anadrorrious, Oregon Pacific but only present levels. Total release levels: chinook=8.0 million, cohouS.0 million. 4. Expanded Operations - This assumes operation of Ore Aqua Foods, Anadromous, Oregon Pacific and Dorrisea but only at partial permit levels. Total release levels: chinook-20.0 million, cohow18.0 million. S. Maximum Operations - This assumes operation of Ore Aqua Foods, Anadromous, Oregon Pacific and Domsea at full permit operations at all skes. Total release levels: chinook.37.0 million, coho=32.8 million. Scenarios Involving higher levels of production were riot considered. Based on criteria developed here and these scenarios, the economic Impact on the state of the coastal salmon fishery for the "Maxirrvirrr Scenario is over $81 million as compared to a $35 million impact of fishing under the "Closure" scenario. Thus the increase attributed to "private" fish is $46 million for the maximum scenario. Straying losses are small compared to this gain. Another basis for comparing scenarios is In terms of the tolal number of fish publically harvested. The gain, as compared to *closure", of the "Maximum" Scenario is Is about 740,000 fish and the maximum straying loss is approximately 37,000 fish. Thus the "Gain/Loss* ratio is about 20:1. Variations In Private Production - To ask private ranchers to make their production programs significantly more stable than those defined by their permits will require that their economic benefit be a positive one or that there be some other operating trade-off. ODFW's Policy on the Support of Private Salmon Ranching - A clearly stated, and effectively communicated, ODFW policy defining its level of support for of the concept of private salmon ranching would improve the Department's consistency in dealing with issues and developing regulations. A clearly stated, and effectively communicated, ODFW policy in supWrt f the concept would improve private salmon ranching's ability to develop financial support. The Cost of Replacing Production Capacity - Assuming the assumption made are valid, the public investment required to replace the current contribution of the private ocean ranchers is currently on the order of $2 million per year. The annual investment required to reach harvests equivalent to any of the expanded scenarios is in excess of $6 million. Factors In the Choice of Scenarios The ultimate choice of a *future" scenario will be based on the general perceptions of the issues previously discussed and a series of other factors that were developed here as follows: Public Support for Private Salmon Ranching - This was tested by a questionnaire sent to 67 people including the advisory committee for this study, a list of individual that we had been asked to Interview and a number of OCZMA board members. The overall response to the questionnaire was about 65%. Based on this questionnaire we learned: a. it would appear that there Is general support for some expansion of Private Salmon Ranching and that views are related to each individuals role. Typically, the fishermen are a little less enthusiastic and the ocean ranchers are more. About 83% of the responses were in support of ocean ranching "At or Abovew present levels or more. Few are willing to take extreme positions. (i.e. *Close All"or"No Limits'.) Summary and Analysis- 6 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon b. The social goals considered in this analysis were ranked in this order (high to low) by those who received the questionnaire: 1. Expand Benefits - To expand the economic benefits of the coastal salmon resource - because there Is a need to Improve the economic base of the coastal communities and the State of Oregon. 2. Maintain Benefits - To provide at least a continuation of past levels of fishing opportunity to sports and commercial fishermen - because this diversity of types of livelihood and recreation Is socially desirable. 3. Natural Production - To proted the natural production of salmon In the coastal rivers - because this production costs little and because this activity supports other social goals including the preservation of these rivers in their natural state. 4. Genetic Integrity - To protect the genetic Integrity of wild salmon populations from further compromise - because these fish may have special value in a number of ways especially in the future health of the salmon resource. 5. Oregon Control - To keep control of the fishery resource with the State of Oregon - because such control is the best device we now know to provide long term protection of the resource. 6. Taxpayer Cost - To minimize cost to the taxpayers - because this is what the taxpayer wants. 7. Consumer Interest - To protect the interest of the consumer who buys these fish by fair prices and good quality - because the fishery resource should not be developed only to benef it the fishermen or the salmon or the rivers or the private salmon ranchers. 8. Privatization - To benefit from the special resources of private industry - because there are some things they do better than bureaucratic institutions. 9. Jobs - To provide jobs whose content is of interest to people in Oregon - because to some an interesting job is more important than a high paying job and to support this philosophy in some is socially desirable. 10. Investment - To provide investment opportunities to the citizens - because ours is a free enterprise system. c. Thai quantification of the above social goals can be viewed as supporting the conclusion that there is support for some expansion of ocean ranching. ODFW Policy - ODFW has little in the way of formal policy supporting private Salmon Ranching. However, that does not mean that their policies will not impact the which scenario the future will bring. It would appear to us that ODFW actions that would effectively favor private salmon ranching's expansion would be: I. A policy statement, supported by actions, defining ODFWs long term support of pdvate salmon ranching as a concept. 2. The development of a "Propagation and Harvest" program that would effectively Integrate private ocean ranching and the state's programs. Such a program might include: a. Management, and other, trade-offs for production level guarantees from the private salmon ranchers. Summary and Analysis- 7 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon b. A policy that quantities acceptable straying at levels that are realistic both as percentages and as total numbers. c. Long term release approval commitments from the state so as to avoid annual renegotiations. d. Research programs providing a balanced evaluation of problems common to state and private facilities such as stock selection, straying, survival rates, and genetic Irnpacts. 9. Research Into the decline of coastal rivers In salmon production. 3. An Increased sensitivity, by ODFW, of the Impacts of their regulatory actions on the economics of the Industry, especially as typified by, the Coos Basin Plan decision. Nature's Impact Man can do many things to direct success in ocean ranching but In the end nature will decide what each season will bring and In the choice of scenarios for the future. . However, there are responses that man can make that would favor exparded private salmon ranching. They are: 1. A better understanding of the factors, especially upwelling conditions, that can improve adult survival for private salmon as compared to natural salmon in any given year. 2. Better harvest management to reduce the variation in Private/Public harvest levels that occur In part because of varying distribution of stocks. 3. A willingness of investors to provide economic support to private salmon ranching in poor years and to establish reserves in good years. 4. A willingness of private ranchers to diversity, as some are now doing. Concern for Natural Production - This is frequently at the heart of disagreements over private salmon ranching both in terms of genetic impacts and straying impacts. In terms of the genetic issue, we can say little more than was said in the discussion of that issue. it is hard to quantity and hard to find agreement. However, genetic impact concerns would tend to mitigate towards less private salmon ranching. The straying impacts on natural production would appear to be better suited to quantification. Todo this a series of assumptions were made in this study. If these assumptions are valid the impact of stray losses is off set by at least 20 to I by private hatchery production. On this basis, this concern would tend to mitigate towards more private salmon ranching. Economic Agreements - Various state/private economic agreements are discussed that could improve the chances for the expansion of private salmon ranching. These include elements of the "Fair Rent" concept and the "Free Ma*eVFull Ownership" concept. These may not have practical significance to the selection of a scenario for private salmon ranching in that: 1. The 'Fair Rento concept will require adoption of specific harvest values and compensation that many will find impossible because of the diff icully of defining what the appropriate Onumbers" are. 2. The "Free Market/Full Ownership" concept will require changes In public policy that are so fundamental and that have such Implications at all levels of fishery resources management as to make their realization In the next 12 years beyond expectation. Other economic agreements that may benefit private salmon ranching such as the slate purchase of fish for release as part of their programs have more potential if policy matters could be settled and 0 Summary and Analysis- 8 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon both the state and the private ranchers could take a long term view. Recent efforts however, in this area were not successful. Thus It would seem that the possibility reaching economic agreements to favor any particular scenario Is riot likely without major changes In public policy. Return on Investment and the Perception of Risks - Separate from many of the issues discussed elsewhere In this assessment, Is the question of the profitability and the normal business fisk of private salmon ranching. These are clearly factors in the selection of a scenario. However, It is also clearly beyond this assessment to pass judgement on the potential for profit or the magnitude of risk. All we can say Is this. Conditions which miligate towards a reduction of risk and good economic returns also mWate towards expansion of ocean ranching. However, they do no guarantee ft. Harvest Management - The way that ODFW manages the harvest is of continuing concern by all Involved In this question and ft has been stated that somehow the private ocean ranching Is making the problem worse. We have seen little evidence that this Is the case though we have heard considerable apprehension of what might happen In the future. In many ways ft would appear that this Is an issue that Is neutral on the question of aLess" versus "More" in private ocean ranching. On one hand is apprehension over future actions and on the other Is more fish available for harvest under certain management scenarios. The Assessment We have made no choice of scenarios. Where this goes in the future depends on what scenario people want to support and then on how willing they are to support that choice with action. However, we would like to summarize our assessment of where ocean ranching is today in the State of Oregon. We have heard ft said that over $80 million dollars has been invested in private ocean ranching in Oregon in the last 15 years and we do not doubt the estimates. As a result there have been a number of technical successes and much has been learned. More! important, as a result of these investments, there is significant public support for private ocean ranching from those who believe ft is, on balance, good for the state and especially good for the coastal oornmunfties. This is supported by most of the issues and factors considered in this assessment. Even the detractors, taken as a group, are probably more supportive than they were in the past and there are few that are informed on the issues that will seriously propose that all private ocean ranching operations be closed as a matter of public policy. Yet closure is well within the realm of possibility. ft can be argued, though not yet proven, that the basic economics make this inevitable but there is little question that improved state support is a factor in the balance between continuation or failure. The form that this support might take is suggested above in simplistic terms in the discussion of OODFW Policy" in Part 4 but, unfortunately, this is riot a simple, one-shot, solution that can or will be imposed by ODFW. Survival of private ocean ranching in Oregon also requires an improved level of support, effectively demonstrated, from legislators, the governor, businesses, local officials, private citizens, and anyone else who wants ft to continue. Even with such support, survival may not be possible but for them to let failure occur without trying would be irresponsible. This is not to say that the private ocean ranchers have always performed In ways that invite support. Early expectations, still unfulfilled, continue to be pit forth by a few as certainties. Public criticism of ODFW fish propagation operations, growing out of competitive Instincts rather that reasonable expectations, has created unnecessary antagonism that does not contribute to support in other areas. Perhaps more attention should be paid to Inviting support and less to forcing ft. We must also recognize that the arguments, pro and con, over ocean ranching have fallen into the hands of only a few individuals, the insiders. The have beoome so acquainted with the issues and so articulate in defending their long held positions that others, the outsiders, are shut out of the Summary and Analysis- 9 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon discussion. We hope that this assessment will help the outsiders take part in the decisions to be made for ocean ranching and to do so on an Informed basis. Summary and Analysis- 10 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Part I - Background and Update The purpose of this part of the Assessment Is to describe Oregon's Private Salmon Ranching as it began, as it relates to public harvest and as it Is today. We will describe it in several overlapping ways as this Is, indeed, a complex weave. A. The Origin of Salmon Ranching Public and private ocean ranching, In the form of salmon hatcheries producing a juvenile fish for release to return as adults, has been with us for a long time. Private salmon ranching Is over 100 years old in Oregon. The first private salmon hatcheries In Oregon were built in the 1870's with hatcheries operated by R. D. Hume on the Rogue River and the Oregon Propagation Company on the Clackamas River. However, by 1900 the government had taken over operation of all salmon hatcheries in the stale. Transplanting.salmon to other locations has been the juslif ication for the develop of a number of public facilities. This includes such as the successful efforts in New Zealand in 1900. However, these eff orts were not universally successful. More than thirty attempts were made to transport Pacific salmon into the Great Lakes before it was accomplished on any scale. The first major Pacific salmon hatchery planned to mitigate damage from dam construction was probably the hatchery build at Leavenworth, Washington as part of the Grand Coulee Dam project. Sadly, success in this and other mitigation efforts was riot easy to come by and early hatchery successes were hard to objectively demonstrate. Ad-hoc efforts at a commercialization of ocean ranching were probably initiated by canneries in Alaska (and in other areas) planting eggs crudely stripped from fish bought for processing. This approach was not continued. However, overlishing, mismanagement and environmental degradation lent support to efforts to develop a technology that would "bring back the salmon" and the Corps of Engineers, the power companies, public and private groups, and slate governments provided the money for the research. Progress was made and by 1960 there were enough good examples, as measured on the balance of public good"to bring public ocean ranching into public favor. These were reinforced in the 60's by a visible success in Michigan (though it was not without its detractors) and television's willingness to film salmon coming up hatchery ladders on slow news days. In the late '60's and early 70's a number of enthusiasts began to visualize the possibilities of private ocean ranching as a commercial undertaking. The availability of salmon propagation technology being developed by state and federal agencies and thought (perhaps prematurely) to answer all of the problems and a common perception that private Industry could do it better, encouraged investors in nearly every temperate climate country to Vink salmon*. The four western states each took on the issue of oShould private salmon ranching be permitted and if so, under what conditions". The argument was joined. Those that supported the concept argued that since the released fish would be public property after they were released and until they came back, they would be "free' additions to the ocean harvest; that private economic success would have broad public benefits; that rnom and pop could grow a few salmon smolts in their back yard and live in modest comfort far from the city; that the mitigation Part 1 - Background - 11 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon hatcheries with their she constraints and river losses could never replace the natural runs; and that only the efficiency of best sites and commercial drive could solve the problem. The detractors arguments ranged f rorn social philosophy, "Private Industry should not benef it from the public pasture", to the technical *They will be a source of disease and genetic contamination", to the naturalistic, 01 can always spot a hatchery salmon, they don't fight as hard and their meat Is white" to those who feft: wThe big companies will use their Influence to call all the shots and they will manag6 the state's fishery and the fishermen will dance to their tune". Each side had a hundred more arguments but In the and the political process produced four different results: Alaska bought the concept and put fisherman owned non-profft cooperatives In control. A number of facilities have been built from harvest taxes. Their program appears to be successful and expanding. Callfomia passed a law allowing private ocean ranching but only one perrM was activated. The returns are minimal and the owners are trying to get financing for a salmon tank farm on the site as ocean ranching alone is not enough. Washington refused the concept, except for several small, non-profit efforts. Attempts to change the legislative mind have failed and salmon, pens and tank farms appear to be the form of the future, siting issues notwithstanding. Oregon, in the early 1970's, passed laws to make private ocean ranching possible and became America's testing grounds for the concept. In four short years (1974/8) twelve permits were issued and significant construction undertaken. In 1977, Crown Zellerbach (C-Z) made application and the same issues that defined the legislative debates were reconsidered, but this time, the courts made the decision and the C-Z application was rejected. This was reinforced in 1982 when a state moratorium on new permits was put in place. it runs until 1991. B. The Chronology of Salmon Ranching Chronologically, the events that have impacted ocean ranching are: 1870's - The first private salmon hatcheries in Oregon were built. 1900 -1904 - Over these 4 years, 500,000 Sacramento eyed chinook salmon eggs (per year) are transported to New Zealand in an Ice room" in the hold of a sailing ship. After hatching they are released in 21 rivers as sac-fry. This was the basis for the introduction of salmon runs, unsupported by hatcheries, that continues today. 1935 - As a little known parl of the Grand Coulee project, a major chinook mitigation hatchery is constructed at Leavenworth, Washington. An engineering marvel, this facility produced little demonstrable results in terms of escapement or harvest. 1960 (Approx) The impact of Columbia River dams on [email protected] runs results In the beginning of a well funded research effort in hatchery design. 1965 - Japan reports that returns from its chum hatcheries are 1/2% or less. Within 3 years returns were in the I - 2+% range where the have remained since. 1966 - Planning begins for the first of the major Qmodern" mitigation hatcheries, the Dworshak Steelhead hatchery, the Cowlitz Salmon and the Cowlitz Anadromous Trout hatchery. Confidence in "fish factories" begins to grow. Part 1 - Background - 12 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 1967 - Total returns from pacific ooho plants Into Lake Michigan in 1966 appear to be well in excess of 30% or over 200,000 f ish. Returns continue In that range for coho and approach 20% for Chinook. A $22 million dollar salmorild hatchery construction program begins. 1971 - The Oregon legislature legalizes the private ocean ranching of chum salmon to allow Individuals or corporations, after certain conditions have been met, to release small chum salmon into coastal waters. While these fish remain at sea they are public property, but when they return to their point of release they once again become private property and can be sold by the private ocean rancher. 1971 - Oregon Aqua-Foods (OAF) is established. 1971 - The first chum salmon ranching permit In Oregon is granted In December of this year to Keta, Inc. 1972 - The first private release of chum salmon (under the private ocean ranching rules) takes place from the Keta, Inc. site south of Tillamook . 1973 - The Oregon legislature expands earlier legislation to include the private ocean ranching of coho and chinook salmon. 1973 - The Naska salmon harvest reaches a 23 million fish low as compared to 100 million+ harvest in the late 1930's and 100 million+ harvest in the early 1980's. These harvests are based almost entirely on natural salmon production. 1974 - Anadrornous Inc. is founded 1974 - The State of Alaska passes legislation to allow construction of private non-profit (PNP) hatcheries. 1974 - Oregon Aqua-Foods receives a permit for ooho and chinook salmon releases at Yaquina Bay and makes their first releases. 1975 - Oregon Aqua-Foods is purchased by the Weyerhaeuser Company. 1976 - Alaska voters provide $29 million for the construction of state owned hatcheries. Prior to this time the state's programs were minimal. Initial construction of both state and private non-profft (PNP) hatcheries is to begin in the following year. 1976 - Anadrornous makes first releases of salmon at Coos bay. Together with OAF the coho rlease is 2.08 million smolts. The release of coho smolts, from Oregon's coastal hatcheries is 4.0 million fish. 1977 - Crown Zellerbach applies for a permit for ocean ranching at a site on Tillamook Bay. After review the permit is granted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission but this granting was later reversed by the courts. ft Is generally, considered that this reversal resulted in the current moratorium on new and/or expanded permits. Some will argue that this effectively precludes new arKVor expanded permits even If the moratorium were cancelled. 1977 - Japan's release of chum salmon juveniles exceeds one billion. Returns are on the order of 2%. 1977 - Oregon Aqua-Foods starts operation of their Springf ield hatchery for the freshwater rearing of salmon. 1978 - Permits are granted for ocean ranching of chinook and coho by Domsea at Siuslaw Bay and by Burnt Hill Salmon Ranch at a site south of Gold Beach. 1978 - Charter (Oil) Company purchases Anadromous. Part 1 - Background - 13 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 1979 - The Oregon legislature expands earlier legislation to include the private ocean ranching of pink salmon. 1981 -Private hatcheries release 23.9 million coho smolts. The release of ooho smolts from Oregon's coastal hatcheries Is 3.9 million fish. 1981 - For the first time, the contribution of the Oregon private hatcheries to the ocean fishery exceeds 100,000 cohos. In this year 183,000 V&ate* cohos were caught at sea (Table 2) and 118,000 are harvested at private hatchery release shes. The 1980 coho releases were 14.8 million coho (See Coho Balance Table in the Appendix.) thus the total ocean survival exceeds 2%. 1981 - British Petroleum purchases Anadromous from Charter (Oil) Company. 1981 - The Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) is approved by the legislature to provide for direct citizen involvement In salmon and trout propagation. 1982 - A moratorium on the Issuance of new permits for private ocean ranching Is established by ODFW through 1985 and later extended through 1990. 1982 - Anadromous purchases Oregon Aqua-Foods facility at Coos Bay. 1982 - The ODFW State Coho Plan is adopted with these being some of the objectives: 1) Achieve an annual average of 2.5 million adults in the OPI area consisting of 1.77 million hatchery and 0.73 million wild coho salmon. 2) ..... 3) Achieve by 1987 an average annual escapement of 200,000 wild adult spawners in coastal rivers to optimize natural production. 4)... 5) Provide an opportunity to harvest a annual average of 2.2 million adults in the OPI area consisting of 1.67 million hatchery and 0.53 million wild coho salmon. 1983 - Burnt Hill Salmon Ranch, Inc owners turn the facility over to the creditors. it was sold to the high bidder, Ocean-Pacific Salmon Ranch. 1983 - Domsea's last releases are made at Siuslaw Bay, though harvest operations continue at the site for three years. 1983/4- "El Nino" an ocean condition widely blamed for low salmon returns, is at Its Vorst". Total returns (including escapement) in these years from private coho plants average below 1%. 1983 - Japan's release of chum salmon juveniles exceeds two billion. Returns are on the order of 20%. 1984 - Anadromous. constructs a freshwater facility near Klamath Falls. 1985 - Japan's harvest of chum salmon of hatchery origin exceed 49 million fish. 1985 - Sports catch of coho and chinook salmon In Lake Michigan Is approximately 1,300,000 fish, all of hatchery origin. 1985 - The returns of Oregon private hatchery chum salmon are at a peak this year, 3,220 fish. This is a return of approximately 0. 12% of the chum released by private facilities. Parl I - Background - 14 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 1985 - The Weyerhaeuser Company, Oregon Aqua-Foods owners, announce their desire to sell the company. 1985 - The $8.8 million ODFW Irrigon Hatchery is completed and the ODFW Wallowa Hatchery expanded ($2.2 million). New ponds are constructed at the coastal Salmon River Hatchery. 1985 - Legislation Is Introduced to require tagging of all privately released fish. ft did riot pass. 1986 - 70,800 chinook return to private ranches; 37.100 are caught In Oregon's coastal landings (which totals 424,000 chinook) and 27,700 are caught In 11he non-Orepn harvest. 1986 - More than 50/6 (453,000 fish) of the 8.6 million coho released by private hatcheries on the Oregon Coast In 1985 return as adults to those hatcheries. In addition, approximately 135,000 are harvested by sports and commercial fishermen. Total survivals (catch plus hatchery returns) from 1985 coho plants are over 6.8%. This return rate Is approximately five times the 1978-84 values. Coho landed In Oregon total 652,000 fish Including the 95,000 fish contributed by private hatcheries. 1986 - The West Coast total harvest (California to Alaska) Is 7,893,000 ooho and 2,511,000 chinook. 1986 - Production of farmed Atlantic Salmon in Norway is approximately 40,000 metric tons or 13,000,000 fish. World harvest of chinook and coho salmon varies between 4S,000 and 60,000 tons per year. 1987-Private hatcheries release 4.6 million coho smolls down from a peak of 28.9 in 1981. The release of coho smolts from Oregon's coastal hatcheries is 4.9 million fish which is about 25% more than the average for the 1970-87 period. 1987 - 10 years after initial construction began, the Alaska State owned hatcheries and other rehabilitation and enhancement projects are credited with catch and escapement totals of 70,000 chinook, 394,000 coho, 975,000 chum, 1,309,000 sockeye and 4,038,000 pink salmon. The private non-profft (PNP) hatcheries are credited with 9,000 chinook, 169,000 coho, 955,000 chum, and 17,963,000 pink salmon. The PNP's are an integral part of the state's production and management programs. 1987 - Governor Goldschmidl vetoes legislation that would have made the purchase and operation of Oregon Aqua-Foods (and other facilities including ODFW hatcheries) by a state sponsored non-profit organization possible. Some perceive this as a desire to *give ocean ranching a chance". The veto message , however, focuses on a need to not split the management of the salmon resource and the "excessive" fee that would be charged the commercial fishermen. 1987 - Legislation is introduced to require tagging of all privately released fish and prohibiting the release of any coho or chinook not of local stocks. Neither issue passes. 1987 - ODFW, as a result of concerns over perceived impacts on natural stocks in the Yaquina River, reviews Oregon Aqua-Foods coho operations and directs a series of actions, to provide data on impacts and their control. 1988 - In June, the Weyerhaeuser Company announces plans to sell Oregon Aqua-Foods to Oregon Salmon Development, Inc. and reaches an agreement In principal for such a sale. Financial arrangements are not yet completed. Earlier Oregon Salmon Development, Inc. had Indicated Interest in the purchase of the Domsea Siuslaw Say facilities but that has not yet taken place. 1988 - Due to a series of natural events, the runs of naturally spawning salmon, especially pink and chum salmon In southeastern Alaska arid Prince William Sound, are at very low levels. Most harvest activities are based on private non-profft (PNP) hatcheries with PNP harvest well in excess of 10 million fish. (incomplete data) Part 1 - Background - 15 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon C. The Statistics of Oregon's Salmon Ranching One way to define Oregon's salmon ranching is with statistics. We will present a few in the form of figures and tables to describe the private operations and their relationship to the ODFW operations: Figure I locates the 12 permitted private salmon hatcheries. Part 1 - Background - 16 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Astoria 14-,@ STRICKLIN Chum NEMALEM LAND *N'SALMON CO. --hum ___ H RRIS & Huriiii Chum--- I'Momook KE Chum S IL (-OR-EGON ;OUA FOODS war .61, Coho, Chinook, Chum ( CERATODUS I Ues Chum 0 MSEA Coho, Chinook, Chum + :h :[email protected] (PU -SLkW- FISH ER I Es kChum __ ANADROMOUS, INC. Coho' Ct%inoak' Chum Cock (@MKARD Coo Do It Gold B*ach PACIFIC RANCH -rA ht C 5 @IKA M FON Chl C Figure I Dries (i.e. Release Sites) In Oregon The Location of Authorized Private Salmon Hatchi (Credit: ODFW.T. Edwin Cummings, *private Salmon Hatcheries in Oregon, 1986') Part 1 - Background - 17 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Table I describes the permits (active and Inactive) now In force and compares the granted permit to actual recent activities. In gross terms, 1987 saw 26 million "private fish released as compared to permits for 170 million. 1988 will see 17 million fish released. (Note: Three tables in the appendix provide detail on some of these statistics and their derivation. In general and unless otherwise noted, these statistics are from ODFW sources. All fisheries data are subject to varying degrees of discussion no matter the source a~qnd this Is no exception. However, we believe this information to reasonably reflect reality a~qnd found no obvious or Intentional distortions. Part 3 provides added d~qis~2qmss~qion on the derivation of this Information.) Table I Permits Current Permits - Active 1~0~q1~0~q1~6~8~19 ~q1000~'~s ~q1000~'s R~ell~e~a~s~e sped* Permit Permitted Pl~ant~'d Pl~an~i'd ~0qOo~erator Site Permitted D~i~0qf~0qt Millions 1~q9~q67 ~q1~q9~q8~q8 Anadromou~s. Inc. Cam say Chinook 7/30/7~q6 9.4 5~,323 1~,075 Anadr~amou~s. Inc. Coos Bay C~eho 7130/7~q6 11.3 477 1~,200 H~eckard Coos ~qBa~v Chum 3/4/76 ~q5.0 22 Kota, Inc. Sand Crook Chum 12/~q1/71 ~q6~.0 12~q5 N~e~qh~e~ql~e~rn ~qL~And n~'~qSa~ql~r~r~q*~n N~e~2qW~er~n ~qSav Chum 3/4~q/7~q6 ~qS~.0 208 200 ~2qOre~qoon ua-~qFoods Ya~qqu~qina Say Chinook 3/19/74 10.~q6 4,488 4~,000 Oregon Aqua-Foods Y~a~qqui~n~a Say ~qC~8q&~D 3119/74 9.~q6 4,092 4~1000 Oregon Aqua-Foods Ya~qqui~na Say Chum ~q1~q1/1~q/72 20.0 200 Ore~con-Pacific Burnt Hill Cr. Chinook 4/25/78 ~qS~.0 ~q679 ~q8~q6~q6 ~'~L Annual Smo~qf~qt Release In Millions Chum ~q0~.~q5~q6 0.20 C~0ho 4.57 5.20 F.Chin 0.00 0.00 S~qP.Chin 10.49 5.94 Chinook 10.49 5.~q94 Total Active Permits Chum 3S.0 ~q1~.~q6% 0.6% (and a % of total active ~qC~2qf~2qt 20.8 22.0% 2~q6.0% permits u~ti~ql~qi ad) Chinook 25~.0 42.0% 23.8% Current Permits Inactive Anadrornou~s. Inc, Coos Bay Chum 7/30/76 20. ~qf C~erato~qdus Siuslaw River Chum 12/18/73 ~qS~.~qC D~orns~e~s Siuslaw Say Chinook ~IS~q/~q6/78 12.C Dorn~s~ea Siu~slaw Bay Chum IS~qIS/78 2S.~qC Doms~ea S~qiu~sl~aw Say ~qC~8qd~qw ~qS~q/S/78 12.0. Ham~oson (In Kota) Sand Creek Chum 10/31/73 ~q5.0~q1 Harris & Hu~a~ql~e Tillamook Say Chum 8/23/72 A Sluslaw Fisheries Siu~sl~aw River Churn 3/19/72 ~q5.0~q1 S~trickl~qin Sk~qi~panon R. Chum 3~qf4/7~q6 ~qS~.~q( I Total Inactive Permits Chum ~qGS~.~q6~qc ~0qcdhD 12.0 Chinook 12.OC Total Current Permits Churn ~2q100~q.~2q6~2qc ~6q0~q.~2q6% 0.2% (and a % of total current ~0qCdh~qo 32.~2q8C 13.9% ~2q1~2q5~q.~8q9% p~qerrnit~qs u~qrtiliz~qed) Chinook 37.OC 2e.4% 1~6q6~q.~4q1% INot~qe: For added detail s~qe~qe *Planting M~qa~qs~qt~qe~00qe Table In the ~8qA~6qg~qg~qe~qnd~4qix. Part ~4q1 Background - 1~0q8 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Table 2 tabulates the returns to the hatcheries and various fisheries. As indicated, certain private hatchery contributions were estimated by fairly crude ratios, but ~qi~qt was felt better to make such estimates than to Ignore these contributions totally. T~ab~qb 2 - Returns Return E tima~l~as to Private Hatcheries and their Contribution to Public F~is~b~e~ri~e~s. I Survival- Survival Year Private Private Private Private Private ~qCoho Private Private Private Private Chinook Private Cc~ho C~oho Coho Coho Coho OPI Chinook Chinook Chinook Chinook Or~o~qwn chum Returns Catch Catch Estimated Estimated Ocean Returns O~r~e~qw Non- Total Ocean Returns to in Non- Estuary Total. Catch+ ~10 ~qO~a~qm~i O~r~e~a~qm 0~o~qw C~atch~+1 to H~a~tcherv. CI~qP~I ON Catch Catch Return to Hatchery Catch Catch Catch Return ~tol Hatch" (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) Pr.~qH~a~lch. (No.) (No ) (No.) (No.) Pr.H~a~tch. (No ) Note 1 Note I Note I Note 2 ~qCa~i~c. Note 5 Note 3 No~t~* 4 [email protected] 4 ~qC~a~i~c. Note 5 Note 3 1~978 12 300 2~1.~q500 3.~q600 4~q92~1 25~,5~q92 1~.41~4q% 244 128 1021 229 539~1 1~97~9 4~9.200 40~,300 25~.2 0 1~.~q968 ~q67.468 0.91~-~6q4 41~q6 217 1~q74 391 0.37% 14 '~9~8~0 3~q6.700 44~,200 ~q8~.~q900 1~,54~8 ~qS4~,S4~8 ~1.43~-~4q4 3~,394 ~1~,774 ~1~.417 3~q191 ~1~,~04% 545 19~1 117~,800 144,600 [email protected]~900 4,713 183~,213 1.78~-~2q4 5,087 2~,~65~9 2 124 4,~q783 0.57% 4 ~6q77~' 19~82 184,700 122,200 23~,300 7~,389 152~,88~9 1~.2~q9~V~6~q1 12~,0~q83 ~q6,31~q6 5~,046 11~,3~q62 0~~q95% 1~,132 1~83 133 900 135.200 107~.300 [email protected] 247~,857 ~1.~17~0~2q4 ~q6.09~1 3.~184 2.544 5~,727 0~,59%~] ~q5~1~q5 19~04 115~.400 10.200 17~,500 4.~q617, 32,317 [email protected] ~q6~,299 3~,293 2.~q630 5.923 0.38% ~q$21 ~09~5 332,000 ~q63.300 29,100 13.2811 105~,681 3.~6~9%~q1 34,675 1~q8,125 14,48 32,606 1~.73% 322 ~~9~8~6 453~,700 94~,900 3~q6~,300 1~q8,150 149~,350 ~q6.59~-~Y~q4 70~,784 37~'109 27~,739 ~q64~,848 3.8~q9% 7~69 1987 11~q9,300 170,000 ~8qM~q800 4~6qJ~q73 I~8qM573 3.38% 39~,2~q67_ 20~,4~17 18~.218 38~,635 ~1,~q90% 323 A~~~~~~~S for 1 ~1 1~978 -~8~4qV ~155,700 ~q64.640 29~,~q5~q80 ~q6 229 120~,44~q9 2.24% 17~,834 ~q9~.32 7~.44 1~q6~,770 1.2~q7% ~q646 Av~~~~~ for ~qo~8qt 12~,0~q68~, 14~q6~,8~q68~, 4. 1985-7 1 301~,~q6~q67 10~q9~,400 25 40~q: 5% 48 242 25~,217 20~.~14 45,3~q6 2.51% 471 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 ~1 Note I-Table 1~. ~4qTisher~y Contribution of C~oho Salmon Released from Oregon Coastal Private Hatcheries~*~. Steve Jacobs, Fish Division, ODFW, May, 1988. (This date set used rather than data from 'Private Salmon Hatcheries in Or~e~con. 198~q6~' by T. Edwin Cummings~, as this set was presented as both ~r~e~t~u~r~n and harvest data and " ~i~t is a more recent ODFW document.~q) Note 2-1986 Estimated ~coho estuary catch based an creel c~on~su~s. AN other vows estimated based an same % ~6~q1 Hatchery Returns. Note 3~~T~a~b~l~* 11-7. ~*~qA~*~v~I~ew of 1~q9~q07 Ocean Salmon Fisheries~q% Pacific Fi~sh~e Management Council, February, 19~8~q8. ~q1 Note 4-198~q6 and ~19~q67 based on ODFW memos (Steve Jacobs) d~a~0q" 4~/1~4q"~qS and ~q3~M~q&~1~q87~. AN ~o~4qf~4qtr ears estimated based on same % of Hatchery Returns. Note 5-F~or C~oho ~a~q" C~oh~o Balance Master Table. Chinook assume that return in an is based 10~q% on ~V~e~m~se~s release, ~60~q% on release 2 years ~9~qdor~q. and remainder on 3 Years ~Dri~qm~q. I ~- I I I General note: The ~qa~2qm~qox~4qim~qat~0qi~qon~qs noted In Notes 2 and 4 ~qs~qh~qm I ~qr~qe~0qf~0qf~qec~qt a lack of data ~04qW emu vows. ~8qA~20qm~4qA~qm~qa~qt~0qic~qo~qn~qs were [email protected]~36qf~36qt~qr~qed better than ~qi~an~cr~qin~qa th~qe probability of ~qth~qe~qs~qs contributions ot~qall~qy. Part I - Background - 19 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Figure 2 indicates the estimated harvest levels for ~coho a~nd chinook and the related mathematically derived ~'~qtrencr lines. Accepting that ~"~qIrend ~" is not a perfect approach, ~qi~qt does provide a fairly simplistic expression of what Is widely recognized, the trend (1971-1987) for coho catches Is sharply down and for chinook is slightly up. The coho values are In the OPI. The chinook values are Oregon landings for sport and troll caught fish. (OPI Is the Oregon Production Index Area which includes coastal waters from Leadbe~qf~qfor Point In Washington to the Ca~ql~qf~qfom~qia-M~qex~qi~qoo border.) ~qi~qt is worth rioting that some scientists see 24 year cycles In the longer term coho data and suggest that the mid 1990~'s may see a resurgence of coho returns. OPI Coho ~e~0q0~w Coho Trend ~4q4~- Oregon Chinook ~sc~e Chinook Trend 4,000,000- 3,500,000~- 3,000,000~- 2,500,000 - 2,000,000- 1,500,000- ~q1~,000~,000~- ~2q0~4~1~4q* ~4q?~0q4~8q*~8q0 500,000- a a. ~q1~2q03 0 ~6qG~4qM ; 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 Figure 2 Harvest Trends for Coho in the Oregon Production Index Area and for Chinook Landings in the State of Oregon ~;100q* ~2qO~qa~2qf~2qt ~8q1 ~8q7~q1 A% ~2q0~ ~4q9 ~2q%~2q0 Part I - Background - 20 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Figures 3 & 4 describe who Is harvesting the f iSh In the ocean, mainly trotters for chinook, with the harvest of ooho In the OPI being recently split between sportsmen and trotters. Troll Sports Total 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200.000- 11000.000- 1100,000. 6001000- 400,000- OR 200.000 X, R'41rwNf4-;',7 ir ii P;ill 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 3 OPI Coho Troll and Sport Harvest Troll Sports Total 600,000- 500,000 400,000 300,000. 200,00 0 100.000 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 4 Oregon Chinook Ocean Harvest by Troll and Sport Fishem-en F- M 01 FJ I UN Part I - Background - 21 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Figure 5 illustrates the history of salmon planting by private ranchers with an evolution to chinook. Figure 6 illustrates that spring chinook releases have displaced fall chinook as the favored program. 25,000 Chum 13 cdv 0 Chinook 20,000 15,000. 10,000- 5,000- 0 6-J n n 1972' 1974 1976' 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 Figure 5 The Release of Salmon Smolts into Oregon Coastal Waters by Private Salmon Ranchers (Numbers in 1000's) F.Chin 0 Sp-chin 12,000 10,000--- 8,000 6,000- 4,000- 2,000--- -min I HIM Il 0 1972 1974 1 [email protected] 978 1980 1982 1984 1986' 1988 Figure 6 The Release of Spring and Fall Chinook Smolts Into Oregon Coastal Waters by Private Salmon Ranchers (Numbers in 1000's) Part I - Background - 22 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Figures 7 and 8 illustrate (by numbers and weight) the high proportion of coho in the private hatchery returns. For the first time, In 1987, the chinook returns approached the ooho returns in terms of total weight. 0 Chin-A Chin-J Chum E3 Coho-A E3 Coho-J E3 Total 600,000 500,000 400,000- 300,000- 200,000- r 100,000 MI 11 0 4 n ii 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 7 Returns to Private Hatcheries by Species (Number of Fish) Chin-A Ch1n-J Chum Coho-A Coho-J Total 3,500.0 00- 3,000,000 - 2,500,000 - 2,000,000- 1,500,000 - 1,000,000- 500,000. Ll NJ, 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 8 Returns to Private Hatcheries by Species (Pounds of Fish) Part I - Background - 23 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Figure 9 summarizes the size at return of the various species. There Is little clear trend towards larger orsmallerfish. "Jacks' (shown as V) define fish smaller than 24" for chinook and 20"forcoho.Figure 10 describes the number of ooho returning to coastal hatcheries (public and private) or to spawn in the natural environment. Chin-A M Chin-J E3 Chum Coho-A 0 Coho-J 20 16- 14 12 Pounds 10- =11 Oki I Each 8 lop 0 6- 0 1; 10 1 10.1 19 1;4 4 0 0 - 10 No 2 ;4 R'0 ON 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 9 Average Size at Return to Private Hatcheries by Species (In Pounds Each) Natural IM Public H. 13 Private H. 5001000- 450,000 400,000-- 350,000 300,000- 250,000.- 200,000. 150,000.- 100,000.- 501000i"MR-1 M111111 r.1-11-1 IIIII-1 IIII 0% 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 10 Coho Escapement to Coastal Hatcheries (Public and Private) and Rivers (Number of Fish) C I M�r M0.0 10! ME In Part 1 - Background - 24 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Figures I I and 12 describe the ultimate fate of the *private* coho and chinook. "Private* fish is a term used here to describe privately released salmon. This mikes no judgement as to who owns these salmon as they swim up and down the Pacific coast. Hatchery 0 OPI&Strearn 0 OtherCatch 0 Total Catch Catch 500,000. 400,000 300,000- 200,000 100,000. 0 60 - MM I,1 7, 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 11 Where Privately Reared Coho Went (Nurriber of Fish) 140,000- Hatchery OregonCatch 0 OtherCatch [3 Total Catch 120,000- 100,000- 80,000- 60,000-- 40,000- 20,000-- 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 12 nt Where Privately Reared Chinook We WON ;4 jW (Number of Fish) Part 1 - Background - 25 An Assessment of Prfvate Salmon Ranching In Oregon Figures 13 and 14 describe where the caught fish came from with the natural coho contributions going down and the private hatchery contributions generally trending up. Public H. Natural Private H. 1,400,000- 1,200,000 A 11000.000 800,000 600,000 400t000 -A A 200,000 p4p 4 4P 01 0:49 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 13 Origin of Coho Caught In the Oregon Production Index Area (Number of Fish) 93 Total 13 Private H. 600,000 500,000.- 400,000- 300,000-- 200,000- 100,000. 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 14 The Relative Private Contribution of Chinook to the Oregon Ocean Harvest (Number of Fish) s4 F .1304 M I-Fo"@t. Part 1 - Background - 26 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Figure 15 describes the return percentages for public coastal and private hatcheries for 'totar survival (i.e., ocean and In-river catch and escapement). The derivation of these numbers Is described on the tables titled "Coho Balance Masterm in the appendix. This Is only one of several Interpretations that can be put on the public coastal hatchery survivals and it may not recognize all returns. However, it is fairly consistent with qualitative Information received elsewhere which suggest that the private hatchery survival rates appear to be exceeding the public hatcheries over the last three years of data. 7.00%- 6.00% Private Public 5.00%. 4.00%. 3.00%, 2.00%- Nt 1.00%- W I 0.00%. 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 15 Survival Percentages of Coho Reared in Coastal Public and Private Hatcheries (Survival inecludes escapement and harvest in the OPI area and in streams, ocean harvested coho from outside of the OPI not included) See "Coho Balance Master Table in the Appendix. D. Technology & Research Another way to define private salmon ranching is in terms of technology and research. In general terms, the fish propagation technology and the applied research that is a part of private ocean ranching is somewhat ahead of that at ODFW hatcheries. (This may be reflected by the return percentages illustrated on Figure 15. On the other hand the differences may have little to do with the differing technologies.) This is a relatively recent event and is a product of the more focused incentives of private industry which have been applied to a foundation that was supplied, in large measure, by ODFW. However, to understand the differences it Is worthwhile to explain them in proper context. Reduced to its essentials, salmon ranching consists of rearing salmon smolts, releasing them to takes or oceans and recapturing the survivors for some appropriate reward. Differences between public and private ocean ranching are reflected primarily by how rewards are determined. In a public system the reward is In satisfaction, praise, position and security as defined by Income. You are well rewarded, one hopes, N you do the job asked of you which Is typically to release healthy f ish In appropriate numbers while not causing too much related legal or environmental damage or greatly exceeding a budget. That these fish return for harvest or spawning Is of interest but the array of barriers to their return, man-made and natural, are many and such scorekeeping has only recently become a priority in state facilities. Part 1 - Background - 27 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon In a private salmon ranching operation, the manager's reward is In satisfaction, praise, position and security as defined by income. However, how long that reward continues Is in how many fish come back, El Nino notwithstanding. This tends to add a sense of urgency to private Innovation In the development of ways to got more fish back home. Oregon's private salmon ranchers are constrained by a number of requirements that, while they may consider them onerous, are also supportive of technical development. For Instance, fish are tagged at a much higher rate In private hatcheries than public hatcheries. This costs money. it also allows a better evaluation of the survival of private fish. Sirrdlar programs, rneasuring production lot performance would have been of great value In both public hatchery and natural fish programs in the past. However, differing objectives have lead to differing programs. Some other examples of how the private salmon rancher's differing objectives may be causing him to develop in some technical areas faster than the public hatcheries follow: Private salmon ranchers have been accused of endangering wild stocks by the straying of their fish before and after ocean migration. To Improve this situation they are attempting to develop release strategies to reduce straying conflicts even when such strategies may mean lower returns to the hatchery. While these attempts may or may not be successful to a degree that will be fully satisfactory, the Information thus developed represents technology that was not available to the same degree in the past. Private salmon ranching Is limited to certain coastal areas and estuaries where good smolt rearing shes are hard to find. As a result the pattern of inland smolt rearing and coastal release snes has evolved. This has resulted in the development of effective, high volume, transportation systems by the private ocean ranchers. The cost of water for rearing and holding smolts (and the difficulty of finding good freshwater sites) has resulted in special attention being paid to ways to increase the effective use of water. One method that has been generally used by the private salmon ranchers is the use of pure oxygen injection into the water supplies. This typically will increase the number of fish that can be supported by a given flow rate of water by a factor of between 2 and 4. While ODFW hatcheries can benefit from the use of similar technologies, there has not been much pressure to do so in the past. However, as the need is defined, the state has and will benefit from these private technology development efforts. In its regulatory role, ODFW must respond to a number of concems in areas of ocean survival, disease, genetics and environmental impacts as related to private ocean ranching. The intensity of these concems, often extemally expressed, has required that ODFW improve its technical capacity to respond beyond that required by its normal operations. At the same time, the private ocean ranchers have had to improve their ability to debate these issues. (in a larger sense, similar efforts have been required of a number of others including the legislature, professors, charterboat captains and many more.) This all provides a better environment for technical development . While ODFW and the private hatcheries appear to be In conflict on occasions. work done by ODFW does contribute to technical development in private operations. For example, while the nature of the various migratory and harvest patterns of coast chinook stocks has been of interest for some time to fish managers, the clear expression of these patterns developed by ODFW in its 'Description of (Chinook) Life Histories .... etc, January, 1988" Is of techrical value to private hatcheries and perhaps of more significance, Is of real value to policy makers. ft is generally true that private industry can react quickly to personnel, policy or equipment needs that can be justified in economic terms. On the other hand, the economic justification must meet tests not common to State facilities. (i.e., short paybacks, cash flow.) it has been asserted that private facilities grow smolts at less cost than ODFW hatcheries. This may or may not be true and, in the context of this assessment, is riot of immediate interest. However, for Part 1 - Background - 28 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon those who wish to make comparisons we can provide this perspective based on studies In a number of other states. The production of fish In state hatchery systems Involves concerns not always common In private industry. The programs are often defined by a desire to reach certain mitigation goals and achieving certain political balances. The managers running these facilities are state employees doing a job that imposes state wage scales and employment practices that, while appropriate to larger social concerns, limit their ability to control the staff. There Is little flexibility In setting hours and their duties Include a range of responsibilities that have little to do with raising fish. In our opinion, where there are Ooosr differences they are defined by the programs Imposed on the hatcheries, not the people In them. E. Existing Ocean Ranching Operations Finally another way to define Oregon's ocean ranching Is to describe what it really consist ofs, today. With all due credit to the rest of the permittees In the state, the Oregon private ocean ranching program consists of only three substantial operations: Anadromous, which has release shes at Coos Bay and a freshwater rearing facility near Fort Klamath. In 1988 this group plans to release 1.2 million ooho (55 grams) and 1.075 million spring chinook (average 40 +/- grams). These release numbers are an 80% decrease from the prior year for chinook and a more than double for coho. Operations started in 1974 by private investors but control has since been purchased by Brftish Petroleum-North America. The present management indicates that they expect to be marginally profitable soon but that their concern over regulatory and harvest Issues together with other issues related to parent company interest is causing them to direct their attention to other aspects of aquaculture. Oregon Aqua-Foods, which has a release site at Newport and a freshwater rearing site at Springfield. In 1988 this group released 3.8 million ooho (average 44 grams) and 2.3million chinook, mainly Rogue River Spring Chinook, (average 44 grams). These release numbers are a small decrease from the prior year. Ocean ranching operations started in 1974 and in 1975 the company was purchased by the the Weyerhaeuser Company. In 1985 the present owners announced a desire to sell the company and Oregon Salmon Development, Inc. has expressed a desire to purchase their operations and the facilities. This desire to sell grows in part from changing corporate objectives. The present management indicates that they are approaching prof itability but that this is due to a broadening of their sales of smotts, pan sized fish and eggs rather than from ocean ranching. In 1987, the sale of harvested fish from ocean ranching was only 20% of the total income. Oregon-Pacific Salmon Ranch, which has a release site on Burnt Hill Creek south of Gold Beach and an inland fresh water rearing site. In 1988, this group plans to release 850,000 chinook smolts at approximately 45 grams each. The entire release will be (RRSC). This release number Is a small Increase over the prior two years. Operations started in 1980 but the original owners were unable to continue operation In 1983 and the assets were sold to Oregon Pacific, Inc. The present owners indicate that they are marginally profitable and hope to be able to continue and expand present operations from project income and from new investors. A fourth operation that could have significance Is the Domses facility at Siuslaw Bay. its largest releases were about 800,000 chinook and coho in 1979. it is In a location considered by some to be a good one and has a relatively large freshwater supply at the release site. Releases stopped in 1983, after a period of disappointing returns and the facilities have deteriorated a great deal. Oregon Salmon, Inc, has indicated a desire to purchase this facility as have several other groups. Part 1 - Background - 29 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Thus, the above three operating facilities, plan to release just under 6 million chinook and 5.2 million ooho In 1988. The permits of the above four operations would allow annual releases of over 32 million coho and 37 million chinook. Thus current release levels are a relatively small part of the norninal authorization. (See Table 1) Chum Salmon operations have been a disappointment for all permittees due to a combination of low returns and unavailability of eggs. F. Near-Term Private Salmon Ranching "Operating Scenarios" As Indicated above, three companies are currently releasing coho and chinook smolts and one more could. Their activities are at about 15-200/6 of permit levels. In addition to the permit lirnits, specific interim limits are in place for experimental releases of Rogue River Spring chinook until ODFW has gathered more Information on impacts. A moratorium prevents others from obtaining permits through 1990 and some believe that the 1977 Crown Zellerbach permit denial extends the prohibition Into the Indefinite future. In considering the various Issues In the next part of this assessment it Is useful to define reasonable prospects for near-term growth of ocean ranching. By doing this, one can examine impacts against realistic levels of activity at a limiled number of sites rather than against an unlimited range of events. Based on various factors we believe that the following represents a realistic range of operating scenarios through the year 2000. We have used specific numbers primarily as a way to illustrate magnitude of total planting operations, not to suggest specific corporate planning. 1. Closure - Of all operations (OAF, Anadromous, Oregon Pacif ic, Domsea). 2. Limited Operations (based on meeting farming needs) - Chinook: Anadromous, 1.5 million; OAF, 1.5 million; Oregon Pacific, 0.8 million; Total, 3.8 million. Coho: Anadromous, 0.5 million; OAF, 0.5 million; Total, 1.0 million. 3. Status Ouo - Chinook: Anadromous, 3.0 million; OAF, 4.0 million; Oregon Pacific, 1.0 million; Total, 8.0 million. Coho: Anadromous, 1.0 million; OAF, 4.0 million; Total, 5.0 million. 4. Expanded Operations - Chinook: Anadromous, 6.0 million; Domsea, 6.0 million; OAF, 6.0 million, Oregon Pacific, 2.0 million; Total, 20.0 million. Coho: Anadromous, 6.0 million; Domsea; 6.0 million; OAF, 6.0 million; Total, 18.0 million. 5. Maximum Operations (Assumes full permit operations at all sites) - Chinook: Anadromous, 9.4 million; Domsea, 12.0 million; OAF, 10.6 million; Oregon Pacif ic, 5.0 million; Total, 37.0 million. Coho: Anadromous, 11.3 million; Domsea; 12.0 million; OAF, 9.5 million; Total, 32.8. million. Scenarios Involving higher levels of production will not be considered at this time. G. Nature's Role As one reviews this material it is clear that there is much about the outcome of private salmon ranching activities that are a direct result of actions by the owners, the fishermen, the environmental activists, the legislature, ODFW and others. Typically, plans are based on the hope (or fear) that last years events will happen again K we just do what we did before only better. However, it Is clear that much happens that Is beyond mans control no matter what we think. The moon sinks from sight The old dog's barking stops A night's job done. Part 1 - Background - 30 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Part 2 - The Statutes and Regulations To understand private ocean ranching In Oregon it Is necessary to understand the Statutes and Regulations that control it. That is the purpose of this discussion. (This discussion draws very heavily, and In large part, directly, from a 1980 pamphlet by Don Hornstein tilled *Salmon Ranching In Oregon: State and Federal Regulations" and a ODFW update prepared by ODFW staff In mid-1988 for a special committee (The Committee of Sbc) established to review statutes and regulations for private salmon ranching.) A. Background In 1971, the Oregon legislature legalized the private ocean ranching of salmon. Private individuals and companies could apply for permits to operate their own hatcheries, raise young salmon from eggs, and then release them from facilities near the ocean. The fish that survived to return by instinct to their point of release could be used by the salmon rancher as seed stock from which the next generation of fish would be spawned or for sale. Although the 1971 law only authorized permits for chum salmon hatcheries, it was amended in 1973 to include coho and chinook, and, in 1979, pink salmon permits as well. This legislation allowed the development of a number of salmon ranching operations. Not all of these operations are identical, yet all have these common elements: An initial source of seed stock. A hatchery, in which to incubate eggs and rear fingerlings. A release-and-recapture facility near the coast. A marketing operation. These elements are regulated by a series of statutes and regulations and to obtain the necessary permits requires compliance with a number of legal procedures. Although each of these requirements may be supported by rational public policy, taken together, they form an intimidating bureaucratic maze that leads through a number local, state, and federal public agencies. Permits or authorizations are required from: local zoning agencies; the Oregon State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Water Resources, and Environmental Oualfty; the Division of State Lands; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ocean ranch my also be affected by regulations of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration. This discussion will focus on the individual permits that are required by ocean ranchers and on the regulations that will impact their operations. B. The Private Hatchery Permit A commercial salmon rancher must have a private salrnon hatchery permit for each species of salmon it releases. (Note: The term hatchery as used here refers [email protected] to the release and recapture facility and its operation. The actual growing of smolls for release is covered by the Wildlife Propagation License discussed elsewhere.) These permits are issuedand administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and are probably the most demanding of all permits for which an ocean rancher must apply. Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 31 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon 1. Timing - The Department requires a rrdnimum of six months for review and evaluation of a permit application and a public hearing Is required as part of the review process. (The Department will riot schedule a public hearing until an application Is complete.) 2. Egg Sources - No application Isreviewed until the applicant is within two years of receiving eggs. Private operators may riot take wild coho or chihook salmon as a source of seed stock. The Department, however, Is authorized to obtain seed stock from these species and to make the eggs vailable to private operations. In practice, wild stocks have been taken only If their natural production Is replaced. Similarly, private operators may take chum salmon for seed stock only I their removal from ea stream will not adversely affect the natural chum production. The terms and conditions under which native chum may be taken by private operators, I allowed at all, are pan of the Individual hatchery permit. Most applicants seek eggs from public and private hatcheries, both within and out of the state of Oregon. The Department Is authorized to sell from their hatcheries only those eggs which are surplus to the fish production program of the state. Available surpluses are sold according to strict priority as provided In Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 635-40-01 S. Current surpluses are limited, when they occur at all, and the Department foresees that the situation may get worse If more permits are granted. 3. Sites - Assuming a source of eggs can be found, an application Is not complete unless it identif ies a she for the proposed operation in which the applicant has sufficient property right. A suff icient property right may be demonstrated by an instrument such as a lease, option or easement. By law, a release-and-recapture facility must be In *close proximity to the ocean." This requirement was envisioned to prevent genetic mixing and competition of the privately raised fish with wild or public hatchery stocks. This might occur If the privately raised fish were released, and subsequently strayed, far upstream in spawning and nursery grounds used by other salmon stocks. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has further defined where the release-and-recapture site may be located. it may riot be located above the head of tidewater in any stream, except sites may be located a short distance above the mouths of small direct tributaries to the ocean which have no tidal influence. Operations may not be located next to wild, scenic, or wilderness areas or on streams which enter the ocean through tourist facilities such as state parks or waysides. In addition to these general rules, certain streams, rivers, and estuaries are specifically closed to ocean ranching. 4. Departmental Reviews: Resource and Economic Considerations - Once an application is complete, it is reviewed by the Department. Each application is examined in terms of its effect on the overall public fisheries of the state, the state's management of those fisheries, and the economic benefit to the state. In particular, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 508.710 stipulated that permits must be denied d any of the following five conditions exist: 1. If the private hatchery may tend to deplete any natural run of anadromous fish or any population of resident game fish. 2. ff the private hatchery might result in waste or deterioration of fish. 3. If the operation would be located on the same stream or river (or on one of their tributaries) on which a state or federal fish hatchery Is established or planned. 4. If the operation would not be located on the same stream or river (or on one of their tdWarles) on which a state or federal fish hatchery Is established or planned. S. If the Commission determines the applicant does not have the financial capability to successfully construct and operate the hatchery or may riot properly conduct the operation. The state Attorney General Issued an Opinion In 1975 in which he stated that this provision authorized the Commission to require a bond or public liability insurance from a permit holder, as an indication of adequate financial capability. Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 32 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 5. Departmental Review: Lend Use Considerations - In addition to reviewing applications from a resource and economic viewpoint, the Department Is required to determine the consistency of a permit with applicable state-wide planning goals. These goals were promulgated by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and have the force of law. State action which affects [arid use, such as granting a permit to a private 981MOn hatchery operation, must be consistent with LCDCs goals. The Department of Fish and Wildlife gives particular attention to Goals 5, 16,17, and 19 defined below. The Department considers Input from local jurisdictions In making this determination. Goal 5, the Open Spaces Goal, seeks to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. It Is concerned with values such as fish and wildlife habitat, ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, outstanding scenic views and sties, wetlands, groundwater resources, cultural and historic areas and energy sources, as well as with land needed or desirable for open space. If an ocean ranching operation Is In conflict with these values, then the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the conflicting uses are identified and weighed. Uses which do not exceed the air, land, and water carrying capacities of the area are favored. Fish and wildlife habitat Is managed with guidance from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department through development of fish and wildlife management plans. Goal 16, the Estuarine Resources Goal, states that estuary plans and activities shall protect the estuarine ecosystem, including its natural biological productivity, habitat, diversity, unique features and water quality. Generally Goal 16 requires actions which would potentially after the integrity of an estuarine ecosystem to be preceded by a clear presentation of the impacts of the alteration, and a demonstration of the public's need and gain which warrant ft. Goal 17, the Coastal Shorelands Goal, seeks to protect, conserve, restore, and where appropriate, develop the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands. These shorelands Include land one thousand feet from estuary shorelands and hence encompass land that an ocean ranch may need for its facilities. Coastal shorelands are three general groups: those in (1) urban areas; (2) rural areas; and (3) in parlicularty significant areas such as major marshes, significant wildlife habitat, coastal headlands, archaeological sites, and areas with exceptional aesthetic qualities. Goal 17 specifies aquaculture as an acceptable use in the urban and rural categories. ft is appropriate in the third category, however, only ff consistent with the protection of natural values. Goal 19, the Ocean Resources Goal, seeks to conserve long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and continental shelf. Priority is given to renewable ocean resource and uses such as food production, water quality, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment. The Ocean Resources Goal states that actions affecting ocean resources be based on sound information. This Information must be sufficient to describe the long-term impacts of a proposed operation on resources and used of the continental shelf and nearshore ocean. 6. The Public Hearing - Once a completed application Is filled, the Department of Fish and Wildlif e may take six months or more in which to review ft and issue a preliminary report. Within the next sixty days the applicant must resolve diff erences he has with this report and the Department must issue a final report. The Department must publish a notice of public hearing within one month after ft issues this final report. There Is no time limit, however, between this publication of notice and the time when the hearing Is actually held. A public hearing is mandatory prior to Issue of a private salmon hatchery permit - This formal hearing is held before the Fish and Wildlife Commission Itself or a designated hearings officer. Parties who establish an Interest in the case may be heard. Individuals with personal interests in the outcome of the hearing and individuals or groups representing a public interest must petition the Commission in 0 order to intervene and participate in the hearing. Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 33 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon The actual conduct of the hearing Is governed by the Attorney General's Model Rules of Procedure applicable to contested cases, supplemented by specif ic administrative rules adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in order to intervene and participate in the hearing. The actual conduct of the hearing Is governed by the Attorney General's Model Rules of Procedure applicable to contested cases, supplemented by specific administrative rules adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission and found in OAR 635-40-100 to 635-40-115. These rules establish the overall purpose of the hearing, the criteria and procedure for intervention. and the parties' rights of presentation of evidence, cross-exarnination, objection, motion, and argument. Public hearings are formal legal proceedings and may be more complex and lengthy than court trials. The transcript of one private hatchery permit hearing covered over 700 pages. An applicant Is well advised to anticipate the formal adversarial character of their hearings and to enlist the aid of counsel in presenting his application. The hearing procedure may be very expensive for all parties. 7. The Decision - Following the hearing, the Department prepares a proposed order Including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which it files with the Fish and Wildlife Comrnission. Copies of this order are also given to all the parties to the hearing who have fifteen days In which to comment on the proposed order. The Commission then reviews these comments, the proposed order, and the record of the hearing. The Commission may further require the parties to brief any or all of the issues at this point. The Commission is free to adopt, reject, or modify the Department's proposed order, as long as its action is consistent with the facts presented at the hearing and contained in the record. Finally, the Commission enters its final order granting or denying the permit and sets forth its reasons. An applicant or any of the parties to the hearing may file a petition with the Oregon Court of Appeals for judicial review within sixty days of the final order. Such an appeal should be handled by an attorney for the party requesting review. If a permit is granted, it is granted only to the applicant and is not transferable without Commission authorization. The Department of Fish and Wildlife must be notified of the names of any individuals, corporations, or other entities which gain a major interest or control, through stock purchases or otherwise, of either the hatchery permit or of the site designated in the permit. Once the permit is issued, it is still possible for the Commission to after or even terminated it, If the operation is discovered not to be in the public interest. Proceedings to change or terminate a permit are conducted according to the state Administrative Procedure Act relating to contested cases, ORS 183,300 - .500, and the Attorney General's Model Rules of Procedure. Should an operation be terminated, the permit holder is allowed to take returning salmon for up to four years, but may not release any new fish. S. The Permit's Condition's - The Oregon legislature passed the Private Hatchery Act amidst concern that ocean ranching might adversely affect other stocks of fish and the traditional commercial and recreational salmon fisheries. This concern is mflected in the numerous conditions of law which apply to a private hatchery permit. Once privately raised f ish are released into the ocean, they become opublic" fish and may be taken by anyone, In accordance with the angling or commercial fishing laws of Oregon, until they return to the private hatchery. This is a significant condition. it has been estimated that four out of every five adult fish will be taken by commercial or recreational fishermen. Although the private hatchery is required, as far as the Department determines practical, to mark its fish prior to release, the mark does rot give the private operation a proprietary interest in the fish while they are In the wild. Upon the salmon's return, the ocean ranch may be authorized to divert returning fish to an Identification area, but may only keep those fish the Department determines were propagated by the permittee. Prior to release into state water, the young salmon must be examined for disease by an approved fish pathologist. No fish can be released without written approval from the Department. Thus, the Department can restrict releases within any permit limits. Should the fish be found diseased, the Department may order them destroyed without compensating the grower. In addition to these Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 34 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon condit ions, the salmon rancher Is responsible for the costs of all services rendered by the Department, such as Inspections or services. On an even larger scale, 9 the Department finds that a private operation, within the waters covered by its permit, has caused deterioration of the natural run of anadromous fish or of any population of resident game fish. it may require the operator to return the fish populations to the same conditions that previously existed. If the operator fails to take action, the Department may take such action and charge the operator with all costs. C. The Wildlife Propagation License K a salmon rancher contracts out his fish rearing to a separate rearing operation, owned by someone else or by himself, at a location other than the release she, the separate rearing operation requires a Wildlife Propagation License. These licenses are also Issued and administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and must be renewed annually. Public hearings are not required. The Fish and Wildlife Department may refuse a license If the propagation of wildlife would tend to be harmful to the existing wildlife populations. To Implement this standard, the Commission has adopted administrative rules covering the Inspection of fish, eggs, the transportation of fish (both into and within Oregon). These regulations are found In OAR 635-07-650 through 635-07-680. Additionally, specif ic reports are required of private salmon hatchery operators whether they grow their own seed stock or buy them from others. Together, these requirements limit the potential for a private enterprise to rear salmon with the prospect of selling them for release. Stocks are closely controlled. D. State Dredge and Fill Permits If any party in Oregon, including a salmon ranch operator, must remove or fill more than fifty cubic yards of material (combined) from or on the beds and banks of state waters, a dredge and fill permit is required from the Division of State Lands. The general policies governing these permits are the protection, conservation, and best use of the water resources of the state. To determine N a permit holder would riot adversely aff ect these goals, the Director of State Lands consults with other state agencies such as the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Water Resources, and Department of Environmental Quality. A public hearing is not required but only an application is filed, the applicant or any person with a legally protected interest which could be adversely affected may request a hearing. A permit from the State Division of Lands does not excuse the operation from the further requirement of obtaining a dredge and fill permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 0 it falls within the Corps' jurisdiction. E. Federal Dredge and Fill Permits The Corps of Engineers (COE) may be the federal agency with which the salmon rancher will have the most contact. A permit must be obtained for structures or work and for dredge and fill activities in "the waters of the United States.* This requires a Section 404 permit, pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972. The phrase, "waters of the United States* Is quite broadly defined, and almost certainly encompasses either riverine or estuarine sites In which the salmon ranch operator must place his water intake and outfall pipes, release-and-recapture facility, and any protection or reclamation devices for bank or beach stabilization such as r1prap, seawalls, or vegetation. "Waters of the United States" WK*jde all coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are "navigable" waters (Inckiding their adjacent wetlands). Navigable waters" have been defined to Include all waters subject to tidal Influence and any waters that have been, are, or might be used to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The application process begins by submitting Engineering Form 4345 to the District Engineer in Portland. This form must be prepared in accordance with the instructions in Engineer Pamphlet A145-201, entitled, "A Guide for Applicants.0 Both the form and the pamphlet can be obtained from Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 35 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon the COE District Office in Portland. When an application form Is complete, the District Engineer issues public notice of the proposed permit and is required to consider all public comments received in response. No permit may be granted that Is riot In the public interest. The determination of the public interest is a balancing process which weighs the protection and utilization of Important resources. Among the factors which must be considered In this process are conservation. economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, energy needs, food production and fish and wildlife values. If the requested permit affects wetlands, then particularly stringent and protection-oriented regulations must be considered. In making its determination, the COE must consuft with the Regional Directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as with other agencies, concerning the environmental effects of the proposed operation. The COE must also consult with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and other state agencies through a state clearing-house. Although public hearings are not mandatory, any person may request one within the period for public comment and ft will be held unless the District Engineer determines the hearing would serve no valid purpose. After the Section 404 permit application Is evaluated, a final decision will be issued. If the permit is denied, judicial appeal of the COE decision may be sought under Sections 702 an 704 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. F. Reservoir Construction Permit A permit is required to store water for uses such as a hatchery's fish holding ponds. Applications for this permit are made to the Oregon Department of Water Resources. The legislative and administrative guidelines which the Department follows are found in ORS 637.300 and in OAR 690- 20-025 to 690-20-045. The application for a permit to construct a reservoir rnust be accompanied by another application for a permit to make use of stored water. A private hatchery operator should be aware that the common law takes a special view of water impoundments. A person is strictly liable for any damage caused by the escape of water from his reservoir, whether by a sudden cataclysmic crack in the structure or by slow seepage, and regardless of any precautions that may have been taken. G. Water Rights Permit The rearing of salmon srriolts will require a steady flow of water for incubating eggs and rearing fingerlings. Especially in the hot summer months, an assured flow of clean water is vital for the temperature, dissolved oxygen, and waste removal requirements of the growing fish. Whether a salmon rancher utilizes surface or ground water, legally recognized water rights must be obtained from the Oregon Department of Water Resources. With certain exceptions, all water within Oregon may be appropriated for beneficial use. To the extent minimum stream flows are In effect, the fact that most of the water diverted for hatchery operations is returned to the source is considered. Oregon follows the "prior appropriation* doctrine of water rights. This rneans that the person who first files a valid claim to water has the superior right to its use, regardless of that person's position on the stream (upstream, downstream, near the source, etc.). Much of the water in Oregon today has already been aclaimed." Thus, a hatchery operator should take pains to ascertain the extent of prior appropriation rights to the stream from which he hopes to divert water. If all the water rights for a stream have been appropriated, the salmon rancher may still be able to buy the water rights he needs from someone else. Water rights are freely transferable. To acquire a legal water right, one files an application for a permit with the Director of The Oregon Department of Water Resources. An Informal hearing may be held but is riot required. If a permit is Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 36 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon granted, work must begin within one year to appropriate the water or the permit will lapse. Similarly, If a water right Is unused for five years, it Is presumed abandoned and reverts to the public. Once a permit Is granted, a water right must be Verfected" by actually appropriating the water to the beneficial use. When this happens, a certificate Is Issued by the Water Resources Director. This certificate should be promptly recorded with the county clerk In the county where the use occurs. The recording process provides the official notice of appropriation to subsequent users. Over the years, court decisions have refined Oregon water law. Several of these refinements am particularty applic&le to a salmon ranch operation. First, water may only be used as it Is needed and may not be wasted. Second, the right to appropriate water may not be year-round but may be limited to the actual season when the water Is used. Third, Oregon law makes a distinction between consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Any use of water that requires a diversion from its source is defined as a consumptive use. Salmon ranching, despite the fact that its source is defined as a consumptive use. Salmon ranching, despite the fact that it returns most of the water to its source, Is a consumptive use. Fourth, even though a water right Is "prior in time,osubsequent users must be respected. This means that one cannot change or extend one's use to the detriment of subsequent users. Fifth, water rights may be changed but only after a public hearing which deterrnines I the change will interfere with others' rights. H. Water Discharge Permit ' ,!,ost hatchery operations require the discharge of water into public waters of the state. In Oregon, water quality standards are the responsibility of the Department of Environmental Oualfty. The Department Issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. This permit system was created by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. NPDES permits are required before wastes may be discharged from a commercial facility (which includes fish hatching and rearing facilities of a certain capacity or structure). "'Wastes" means anything that tends to be detrimental to public health, wildlife, fish or other legitimate and beneficial used of water. Such changes may include changes in temperature, pH, dissolved or settleable solids, and dissolved oxygen content all of which a fish hatchery is capable of inducing. Oregon legislation concerning the NPDES permit is found in ORS 468.700, and OAR 340-45-005 to 340-45-070. Applications must be submitted to the Department of Environmental Ouality at least six months before the permit is needed. Once an application is complete, it is reviewed in terms of all applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and effluent guidelines of the State of Oregon and of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These applications are circulated to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies for comment. If a tentative decision in favor of issuing the permit is made, notice is given to the public of opportunities for comment. If either the applicant or an interested member of the public requests a public hearing, it will be hold If the Director determines useful information may be produced. it Is possible for a permit, once issued, to be modified due to new information and changing standards or conditions. Salmon hatcheries which produce less than 20.000 pounds of salmon annually and whose input of feed is less than 5,000 pounds during its month of maximum feeding are exempt from the NPDES permit requirement. This may be particularly applicable to chum salmon operations due to the short rearing period and relatively small poundage of fry produced. In any case, a statement of exemption must be filed with the Department of Environmental Quality. 1. Dealer's Licenses The operator must have a wholesale fish dealers license and poundage fees must be paid on the fish taken. Wholesale dealers licenses are obtained from the Department of Fish and Wildlife in accordance whh a fee schedule listed at ORS 508.285. Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 37 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon J.Processing and Marketing: State Regulations The Oregon Department of Agriculture regulations for sanitary conditions for food processing establishments apply to the processing of salmon. These regulations may be found in OAR 603-23- 321 to 603-23-397. Furthemwe, fresh fish and seafood products are subject to the Department's packing dale labeling requirements found in OAR 603-23-565 to 603-23-585. The Department's Food Storage Sanitation standards may also apply (OAR 603-23-317). In addition to these Department of Agriculture requirements, the processing and marketing operation Is required to obtain a food fish canner license from the Department of Fish and Wildlife N arty fish are canned (ORS 509.070 at. seq.). Additionally, the Department of Fish and Wildlife Is authorized to regulated processing operations of both human fish food and of fish reduction facilities (for reduction Into fish flour, fish meal, fish scrap, fertilizer, or fish oIQ to prevent deterioration or waste of fish and to Insure that processing Is done In a wholesome and sanitary manner. The terms of this authorization are found at ORS 513-010. K. Processing and Marketing: Federal Regulations Because salmon Is a food fish which might be consumed anywhere In the United States, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulations on animal drugs are relevant to the salmon rancher. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires that new animal drugs - including those for use on fish Intended for human consumption - have FDA approval prior to their use. As a general rule, drug companies, rather than individual hatcheries, seek FDA approval. The use of an unapproved drug by a hatchery, however, would be the responsibility of the user. Should residues of such a drug be found in the returning salmon, they could be declared "Adulterated* and destroyed. As of this writing, malachite green (which has been used in some public hatcheries in the past) does not have FDA approval. Tolerances and regulations have been established, however, for tricaine maethanesullate, oxytetracycline, and Diquat. The use of vaccines is common in salmonid aquaculture, particularly for vibrosis. A vaccine, however, Is classified a "biological product" by the 1913 Federal Serum-Toxin Act arid, as such, is under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. its production requires a USDA license. The licensing procedure is similar to FDA approval of new animal drugs: the drug company, rather than the individual user, usually applies. To date, several firms have applied for vibrio vaccine licenses. Once a vaccine is licensed for sale, a hatchery may use ft. L. Summary The following is from the ODFW source material for this discussion as relates to the impact of state and federal regulations on private salmon ranching. "To prospective salmon ranchers, the variety and detail of the regulations, permits, and licenses to which a salmon ranch Is subject may seem an Insurmountable barrier. Moreover, there can be little doubt that the complexity of the regulatory process itself Is somewhat of a constraint on the Industry's development. This is not necessarily an Improper or unnecessary situation. Salmon ranching Is a complex proposition that effects coastal and fishery resources and may potentially affect commercial and recreational salmon fishing In unknown ways. The number of regulations which surround ocean ranching, In large measure, reflects public concern about the values and resources which are potentially affected. These are legitimate and Important public concerns." Part 2 - Statutes & Regulations - 38 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Part 3 - Issues As a starting point for this discussion of Issues, a pair of definitions Is proposed: An Issue Is a point In dispute. A key Issue Is an knportant point In dispute. This discussion puts forth a series of Issues, In no particular order, that relate to private ocean ranching In Oregon. The Identity of any one as a key Issue Is probably a function of perceptions and the eventual decisions as to what actions are appropriate. Each Is discussed In terms of its background and significance and wherever possible a response resolving significant disputes Is proposed. Insofar as possible a brief judgemental comment Is Included that reflects how the resolution statement has been accepted by a significant majority of those who make up the advisory committee for this study or who have participated In the review of these drafts. A. Operational Expectations - Chum Salmon Returns Background - Chum salmon have several characteristics which were very attractive to those who were interested in ocean ranching at the time the enabling legislation was passed. They are not typically harvested by hook and line thus returns are mainly to the release site. Released fish are relatively small and easy to rear. From a marketing standpoint, they are not directly competitive to ocean harvested coho and chinook. At the time of initial legislation, and now, chum salmon ocean ranching in Japan is a major success story. Annual harvests on the order of 50,000,000 fish are based almost entirely on juveniles released from hatcheries. Annual return rates have exceeded 2.5%. Part of the initial basis for instituting private ocean ranching in Oregon was the expectation that the Japanese returns could be matched. Mh this expectation and the special characteristics previously noted, permits for chum ranching were eagerly sought. Permits for releases in excess of 100 million juveniles were requested and granted to a number of companies. However, the expectations were not fulfilled. Returns have only approached 0.1% and releases are now well under one million chum per year. Compounding the problem of low retums is the difficulty of obtaining eggs from small natural stocks. As a final straw, the fishermen have begun to discover ways of hooking chum salmon, removing even that apparent benefit. Signif icance - (1) With chum riot generally viable for this purpose, greater emphasis is placed on ooho and chinook. (2) Some see this as a representative failure of ocean ranching, thus reducing general. and perhaps financial, support for the activity. (3) In addition, this failure has been especially disappointing to private ocean ranching supporters who saw chum salmon as something within the reach of individuals on a artisanal or hobby basis. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - Chum salmon are not now a significant part of private ocean ranching In Oregon and it Is unlikely that much activity will take place to change this In the Immediate future. Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted. Part 3 - Issues - 39 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon B. Absolute Fishery Contribution - Coho Background - Unlike chum salmon, the expectation that private ooho releases would contribute to the commercial and recreational fishery has always been a part of the justification for the private salmon program. Now, after some years of releases, the returns of coho from private hatchery plants have been significant. For instance, In the three years 1986-87, the total OPI coho catch averaged 662,000 of which 109,000 (160/9) were from the private salmon ranches and I OS,000 from natural spawners. In addition the private ranchers contributed and average of over 29,000 coho per year to fishermen north of the OPI. (See Table 2) Significance - The significance of this contribution depends on perspective. The growers see it as proof of their contribution and the fishermen are generally glad for fish from any source. However, these fish are not considered an unmixed blessing to even the fishermen. There Is some evidence that these ooho, because they are released later than normal, we somewhat smaller than natural or public hatchery fish. Since fish management goals are typically defined In numbers rather than In pounds, it Is possible that the coastal fishery will receive a larger share of smaller fish. At first thought, the contribution outside of the OPI would appear to have little Interest to the Oregon fishermen. However, the private growers generally feel that their Increasing use of asouth turning" coho will insure that a greater proportion of the private coho will be caught in the OPI in the future (though not necessarily in Oregon). Also of concern to some is the belief that the presence of the "private" coho will somehow reduce the number of coho produced by natural spawners through increased competition for feed or through some form of genetic impacts. These aspects are discussed as separate issues. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - "Private" coho make a significant contribution to the fishery of the OPI area and some contributions to northern fisheries. These contributions are generally welcomed, even If not at full "face value". Acceptance - This proposed consensus is generally accepted as reserved above. C. Relative Fishery Contribution and Its Determination- Coho Background - For some, and for a variety of reasons, the relative contribution of coho to the fisheries from public, private and natural sources is of considerable interest. While this interest in the relative contributions may at times be excessive in our view, the related issues. of how the contribution is defined is of more valid concern to this assessment. Tagging programs now in place provide relatively reliable information on the number of private hatchery fish that enter the harvest fishery both in and out of the OPI. Tagging programs applied to state hatchery fish were riot specifically designed to provide similar information though this effort is beginning. Contributions from naturally spawning fish are estimated on a basis that seldom involves tagging at all. However, despite a varying data base, estimates of the relative contributions (harvest and escapement)of each of these sources have been made In the Appendix based on methods developed by ODFW and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (ODFWIPFMC). The estimates for coho are contained in the Appendix and are illustrated on Figures 16 and 17. A A Part 3 - Issues - 40 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Columbia M CoastHatch- Natural Private Total Hatch. 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 11000,000 600,000 ni 600.000 400,000 200,000 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 198 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 16 Sources of Coho in the Oregon Production Index Area Harvest (Numbers of Fish) Columbia M Natural M Pub.CoastH. D Private 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 ONIIIIIIIIIIIM11 k, S 5� 100,000 !"k @%'k N k N, 4 NS INE II Nor.51 I M 11 0 11 N, I 1 11 NW n. 11 11 Mn 11 W II III NMI 111 .41,1111, 0 1 'M ' - - 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1986 Columbia Escapement was 1,500,000+ Figure 17 Escapement of Coho to Various Release Points, 1986 Columbia River Escapement was 1,500,000+. (Number of Fish) owl 'd Part 3 - Issues - 41 A An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon The ODFW/PFMC method for calculating relative coho contributions for stale hatcheries in total, natural spawners In the coastal rivers and private fish is as follows (The methodology can be followed on the Coho Balance Master Table In the Appendix): 1. The total harvest In the OPI Is defined from catch statistics. 2. The total escapement Is defined from catch statistics on the Columbia River (defined as escapement for these purposes), observation of spawning areas In approximately 1.3% of the coastal river length, private and public hatchery returns, and some freshwater harvest Information (also defined as escapement for these purposes). 3. Private fish In the harvest are defined by tag recoveries. 4. Private fish are then deducted from the total catch and the total escapement. S. A ratio between harvest and total (harvest + escapement) Is defined. 6. The *natural" escapement plus harvest is defined by adding the freshwater catch and the estimated freshwater escapement (from the 1.3% sampling procedures.) 7. The ratio of 5 (above) is used to estimate the harvest of "naturar fish in the OPI. S. The public hatchery harvest contribution is estimated by subtracting the private harvest (3, above) and the ftnaturar harvest (7, above) from the total OPI harvest (1, above). This method is not fully satisfactory in several ways: 1. It ignores that some f ish in the OPI are not *Oregon" f ish. 2. It ignores that some 00regon" fish are caught outside of the OPI. (The method assumes the above balance.) 3. The counts of *natural" spawners are based on a small sample and using methods that, because they were designed for the gathering of other types of information, are not as statistically validas they could be. The ODFW/PFMC method also makes the assumption that the harvest ratio (harvest versus total returns) for "natural" fish is the same as for "public" hatchery fish. While this assumption mayor may not be true it is based on the unfortunate fact that ODFW has for years been forced to manage the "natural" and the hatchery fish as a mixed stock thus effectively forcing them towards either an excess return to the hatchery of public hatchery fish or an overharvest of "natural" fish. As was indicated on Figures 16 and 17, we have exlended the ODFW/PFMC methods to separate coastal and Columbia River hatcheries and escapemerds. This is done by assurning that the reported coastal hatchery returns have a related ocean harvest in the same proportion as assumed for all Orion- private" coho returns (coastal and Columbia River). Figure 18 describes the relationship between harvest and total survival for coho. (This is based on material found in the Coho Balance Master Table in the Appendix.) A Part 3 - issues - 42 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon 100%-- 90%-- 80% 70%- 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%-. 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 [email protected] 1984 1986 Figure 18 Catch Ratio for Coho from Public Coastal Hatcheries and Private Hatcheries. (Expressed as OPI Harvest Divided by the (OPI Harvest + Escapement to Release Site)) Significance - the data presented here has significance in several areas. 1. Relative ContdWion - Hatcheries (public and prtvale combined) are contributing a larger part of the harvest even as the total harvest declines. Private hatcheries are contributing about a 109,000 coho each year (1985-7) or 16% of the 662,000 fish average harvest. This compares to an average contribution of 105,000 fish from Natural sources and 448,000 from public hatcheries. The number of fish contributed by the private hatcheries has trended up (though releases are declining) but the public hatchery and natural contributions are trending sharply down. This suggest that the private hatcheries are making a significant contribution to the fishery. it does not necessary *prove" that hatcheries are causing a decline in the onatural" contributions (though some may suggest that it does) and nor does it demonstrate that "private' hatcheries are more *harrrdur than Opublic hatcheries". 2. Escapement - Trending of the natural coho escapement data indicates a slight increase in the 1972-87 period. Trending of the Total Hatchery coho escapement data indicates an increase in the 1970-87 period. (This increase is still apparent even N the unusual escapement of 1986 is discounted.) This upward trend may indicate that harvest management has been more effective in protecting escapement than it has the harvest. 3. Eso;apemerd -The percentage of Vrivate fish that escape the harvest has, until 1987. always been significantly higher than the escapement for epublie (natural and public hatchery) coho. Some have attributed this to the fisherman's preference for the larger Opublic" fish andVor the migratory patterns of the Oprivate" fish which takes some of them out of the OPI. (See below relative to size.) The Issue of migratory patterns may have had merit when Puget Sound coho where being used. it would appear to be less true now. Others Insist that ODFW harvest management is directed at protecting the "privatee fish. In 1987 the escapement values were the same for Opublic" and VrIvate" fish. This has been attributed to the concept 00 recently the *privale" fish are larger than before and that the fisherman seek them out more actively. (This belief Is not supported by the data available elsewhere In this report. The average harvest size for coho at the return she has been relatively constant.) We tend to feel that this 1derdicar 1987 escapement may be "chance' and without major significance. Part 3 - issues - 43 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon 4. Oualky of Data - The data that defines either harvest share or absolute numbers Is weak in a number of areas with the best data being for the *private" coho. While there may have been ample reasons in the past for this, changes In approach are not a ODFG priority. However, in the assessment of private hatcheries this Issue may not be especially significant except as it may demonstrate the difficulties of managing harvest In a mixed stock situation. In general, while we may wonder at the relative contribution and escapement of natural and public hatchery fish, we are relatively confident In the data presented for total harvest and private contribution and 9 nt are aoci rate. 5. ODFW Natural Harvest Data - Perhaps the Issue of greatest concern In this discussion is that almost no data Is available for the production fish of greatest concernthe natural spawner. Relative to natural fish, consider these factors: By ODFW numbers, two private facilities put more coho Into the OPI catch as a by product than all the coastal streams together (1985-87). The driving force for management of the coastal ooho fishery is the natural spawner escapement. The natural combined catch and escapement is sharply down. Significant tagging studies are not being done on natural coho. Spawning counts (on 1.3% of the coastal rivers) are not satisfactory to ODFW and OSU scientists familiar with the methods. Based on the above, greater effort in developing escapement and harvest data seems warranted. There may be some connection between increased hatchery production and reduced natural contributions but this has not been quantified nor is it universally accepted. At the same time there is no compelling evidence that private hatcheries are more or less responsible than public hatcheries for the decline of natural contributions to the harvest. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - The private hatcheries are making a significant contribution to coho harvest and that contribution Is generally Increasing. The naturally spawning coho are contributing about the same today as the private hatcheries but their contribution Is well down from the past. The public hatcheries are contributing about 65% of the h#rvest today but their contribution Is also well down from the post. While harvests are declining, escapements appear to be fairly constant. The Impact of hatcheries on natural production Is of concern to some, Acceptance - This proposed consensus is generally accepted as reserved above. D. Fishery Contribution - Chinook Background - Adult chinook returns to the private hatcheries exceeded 15,000 for the first time in 1985 when the 35,000 chinook were recaptured by the private facilities. In 1986 the return to the private hatcheries was 70,000 fish while the total fishery contribution in 1986 peaked at 135,000 fish and declined to 39,000 in 1987. In those two years the private contribution to the Oregon fishery was 13.3% and 3.5% respectively. (see Figure 14) Like the coho, chinook return percentages were markedly Improved with the passing of 'El Nino" though part of this improvement, as with the coho, almost certainly relates to Improvements In release strategies. Stock selection, specifically the usouth turning* Rouge River Spring Chinook (RRSC) also is contributing to better hatchery returns and, in some opinions, the availability of these fish for Part 3 - Issues - 44 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Oregon harvest. On this last point however, there Is disagreement by those who feel that the bulk of the returns are before the fishing season and thus less subject to sports and commercial harvest. Significance - The significance of this contribution depends on perspective and the long-term proof that the use of the RRSC; will provide a significant contribution to the ocean fishery. 1. The private growers would Ike to Insure returns above a certain level or, failing that, a consistent, reasonable share of the adult survival. (Their 1986-87 share was 51%.) 2. Many, but not all, fishermen would like to 9" the total numbers of chinook available to them Increase with Oregon fishermen wanting the highest possible share of the total ocean harvest. This tends to favor stock selection to Increase Oregon harvest vulnerability. 3. Some would prefer that the hatchery returns be limited to those required to provide eggs for release and that the operations not be based on private ocean ranching. 4. Some believe that these "privalea fish have a negftIve Impact on natural spawner production and thus their not contribution is less than tagging studies Indicate. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - it Is clear that "private" chinook have made a contribution to the Oregon fishery with a potential to exceed the coho contribution. As the use of the RRSC Is a now undertaking In the two larger hatcheries, its Impact Is not clear. The Impact of hatcheries an natural production Is of concern to some. Acceptance - This proposed consensus is generally accepted as reserved above. E. Market Competition - Rogue River Spring Chinook Background - Commercial trollers, in Oregon waters have found that the spring chinook caught early in the season bring especially high prices. Some feel that the release of Rogue River Spring Chinook (RRSC) by the private growers is a threat to these high prices because they begin returning to the release sites before fishing season starts and thus reduce buyer interest in the troll caught chinook that will come on the market later. Significance - The significance of this depends on perspective. Some trollers believe that they receive less per pound for these fish because of market factors. However, N one presumes that there is enough overlap between the fishing season and the RRSC returns then the number of chinook available to the troller may increase thus offsetting a price reduction. This is especially true If the season is opened earlier, thus insuring the opportunity for troller participation the harvest. The consumer may benefit from the competition by being able to buy chinook for less and for a longer period. The Oregon economy may benefit by having more quality product to sell elsewhere and by reducing the import of fish from other areas In the off season. The growers simply do not agree that this occurs and note that the RRSC return to private hatcheries Is typically from May I to August 30 with the peak being In June and July (during the normal fishing season). Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue- The use of Rogue River Spring Chinook by private growers may have some impact the commercial fisherman** market for early harvest chinook. This Is viewed by some as being of benefit to the consumer and the state economy. Options for minimizing the Impact on the trotters may be available. Part 3 - Issues - 45 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted as reserved above. F. Market Competition - Private Salmon (The above Issue Is a narrow one, relating only to the early Pin RRSC. The broader and more Important Issue is that of market competion between all privately ranched oregon salmon and the Oregon commercial harvest. That Is the subject of this discussion.) Background - Though chinook returns to private hatcheries are row fairly small as compared to the commercial harvest, coho returns to private hatcheries are significant as compared to the commercial coho harvest In Oregon and of varying significance as compared to the coastwide commercial coastal troll harvest (US Incl. Alaska & Canada) as Indicated (numbers of fish and % of Coastwide Harvest): Coastwide Oregon Private Coastal Troll Coastal Troll Hatchery Coho Catch Coho Catch Coho Harvest* 1987 4,390,000 355,000-8% 119,300-3% 1986 6,877,000 440,000-6% 453,700-7% 1985 4.139,000 84,000-2% 332,000-8% * Not all of the fish harvested by the ocean ranchers are sold as food. Some are held to maturity for the production of eggs. The 1988 private releases are generally down from peak previous years and the private harvest proportions in the next few years should be less than that shown above. In 1987 the US Imported 25 million pound of fresh salmon, with over 14 million pounds being from pen farm operations in Norway. (PFMC, *1987 Ocean Salmon Fisheries", Page IV-2) This compares to an average return to Oregon's private hatcheries (all species) of 2.1 million pounds (averaged 1985- 87). The world production of farmed salmon in 1987 was 215 million pouns with the United States producing only 5.5 million pounds. The world production of farmed salmon in 1990 is projected to be 500 million pouns with the United States projected to produceonly 17 million pounds. ("Aquacufture and Capture Fisheries: Impacts on US Seafood Markets", NOAA/NMFS April 1988.) Underthefuture "Maximum Scenario" defined elsewhere in this assessment, the total of salmon caught In Oregon and harvested by the private growers will just exceed 18 million pounds of which 50% would be private. Based on the above information it is clear that, at current private harvest levels, the private hatchery fish make up about the same share of the market place as the Oregon ocean troll coho catch. However, neither is significant as compared to the total coastal harvest (5-60/6) or the imports (less 1han10%). Projections would suggest that jLUS salmon farm producWn (pens and ocean ranching) Is unlikely to approach 4% of the world salmon farm production. A A recent study considering the Impact of salmon aquaculture says "dockside prices received by US fishermen are lower than they would be otherwise-by competition from commercial aquaculture products. By the same token, US consumers enjoy the benefits of lower salmon prices that are the result of unrestricted foreign import supplies.* (*Aquacukure and Capture Fisheries: Impacts on US A Seafood Markets", NOAAINMFS April 1988.) The same document notes the relatively tiny significaryce of US salmon production in Impacting prices. Significance - The significance of this depends on perspective. N we assume that the level of production defines price then we can describe the market impact of Increased private salmon ranching In Oregon as follows: Part 3 - Issues - 46 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Commercial salmon farrnIng has probably caused the commercial troller to receive less per pound for his product. However, Oregon's private production Is a minute factor as compared to production In the rest of the world. The price Impact of Oregon*s private production could well be off set by the higher total pounds of fish available to the fishermen due to private operations. The consumer benefits from the commercial competition by being able to buy salmon for less and for a longer period period but, once again, Oregons private production playsonly a small role In this. The Oregon economy may benefit by having more quality product to sell elsewhere and by reducing the import of fish from other areas. In any case, the scale of US or Oregon production (catch and harvest) Is small as compared to the rest of the world and getting smaller. This trend should be of great concern. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - On a world scale (or even within the US), private salmon ranching In Oregon Is not a significant determinate of the price of salmon. At a local level there may be minor.Impacts but thlese could be mitigated by. better total local harvest. Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted as reserved above. G. Attitudes of Oregon's Salmon Fishing Industry to Private Salmon Ranching Initially and Today. Background - Much of the initial opposition to legislalion permitting ocean ranching came from Oregon's salmon fishing industry. This intensified when coho and chinook were added to the species that could be ranched. The opposition was based on a whole range of scientific, political, and economic concerns. Today, some say that this opposition has been somewhat reduced. That today's industry is more clearly defined than it once was (le, three active operations) is probably reflected in such changes of attitudes as may have occurred. Significance - The future success of private salmon ranching in Oregon depends to some degree on the attitudes of Oregon's salmon fishing industry. Exactly how much is subject to disagreement but it is fair to say that strong support or strong opposition by an industry of this importance will be significant. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - This has no clearly defined consensus with the views ranging from: Both the commercial and recreational sectors of Oregon's salmon fishing Industry now strongly support private salmon ranching. This Is In contrast with their earlier view. to Both the commercial and recreational sectors of Oregon's salmon fishing Industry now strongly oppose private salmon ranching. This is similar to their earlier view. We lend to believe that the underlying fishing Industry support for private salmon ranching has ftroved. However, that there Is no clear consensus is heavily a function of perspectives and, perhaps, Individual personality conflicts. This will be further considered in Part 4 of this Assessment but this should be of concern to the private salmon ranching industry. Pan 3 - issues - 47 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon of the returning fish of private origin. ODFW has the Capability to approach, as a long term average, some specific public/private division objective. The propriety of such action Is a separate question. Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted. 1. The "Fair Rent" Concept Background - Record attention has focused on the concept that some form of stability could be Imparted to the private/public balance by establishing some way to economically balance returns of the fishery related to private ocean ranching. For example, one group may say that the private growers should pay to use the ooeaWs pasture and that this payment should be In the form of the fish that the public catches and perhaps some extra payment for the fish that are harvested by the private growers. (Such as the 5 cent a pound tax on coho and chinook now collected by the state.) Carrying this further, this same group could suggest that payment should be made to the state I the growers somehow manage to harvest more than a predetermined proportion of Oprivatoo fish. This Is Plan A. On the other hand, another group may say that the private growers should be paid for the fish that the "public" are able to harvest and that 9 they catch too large a proportion, they should compensate the private growers by some extra measure. Finally, they suggest that payment for grazing rights is inappropriate as there is no well defined alternative use and that their use of the pasture harms no nne. This Is Plan B. A middle ground alternative to either plan has also been suggested involving both plans with such features as a predefined sharing level for the fish and long term averaging of economic impacts. This Is Plan C and for our purposes this will be the fair rent concept. Significance -The problem with Plan C is that while the general concept is attractive, it could be difficult to reach agreement on the numbers, the procedures and the regulatory requirements. However, If this can be accomplished, this may be a workable answer to keeping the private salmon ranchers, the fishermen and the consumers happy. The fundamental parts of this concept are: 1. A "private/public" split of the returning private salmon hatchery fish would be defined that would say "An appropriate split Is X% private and the rest public." 2. A method of providing compensation to the state would be defined such as "if more than X% enters the private hatcheries, they will pay the state $Y/pound". 3. A method of providing compensation to the private salmon ranchers would be defined such as "if less than X% enters the private hatcheries, the state will pay the growers $Z/pound". There are also a number of secondary Imes that might be part of the concept: 1. A method for balancing returns between the private growers would be defined such as "if one grower gets more than X% and another less, appropriate transfer* of payment will be made.- 2. The planting levels should be stabilized so as to protect f Ishermen and harvest managers from harvest rate changes beyond what nature already irnposes, such as "As a condition of participation, each grower will commit to releasing at least"W" smofts per year of given characteristics." Part 3 - Issues - 49 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon 3. The state as a 7partner may wish to define where the money comes from and what the limits are, such as "in no case *hall the state commit to more than "U" over a 5 year period, with this money to be derived from a license charge of "V" and appropriation from the general fund not to exceed $0 per pound of private hatchery fish caught In the public harvest". ("0" is some amount that would reflect part of the added direct state revenue.) 4. Some form of averaging liabilities may be needed, such as "Payments for annual obligations may be made over a three year period with a balancing of credits and liabilities." It should be noted that no part of this discussion has suggested that the state undertake a specific management program with the objective being to stay as close as possible to the 0 X619" split. Typically the private growers feel that Is a decision for the state and need not be part of an agreement. However, it Is clear that the specific conditions as defined by X. Y. Z, W, U. V, and 0 could have the effect of forcing harvest management that would optimize the state's obligations. Thus the harvest management issue is part of the Fair Rent Concept. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - The Fair Rent Concept offers an opportunity to Improve the stability of private salmon ranching and Increase Its contribution to the ocean fishery. However, the challenge of expanding the concept Into a quantified and enforceable agreement that will find adequate acceptance Is a major one. Success Is not Insured by agreement In concept. J. Free Market/Full Ownership Concept Backgmund - The idea that resources are owned by someone (or some government) is fundamental to life on land. However, some 400 years ago a Dutch lawyer, Hugo Grotius, decided that unlike land resources, the resources of the sea could not be *exhausted" and thus a definition of ownership was notnecessary. In this he convinced everyone else and, for this reason, our ocean fishery has been built around common ownership or what Crutchfield, Keen and many others have described as 'The Tragedy of the Commons* ..... Fish belong to everyone, thus they belong to no one. If one is to believe these people, the determination of who owns a fish is the beginning of a rational basis for making best use of that fish and for preserving that resource. This gmws from the idea that the best way to develop and protect the resources (rather than letting everyone take what they can until the resource is destroyed) is to define ownership and let the owners protect the resource. (This is why the government sells timber and grazing rights.) This view is not universally popular In fishing communities and for this reason supporters are reluctant to define the fair rent concept in ownership terms. However, the Fair Rent Concept has at its core the idea that there should be some form of ownership rights for each part of the fishery resource. This is not far from the idea that the resources should be sold to the highest bidder (in a "Free Market") to benefit the general public. Thus as one considers the Fair Market Concept one might also consider the views of Elmer Keen, al al. Significance - it may be that this has little significance to our Wrinediate concerns. However, it may well be that the existence of private salmon ranching in Oregon will trigger the serious consideration of a new way to manage all of the salmon resource in Oregon. If this happens this discussion will have significance. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - A Free Morket/Full Ownership Concept could be a viable method for providing stability to private salmon ranching and it Is, at least In theory, a better approach than a 'fair rent" system based an special Interest negotiations. However, this may be too small a problem to be solved by so large a change In public policy. Still, as our present systems for distribution of this resource Is satisfying few and providing little effective protection, a look at alternatives In this direction Is easily justified. Part 3 - Issues - 50 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted but with little real hope of success. Required reading: "Ownership and Productivity of Marine Fishery Resources, An Essay on the Resolution of Conflict In the Use of the Ocean Pastures." by Elmer A. Keen, McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Box 10308, Blacksburg, Virginia 24062-0308. K. Carrying Capacity Background - Many of the Initial discussions of private ocean ranching revolved around the question of the nature's ability to support the smolts planted as part of this program. The general acceptance of this as a problem was a basis for requiring that planting strategies Insure that the smolls would go Imrnediately to sea and not compete in the rivers and estuaries for food. This leaves the Issue of the owan's carrying capacity. The OMaxlmum OperatlorW Scenario, described elsewhere suggests total survival of Oprivate" adult fish would be 1.3 million ooho and 0.96 million chinook as compared to the 200,000 coho and chinook (each) per year that Is reflective of a oStatus Cluo". The ODFW Coho Plan puts forth a 2.5 million harvest and escapement goal with apparent confidence that the ocean isn't limiting. Washington's Salmon planning in 1976 was based on increasing their harvest by 4.7 million fish. Japan has expanded production to over 40 million fish and the Alaskan harvest occasionally exceeds 100 million. The issue is complicated by the varying nature of the ocean's localized ability to support fish as Illustrated by the recent El Nino phenomenon. Significance - The significance of this as a question relative to the ocean's carrying capacity revolves around the number of fish planted and the number of adults that survive and eventually return to graze in the context of all salmon that enter the North Pacific. Definitive answers on ocean carrying capacity that are generally accepted and based on creditable scientif ic analysis do not appear to be available. Opinions f rom all levels of analysis abound and this study will not generate new answers. Pfoposed Consensus Response to this Issue - Release strategies have eliminated much of the concern over river carrying capacity as relates to smolts for any of the "Operating Scenarios". (The straying of adults Into the rivers Is a different Issue.) At any "Operating Scenarios" except the maximum, concerns for the ocean's carrying capacity should be small. As the maximum scenario Is approached caution may be appropriate but only within the framework of all of the North Pacific salmon programs. Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted. L. The Stability of the Ocean Ranching Permits (as relates to State actions) Background - There are those who have expressed concern over the authority that ODFW has relative to the modification and withdrawal of the ocean ranching permits. They consider that this authority reduces the ranchers ability to plan ahead arKI/or seek out long term financing. That this authority exists.is generally conceded as Is the perception that ODFWs willingness to use it is a function of political and special Interest pressures. Further, the periodic Introduction of legislation ourdriendy to ocean ranching has raised concerns that ODFW will be forced into a actions even more threatening to the permits than row. Similarly, the Introduction of legislation 0friendly" to ocean ranching has mobilized various Interest groups. Legislation as put forth, pro and oon, Is typically defended on scientific grounds but often would appear to be motivated by an underlying bias for or against ocean ranching. One example would be the introduction of legislation to require the tagging of all smolts released from private hatcheries as Part 3 - issues - 51 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon compared to the present practice of tagging only part of the fish (4 to 160/6 in 1988). The results of a 100% tagging program would be to greatly Increase the cost of private and ODFW operations with little, Improvement In catch Information. Thus the real Impact of the proposal would be to reduce the chances for the survival of private ocean ranching. History has shown that ODFW does riot casualty consider the withdrawal of permits. In the 16 years since the first perrrdt was Issued, all withdrawals have been voluntary and primarily related to the transfer of skes. This would suggest some stability for these permits, at least as relates to withdrawal by State action. A category of permit modification does exist, however, that Is of concern to private salmon ranchers. Within their authority to regulate these perrnlts, ODFW can and has taken actions that are viewed as destabilizing by the Industry. Sonnie general examples would be In the control exerted over egg supplies, the release strategies and the management of harvest. Some of these technical issues are gradually being brought under control as both ODFW and the private hatcheries gain experience. Others, however, continue to surface as Illustrated by the recent actions relative to the Coos Basin Salmon Plan. (See Section R of this part of this assessment.) A factor that may be viewed as stabilizing Is the current moratorium on now permits. By limiting entry, the number of new concerns are reduced. At this point In time, a permit in hand has added value in that there are so few of them. Action that would be viewed as destabilizing is action that would make transfers of permits subject to more restrictions than now found in the regulations. (Such action is being considered.) Probably at the heart of this issue is the language of the ocean ranching legislation that requires that ODFW make many of its decisions based on "Best Public Interest". Jim Lichalowich formerly of ODFW said, on one issue "Unfortunately there is no common scale that can weigh the cost and benefits and clearly dictate a proper decision." (Agenda Item Summary dated 219/87, re: Oregon Aqua-Foods operations relative to wild ooho salmon In the Yaquina River.) We believe that quote to broadly be true. Significance - Clearly It is irnportant to the remaining ocean ranching firms that their permits be viewed as a property that will not be withdrawn or significantly modified for so long as they make a reasonable attempt to comply with their conditions. The stronger the assurances the more likely they are to continue to operate. However, we should keep sight of the fact that the stability of private ocean ranching in total depends on a number of factors that are very important such as: improved and consistent returns, reduced harvest conflicts, operating costs and the market place. These may be better areas to focus on. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - Ocean Ranching Coho/ChInook Permits are relatively stable at this time In the sense that withdrawals are unlikely and modifications growing out of regulatory actions are less disruptive to operations than In the past. Legislative or regulatory changes can and do Impact this situation. Acceptance - This proposed consensus Is generally accepted. M. Genetic Irnplications of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon Background - Often it seems that a person's position on ocean ranching can be determined by their view of the genetic Implications of private salmon ranching. If they see little to be concerned with, they generally support ft. If they are very concerned, Vey are generally opposed. What is surprising is that they frequently differentiate between private ranching and public hatchery release programs and assume that these are dissimilar activities and have different potential Impacts. The fact is there are few qualif led to really understand the issue at a level that makes specific decisions possible and these few do riot always agree. Furthermore, even those who have the requisite Part 3 - issues - 52 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon theoretical knowledge, seldom have at hand the data necessary to evaluate specif ic situations and as a result they seldom provide comfort to laymen seeking useful guidence. Still in an attempt to cleardy some issues, specif ic to this appraisal, we contacted three experts familiar with ocean ranching practices and salmon resource management issues in Oregon: Professor James Lannan from Oregon State University, and Jack McIntyre and John Emler f rom the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We asked them to consider these questions as relates to the "Expanded Scenario": a. In the year 2000, what impacts (good and bad) do you expect to see on "native" salmon in the "In-system" drainages that can be reasonably ascribed to the "private" fish? b. In the year 2000, what impacts do you expect to see on the total coastal "native" salmon population that can be reasonably ascribed to the "private" fish? c. How will the above Impacts differ from Impacts from the parallel operations of ODFW coastal hatcheries? How do these compare to past ODFW planting operations in the coastal rivers. d. If the "Expanded Operations" scenario were to be suddenly terminated, would you expect the impacts to be reversed? How long might that take? e. Would your answers to the above be significantly improved by information that could be collected in 12 months? 5 years? 20 years? What economic resources would need be programmed to collect this information? f. What is the worst things you might imagine (growing out of the "genetic implications") that could result from the "Expanded Operations" scenario. g. Can you relate some level of genetic risk to some level of economic benefit? h. Are there strategies that would seem appropriate to private ocean ranching operations that could signif icantly reduce negative impacts? L Are there technical (genetic) breakthroughs that could benefit salmon ranching that might be available in the next 10 years? This might include such things as the "genetic engineering" of modified animals or "better ways to quantify genetic implications" or "better methods to use genetic traits to reduce impacts". j. How well informed in genetic questions are the policy makers (public agency, fishermen, private citizens and salmon ranchers) involved in the private salmon ranching issue? After they had considered these questions we discussed with each what they felt were viable general responses to the issues raised. The following is a brief summary of their concerns, points of agreement and suggestions for planning for the future of ocean ranching in Oregon. The experts agree that, in general, the practice of direct release into the sea by private ranching operations results in less of an impact on aquatic resources than public hatcheries which release fish into freshwater stream and rivers. They also agreed that there are associated, but theoretically controllable, genetic and ecological risks associated with ocean releases. While there appears to be sufficient data to support the conclusion that direct sea releases result in higher incidences of straying, the genetic risks associated with straying are uncertain given the current lack of inventory of the genetic resources for both native and hatchery populations. Thus any assessment of genetic risks must be based upon conjecture. On one side is the opinion that reproductive isolation of small breeding populations increases the probability of losing genetic resources and increases the vulnerability of the stock to environmental changes. This position supports increasing the size of the gene pool by encouraging the production of more fish to enhance the stability of the salmon population. It accepts straying as a normal event and does not ignore the possibility that managed introgression of wild populations could be beneficial in some cases. On the other side, is the view that the risk of catastrophic loss of genetic resources as Part 3 - Issues - 53 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon the result of large releases of hatchery produced fish may be great. This opinion supports a conservative program of increased hatchery production until more is known in order to avoid major gene1ic changes in indigenous salmon populations. While both sides generally agree that conservative management is appropriate, the definition of "conservative* is obscure in the absence of management goals. Preservation of genetically depleted resources; [email protected] contrary to conservation goals. Consequently, knowledge of the genetic history of I both natural a hatchery populations Is a prerequisite to conservative management. For example, it is Important to know I loss of genetic resources is a result of over fishing, loss of reproductive habitat, or some other environmental factor. In general, the probability of negative Impacts resulting f rom the Introgression would be greater for diverse stocks and less for genetically depleted stocks. Conversely, the probability of beneficial introgression would be greater for stocks which have experienced genetic depletion and less for more genetically diverse resources. Both sides agree that it Is possible to reverse minor genetic disruptions over 2-3 generations. Technically, major alterations can also be reversed as long as the genetic resources are available. Hatchery programs are not necessarily a threat to extinction of genetic resources and therefore do riot pose a threat in terms of irreversible impacts. The possibility of hatchery programs resulting in the depletion of native stocks is not denied, however this is not the same as extinction. While one side may argue that a depleted population is unlikely to be restored, technically it is feasible as long as genetic extinction has not occurred. Obviously, the first step in protecting against this possibility is to know what the resources are. Little has been done to catalogue genetic traits and make any sort of an appraisal of potential risks on native species. This lack of data makes it diff icult to predict costs and benefits of hatchery programs including private ranching. An acceptable level of straying is probably in the 1-2% range but this should be examined on a case by case basis. At this level both sides agree that there could be a net benefit. The capability of the ocean environment to support increased populations is also at issue. One side believes strongly that there is sufficient, applicable evidence from salmon release programs in Asia to dispel fears that we are about to tip the scales in terms of the grazing capacity of the ocean waters. This view is based on increasing rates of returns with increasingly larger release programs and the view that even the most ambitious ranching programs in Oregon are but a drop in the bucket. The other side feels that there is insufficient evidence but that more evidence is being collected to suggest that there is reason to be concerned. Both suggest that the only prudent course is a conservative one and that it would be difficult if not impossible to accurately measure the capacity of the Pacific Ocean. In response to this, there is the extreme view that one should not do anything until more facts are known. On the other side of the conservative posture is the view that a controlled program of increasing releases and monitoring is the preferred approach. What is clear is that other producing countries and states do not necessarily share his same level of concern. From a geneticists standpoint, the concern on this issue is that of large releases of hatchery produced fish being able to outcompete wild stocks for limited resources if such limitations actually exist. The available statistics are questionable in most cases. Some populations have been intensively observed, while others have not been monitored at all. The geneticists generally agree that there are techniques which could and should be employed in all hatchery programs to maintain the genetic quality of the fish produced. Any effort to effectively manipulate or preserve a genetic population requires knowledge of the genetic history of that population. This is often referred to as pedigree or lineage. Geneticists advocate collecting such information in order to provide an effective tool for both monitoring effects of various practices as well as a aftering or preserving specific populations. There is general agreement that intentional as well as unintentional genetic alteration takes place through aquaculture, given methods used for selecting fish for spawning and the rearing environments of the hatcheries themselves. However, genetic engineering of fish on a production scale is a long way from technical and f inancial reality and therefore should not be an issue of concern. There is general agreement that the genetic implications of harvest management are more profound than the genetic implication of hatchery management. Genetics is oftentimes a smokescreen which Part 3 - Issues - 54 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon disguises more immediate and perhaps more important issues. it is essential to define goals in order to assess genetic, or other risks, within an established context. Without such goals it is impossible to develop management practices, design research programs and allocate production responsibilities and opportunities. They generally agree that much more could be done to reduce risks given the knowledge which exists, and more importantly they agreed that a more rigorous data collection program would be of great benefit. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - The genetic Implications of private Salmon ranching In Oregon as expressed by the Expanded Operations scenario can, at best, be seen only dimly and It Is unlikely that a clearer vision will be available In the short-term. While caution Is reasonably advised at this point, even the meaning of caution Is unclear. There Is general agreement that the genetic Implications of harvest management are more profound than the genetic Implications of hatchery managemement. In general, the Expanded Operation Scenario would appear to carry no greater risk than any other hatchery program In the state assuming the same number of fish are produced. Acceptance - On review by others involved in these issues the above discussion was generally accepted but with a number of reservations to suggest that practices in both ODFW and the private facilities are more sensitive to genetic impact concerns than is generally appreciated by those not involved in the operation of the hatchery facilities. Dispite the limitations expressed above, conclusions are drawn and decisions made that are based on genetic undeii Oting and implications. N. The Straying of Returning Adults Background - Straying is a term that describes what happens when salmon reared and acclimatized at a particular location, don't return to that location to spawn. There is some straying in all salmon stocks but It would appear that the privately reared fish are straying a little more than the public hatchery fish and, in some opinions, a great deal more than "natural" stocks. As straying has significance beyond economic losses, and as I may occur in private hatcheries more than in other situations I is worth discussing in this context. Two aspects are of greatest concern to those interested in the ocean harvest. 1. The first is in how much natural production could be decreased by straying. There are those who believe that the straying of fish into the rivers will so impact the natural spawning process that the -gains" in the ocean fishery will be offset in large degree by "losses" of natural fish. 2. The second area of concern to some is their belief that as straying depresses natural stocks in nearby streams, the ODFW management stratagies will be calabrated by low runs in those streams and the entire harvest allocations will be reduced. (ODFWs staff theorized that the OAF operations at Newport were the cause of depressed coho runs in nearby streams in 1986 in a review of OAF operations. That their operations were significant in the decline was strongly disputed by OAF and in an attempt to better understand what has happened ODFW and OAF are undertaking Investigations. At the same time OAF and other private salmon ranchers are working on stratagies to decrease straying.) These are reasonable concerns. However, how Important they are to the total harvest relates to a number of factors including the scale of private salmon ranching operations, the improvements in technology and management decisions by ODFW. We will attempt to quantify the range of possibilities elsewhere. Two types of adult straying are known to take place in the major private facilities; (1) in-system straying which is defined as straying into the specific river system that the hatchery is on, and (2) out-of-system straying that involves fish entering other river systems or even other hatcheries. While the former is Part 3 - Issues - 55 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon typically much larger than the latter, the implications of out-of-system straying can diff er under some conditions. For example, the Yaquina system (location of the OAF facility) is managed as a "B" river, a river that Is managed lor wild plus hatchery fish". It has been proposed that this be redesignated as a "C" Over, a river that is managed *exclusively for hatchery fish". (A "A" is a river managed "exclusively for wild f ish".) Under a B designation the control of in-system straying of hatchery f ish is an important concern. Under a C designation, in-system straying is much less important. However, If the result of changing the Yaquina to a C system was to greatly increase releases, the question of out-of-system straying remains a concern. Some of the technical aspects of straying should be discussed. 1. One reason that some added "private" straying may have occurred recently Is a strategy employed on a experimental basis by private growers to Improve returns by releasing fish from barges well offshore. This allows them to avoid predation nearshore and to insure that the small fish will not compete with native stocks. it may also be that offshore release may increase straying. (An internal ODFW memo in early 1988 concluded that fish released offshore had a higher probability (2.5 times) of straying than fish released onshore. However, preliminary indications in research by Dr. William McNeil suggests that this straying may be related to fish transported in tanks on the barge decks. Fish transported to off shore release sites in pens appear to stray no more than onshore releases.) 2. Another reason that straying has occurred is that the return site may not be a satisfactory one (either generally or at a particular time). 3. Other reasons for straying include inappropriate release sizes, inadequate holding time and perhaps release timing. In any case straying has occurred. The scale of straying is of significance but diff icult to quantity and even more difficult to project. However, some investigators have suggested that 3-5% straying of adults has occurred under conditions found in the early 1980's. Recent developments in release strategies may serve to reduce the numbers of strays significantly and the 1-2% described in the genetics issue discussion maybepossible. However, there still remains the question of "I-2%"of what? Signif icance - That salmon stray is of some direct economic importance to the growers as these represent "lost" fish. However, the greater general significance of straying private hatchery fish is in their impact on other salmon in terms of genetic impacts, competition, disease transmission and numerical contribution to depressed natural stocks. To the fisherman however, it may be that the greatest concern is in how the interaction of out-of-system strays and ODFW management decisions will impact the harvest. Both the degree of straying and the impact is site and stock specific, large numbers of straying fish in a stream with a small natural return will have a greater impact than the opposite proportions. Straying spring returns to a stream that will not support their survival through the summer will have little impact of fall spawning fish. it may be that to discuss the universe of possibilities will obscure that within the specific conditions we now encounter the possibilities are more limited. (ie, three release sites, one major chinook stock and two major ooho stocks) Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - The private hatchery fish will stray from their acclimatization sites as will all salmon stocks. However, evidence suggest that straying may be greater from some release strategies and thus should be of special concern. Improved release strategies should Improve past performance but at, perhaps, some cost. Quantification of the degree of straying would be useful in defining damages but at this time sufficient hard data Is not available. Damages or benefits may accrue from straying and they are best defined on a case by case basis. Acceptance - This proposed consensus is generally accepted. Part 3 - Issues - 56 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon 0. Private Salmon Ranching and the State's Wild Fish Policies (and their predecessors) Many of the othre issues discussed here touch on *Wild" fish questions. However, two other elements are worth noting breffly. Background : Harvest Rates - In the beginning it was recognized that wild fish policies that restricted all coastal harvest to escapement levels that were appropriate to Vild" fish would benef it private salmon ranching. These policies had the effect of reducing harvest levels from about 80%, appropriate to hatchery production, to 60% which would, In theory let more fish return to the private operation In practice, ocean harvest percentages on "private" fish have varied from about 22% to over 68% and it is apparent that this wild fish/private fish harvest relationship has riot produced exactly what was anticipated. Wild Egg Taking - In the beginning, the regulations were very restrictive regarding the taking of eggs from wild fish for private salmon ranching, especially for coho and chinook. This was based on the underlying view that ocean ranched salmon should be I rom stocks that are very different from native stocks. Over the years this view changed and ODFWs regulations required that the private growers move towards the use of stocks that are the same as or similar to, the "wild" stocks in their river system. However, eggs could only be taken from surplus stocks by ODFW and replacement of the "natural production", by planting progeny smolts back into the wild populations was required by legislation passed in 1981. Since the original definition of where eggs could be taken from was "surplus stocks", mitigation seems unnecessary and perhaps even undesirable. However, this is the law. Significance - The point of the above discussion is to suggest that there are contradictory aspects of "wild fish" policies that are still to be resolved. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - The state's wild fish policies have the potential for providing stability to the private hatcheries operations but this has not been very effective In practice. These same policies have shifted reflecting changing views by the legislature and ODFW. Acceptance - This proposed consensus is generally accepted. P. An Economic Comparison of Scenarios 1. Background In Part 1, a series of scenarios for the near term future were defined. They range from full closure of all private salmon facilities to the operation of the four facilities at their "permitted" level. Aseconomics are an issue, it is inevitable in an assessment of this type that a comparison of these scenarios on a economic basis should be attempted and that is what is being done here. The obvious limitations of such an attempt should be apparent and for that reason, we do not expect to satify any particular view-point. However, we will, insofar as we can, consider all of the elements and, for each, be as close as we can to a reasonable middle ground. To make such a comparison it is necessary to develop a range of numerical criteria. That delopment follows. The basis for selecting these specific criteria is probably no better than the data displayed elsewhere in this report which is, in some cases, suspect to poor. However, we have tried to make this as reasonable as possible by considering this information with judgement based on other work and by being relatively conservative. In the development of this work we have made use of mathematical trending methods that are fairly crude but we think it better to define a trend inexactly than than to ignore it altogether. Part 3 - Issues - 57 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Ranges are presented for some of these criteria for use In other parts of this assessment. These are described as being values used in the "Dynamic Model". However, in this economic comparison we will, for the most part, use mid-point values. These criteria, I accepted as reasonable, will be very Important to some as they attempt to decide which direction they want to go in support of private ocean ranching. Others will have little interest as their primary concerns are riot related to quantification. Still others will be willing to accept the criteria but will reject the results on the grounds that the application Is simplistic. We make no judgement as to who is right and we have sympathy for all positions. For those, however, who reject these criteria as being unreasonable or even incorrect, we can only ask that they provide better. 2. Economic Comparison Criteria Survival (Harvest, catch and escapement combined) - Figures 19 provides information on coho survival rates for two sets of data for coastal hatcheries (public and private). This indicates that survival, based on past results, of less thanl -01% can be expected once in 10 operating years and more than 5.26/6 once in 10 operating years. Stated another way, the past average survival rate has been 2.7% and returns have fallen in the range of 1.0% to 5.2% 80% of the operating years. Figure 19 also indicates the trend of returns over 10 years for the same two sets of coastal hatcheries. The public hatcheries return trend would appear to be level at about 2.1% while the private hatcheries are trending up about 0.4% per year with 1987's trend "point" being 4%. Coast H a0m CHTrend -3- Private @13m PrITrend 7.00%- 6.00%- 5.00%- Total 4.00%- Adult Survival 3.00% -13 17 Opp- 2.00% 0< 0 @0 1.00% 13 I I J 0.00% 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 19 Survival Rates for Coho Salmon (excluding fish harvested outside of OPI Waters) from Private Hatcheries (Priv.CH) and Public Coastal Hatcheries (Pub.CH) showing data points and trend lines. This tends to support the perception that the private facilities are Improving In their performance while public coastal hatcheries have performed at a fairly constant level. (Note: the differences in survivals may be explained by the release conditions Inherent In each of the systems and how and where srnoft losses are accounted for. This is not necessarily an expression of relative performance.) P13 0 [email protected] a '@7 17'0i I no_ [email protected]@ga Figure 20 is a comparison of chinook and coho survival in the 1979-87 time frame. The trend line there would suggest that in that period the chinook survival rates are about 56% of the survival rates of Part 3 - Issues - 58 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon coho. Recent results have tended to a higher value, reflecting improvements of chinook release methods. 4.00% 3.50%- 3.00%, 2.50%- Chinook 2.00% low Survival 1.50% 1.00% 0.50%. 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% Coho Survival Figure 20 Survival Rates for Coho and Chinook Salmon (excluding fish harvested outside of the Oregon Coastal Waters) for Private Hatcheries showing data points and trend line. For purposes of these criteria we will assume a total ooho return averaging 4% reflecting both recent experience and the general trend. Chinook returns will be assumed to be 65% of the coho returns. (Note: This data for private hatchery survival Is based generally on past combined performance of three or four facilities operating in a leaming mode. it would not be appropriate to estimate the future performance of individual facilities on the basis of this information as that will vary significantly from an average.) "Catch" Split - Figure 21 indicates the relationship between sports and troll harvest of oDho in Oregon as compared to the total OPI harvest of Coho for individual years in the 1971 to 1987 time period. (This data is developed on Table 3. ) it is apparent that these trends reflect management strategies and natural conditions which tend to mitigate towards a higher percentage of sports harvest in years when the total harvest is low.and a higher proportion of commercial harvests when the total run is high. Part 3 - Issues - 59 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Troll Data Troll Trend Sport Data Sport Trend 2000 1800 1600 1400 Oregon 1200 Harvest 1000 800 0 600 400 200. 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 OPI Total Harvest Figure 21 Oregon Coho Sport and Troll Harvest versus Total OPI Harvest for the Years 1971-87 in the OPI Area (in 1 000's of Fish) showing data points and trend line. Figure 22 develops the Sportffroll harvest relationship again indicating a higher level of sports harvest when the total run is smaller. 80- 70- 60- so- 10 Sport Chinook 40- Catch @*01 010 30- 010.DwooetTs, - 20- 00-9- 10 0 0 100 2;0 300 4;0 50'0 600 Coastal Chinook Landings Figure 22 Chinook Sport Harvest versus Chinook Total Harvest for the Years 1970-87 In the Oregon Coastal Fishery (in 1 000's of Fish) showing data points and trend line (Data:Table 1-4,1987 PFMC "Ocean Salmon Fisheries") Part 3 - Issues - 60 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon We will use the relationships defined by the past (Figures 21 & 22) for projections for the future. These are: Coho Oregon Sport Harvest -120,000 + 8.20/6 x Total OPI Coho Harvest Coho Oregon Troll Harvest -(-)35,000 + 48.9% x Total OPI Coho Harvest Chinook Sports Harvest .20,300 + 7.71% x Total Chinook Harvest Recreational Angling Effort - The angler days expended on the sports fishery would appear (1970-1987) to be a function of total sports harvest In that more angler days are spent per fish when fishing Is bad than when it Is good (Figure 23). The relationship based on a trend line is that at a low harvest (200,000 chinook) the angler days is 242,000 or 1.21 days per fish while at a high harvest (1,000,000) it Is 480,000 angler days or 0.48 days per fish. Soo 450 400- 350- 300- OCOIC Angler W00OWSIOU000 Days 250- 0 200- 150-9 100 so 0 0 5 *0 0 1,000 11500 2,000 2,500 Total Oregon Coastal Sports Harvest of Coho & Chinook Figure 23 Recreational Angler Days versus Total (Coho and Chinook) Harvest for the Years 1970-87 in the Oregon Coastal Fishery (in 1000's of Fish) showing data points and trend line (Angler Days Data:Table 1-8,1987 PFMC "Ocean Salmon Fisheries") (Chinook Coastal Harvest Data:Table 1-4,1987 PFMC "Ocean Salmon Fisheries") (OPI Coho Data: Coho Balance Master Table, Appendix) We will use the relationship defined by the past (Figure 23) for projections for the future. This is: Oregon Angler Days - 225,000 + 9.8% x Combined Oregon Sports Harvest "Public/Private" Split of Private fish. - The "split" of private fish over the last few has varied from 78% private in one year for coho to as little as 34% for chinook. These variations probably reflect, to some degree, management decisions riot specific to private salmon ranching but for the most part the represent natural conditions. Discussions with ODFW management personnel indicate that a higher level of consistency (+/- 100/6) around some target point is possible. For purposes of this effort we will assume that 55% of the "private* fish will be harvested as they return to the private hacheries. The rest will be harvested by sport and commercial fishermen. Contributions by Other Sources - In the years 1985-87, the total OPI coho catch averaged 662,000 of which 109,000 (16%) were from the private salmon ranches and 105,000 f rom natural spawners. The "Other" contribution (i.e. fmm coastal public and Columbia River hatcheries was Part 3 - Issues - 61 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 448,000. In those same years the escapement to coastal rivers averaged 156,000 coho. (See Coho Balance Master Table). Thus the ratio between harvest and escapement was 1.00 to 149. For purposes of this analysis we will assume that in our base year the natural OPI coho contribution will remain at 105,000 fish per year less any fish lost due to the impact of straying. (See below) The "Other" Coho Contribution will be assumed to be 448,000 fish. In the years 1985-87, the total Oregon chinook coastal catch averaged 428,000 of which 25,000 (60/0) were from the private salmon ranches. The remainder, 403,000, were from hatcheries and natural spawners. Estimates Indicate that the coastal streams of Oregon had a total spawning escapement of 133,110 chinook in the year 1985. (NOAA Tech Memo NMFS F/NWC-12, by Wahle and Pearson, September 1987) which compares to a coastal goal of 150,000 to 200,000 (page 11-23 1987 PFMC "Ocean Salmon Fisheries") For lack of better information we will assume that the ratio between harvest and escapement was 1.0 to 1.0 thus the natural contribution to the harvest133,000 (leaving 270,000 from"Other" sources) For purposes of this analysis we will assume that In our base year the natural Oregon Chinook contribution will be at 135,000,000 fish per year less any fish lost due to the impact of straying. (See below) The "Other" chinook contribution will be assumed to be 270,000 fish. Straying - In-system straying will be assumed to be 4% of the fish that return to the private hatchery and Straying outside of the system will be assumed to be 1.0%. These will riot be counted either as returns or escapements. Impact of Straying on Natural Production - In order that we might consider the negitive impacts of private ocean ranching it is necessary to consider the impact of straying on natural production. The information necessary to do this in a rigorous way simply is not available. The best we can do is provide a range of impacts for others to consider. This range will be defined in this way: The Minimum Impact is considered to be none. The Maximum Impact is considered to be as follows. Each "In-System" fish that strays will be assumed to reduce the effective number of natural spawners by 3/4th's of a fish up to the values indicated for adult escapement guidelines on Table II.G-1 of the 1982 ODFW "Coho Plan" or as indicated for chinook in NOAA Tech Memo NMFS F/NWC-1 2, by Wahle and Pearson, September 1987. Each "Out-System" fish that strays will be assumed to reduce the effective number of natural spawners by 1/2 of a fish. Each "Natural" coho lost as indicated above will result in the loss of one coho from the OPI survival. Each "Natural" chinook lost as indicated above will result in the loss of one chinook from the Oregon coastal survival. Size at Return & Jacks - In most of these statistics coho jacks (define as under 20") are not counted either for numbers or weight. We will continue this in modeling and use and average harvest weight at the hatchery of 5.5 pounds which reflects actual experience. However, chinook jacks are counted in the returns numbers as are all of the year classes. In most of these statistics chinook jacks are define as fish under 24". We will continue this in modeling and use an average harvest weight at the hatchery of 10. 1 pounds which reflects long term experience. Since fish harvested at sea would be expected to be smaller than returning fish we will use slightly lesser values for "caught" fish, 5.0 pounds for coho and 9.0 pounds for chinook. Economic Value of the Fishery - Recent studies by Radke, et al suggest the economic value of fish caught in the recreational fishery is in the range of $46 and $61 per angler day (Private boat vs Charter boat) in 1985 dollars. For this purpose we will use $52 per angler day ($1985)and not differentiate between boats. Part 3 - Issues - 62 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon The economic value of commercially caught coho (same source) will be assumed to be $3.46tpound with $2.84 being value to the coastal area and the rest being to other areas of the state. For chinook we will use $5.77 and $4.37. The economic value of private hatchery coho (same source) will be assumed to be $1.71 for coho with $1.00 being value to the coastal area and the rest being to other areas of the state. For chinook (and considering 20% #2 quality fish) we will use $2.66 and $1.56. No effort is made here to estimate the value of private fish held for egg production but the Impact is certainly higher than for fish sold on the market. It Is our understanding that these economic values are reflective of community benefits and do not represent market prices for the fish. 3. The Economic Comparison of Scenarios Based on the above criteria , an economic comparison of scenarios was developed in detail (See Eoonomic Comparison Table in the Appendix) The comparison of scenarios is shown on Figure 24 for the "Maxinvim" Straying Impact Assumptions. What is illustrated here is that the economic impact of fishing for the "Maximum" Scenario is over $80 million as compared to the impact of fishing for the "Closure" scenario of $35 million. Thus the increase attributed to "private" fish is over $46 million. An aspect of the economic comparison is the impact of straying on total harvest levels. Based on the criteria set above, the economic economic impact of fishing assuming the "Maximum Development Scenario" is $81.6 million assuming *Maximum Straying Impact" and $82.4 million assuming "No Straying Impact". Thus the impact of straying is less than a million dollars as compared to the impact increase attributed to "private" f ish of over $46 million. Thus the economic."Gain/Loss" ratio is about 60:1. Another basis for comparing scenarios is in terms of the total number of fish harvested (coho and chinook). This is done on Figure 25 where the average values for Oregon's sports and troll harvest are indicated for various scenarios. Also indicated is a value which represents the maximum stray loss from the system based on the "maximum" criteria (Note: These values represent the Oregon harvest for both fish. The OPI values for coho are indicated on the backup table *Economic Contribution Table" in the Appendix.) The gain under the "Maximum" Scenario is is about 740,000 fish and the straying loss is approximately 37,000 fish. Thus the "Gain/Loss" ratio for fish is about 20:1. Part 3 - Issues - 63 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon 0 Total M Private Increase 90. 80. 70- 60- so. 40- 30- 20- 10. 0 1 Closure Limited Status Quo Expanded Maximum Figure 24 The Base Year Annual Economic Impact on the State of Oregon of Various Scenarios for the Development of Private Salmon Ranching based on Maximum Straying Impact Assumptions. Oregon Sport IS Oregon Troll Max.Stray Loss 1,400,000- 1,200,000- 1,000,000- 800,000- 600,000- 400,000- 200,000- 0 - Closure Limited Status Quo Expanded Maximum Figure 25 Annual Projected Harvest in the State of Oregon for Various Scenarios for the Development of Private Salmon Ranching. The Maximum Stray Loss Indicated is Based on etined in Assumptions D the Text Part 3 - Issues - 64 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon 0. Variations In Private Production Background - A point of discussion for those involved in the impacts of private salmon ranching is in the desirability of stability in production levels and programs. A review of production and return data of Part I would clearly indicates that the release f rorn the private facilities have varies greatly both by species and In numbers. It has been suggested that permits should be defined in terms of species, stocks and maximum and minimum numbers. Ideally, in some views, production would be as constant as found in state facilities where the annual production plan Is based more on long term consensus than on short term returns. The private rancher, on the other hand, is working towards survival and his primary Incentive is reaction to annual returns. Complicating this is the relative, and increasing, attractiveness of egg and smolt sales that depend on salmon ranching activities but do not necessarily benefit by maximum releases. The many, and complicated, possible strategies do riot always result in stability in production levels and in programs. Finally, the state's ambivalence to the private rancher's role In the state's basic production program does not lend Itself to encouraging production stability. There is no incentive, except economic returns, for the private ranchers to seek stability. In these last few years, this incentive has been extremely variable. Signif icance - Ideally, the private ranchers could improve support by stability in their production programs. Realistically, this stability will only result I it is economically attractive. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - To ask private ranchers to make their production programs significantly more stable than those defined by their permits will require that their economic benefit be a positive one or that there be some other operating trade-off. Acceptance - This proposed consensus is generally accepted. R. ODFW's Policy on the Support of Private Salmon Ranching Background - In every way ODFW is part of pdvate salmon ranching. They approve or deny the permits, they take part in the decisions on stocks to be planted, they approve planting programs and check for tags. They manage a common fishery and do have a significant impact on how many fish return to the harvest weirs. They can, without regulation change, increase or reduce the profitability of some or all of the active operations. They include "private" fish in their harvest projections and in their catch statistics. Similarly, but with less control, private salmon ranching is a part of ODFW- They spend money to plant fish that they will never own and to the benefit of fishermen and businesses. If they make mistakes (knowingly or not) their operations can harm natural production and reduce the net benefits. For all of this there is no clearly defined ODFW policy as to what role it would like private salmon ranching to take in providing fish nor is their any statement as to ODFWs policy in support of private salmon ranching. Significance - This has significance in several ways: 1. In planning future fish propagation for the state, the level of private contribution to the coho catch could vary from nothing, if they all closed, to almost 1.5 million fish for the best possible year for the existing permits (60% of 7.5% of 32.8 million smolts) . With this in mind, how does ODFW` develop their own plans? 2. Ideally the setting of regulations and/or in their administration, decisions grow out of policy. If the basic policy were very supportive of ocean ranching one would expect that decisions on any particular issue would be consistent regardless of when they are made or who makes them. (Whether or not that Part 3 - Issues - 65 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon decision favors salmon ranching is another questions since no policy of support could ignore other imperatives.) Without a basic policy, decisions are more subject to misunderstandings, individual biases, and perceived community pressures. An example of this was in a recent attempt to define an appropriate prepayment level for private ranchers who want to buy spring chinook eggs from the state. In the past, eggs were ordered. ODFW captured and held the fish at some expense and trouble. Then the order was cancelled and no payment made. The department, concerned with what seemed to be bad faith, defined two responses for consideration in revising their regulations: (1) require a 100% deposit; or (2) require a smaller deposit and a contract that would guarantee later payment. The 100% deposit is a burden on the private growers but very protective of ODFW. The deposit and contract protects the state and is less burdensome to the grower but it does Increase chances for lawsuits, not good for the state. Were the Departmenrs policy to encourage, insofar as consistent with other ODFW responsibilities, private salmon ranching, the choice of regulation would lean to the smallest possible deposit. A neutral or negative policy would lean towards a 100% deposit. This decision is soon to be made and the results will indicate a policy position (pro or con) that may or may not reflect the message the Department wants to send. 3. In seeking financial support, private salmon ranchers have little to point to that demonstrates the state's interest in supporting operations. While history is helpful in demonstrating some degree of stability, it also provides a basis for some to see a pattern of shifting policies and apparent individual and state obstruction. A recent example perceived to illustrate this is found in an action taken by the ODFW Commission on October 14, 1988. On that date the Commission met to consider a "basin plan" proposed for the Coos River Basin. Among other things, this plan proposed that the management of salmon in the basin be focused on hatchery fish, called plan "C". (This was in contrast to management plans that would place a much greater emphasis on protecting naturally spawning salmon in the basin, called Plan "B".) The proposal (including Plan "C") was developed over 18 months by a planning committee designated by ODFW and their findings were supported by ODFW staff. At the October 14th meeting, the proposal (including "C") was introduced and supported by the planning committee, the ODFW staff and the major private salmon rancher in Coos Bay, Anadromous. Anadromous expressed special concern during the planning process for Plan "C" declaring that without it they would abandon their spring chinook program and quite possibly their entire operation. At the October 14th hearing a group that opposed Plan "C" spoke and the ODFW Commission accepted their view and amended the proposal to change Plan"C* to Plan "B". This failure to follow staff and/or advisory committee recommendations on such an Issue was generally viewed as being unusual. The following events grew out of (or were generally perceived to grow out of) that decision: - The Advisory Committee members were typically displeased that their decision growing out of a very public, 18 month effort was overruled on this issue. - Anadromous made the corporate decision to stop spring chinook production. - A stock offering of approximately $5 million intended to allow Oregon Salmon, Inc. to purchase and continue operations of the Ore-Aqua facilities was withdrawn by the underwriters. The justif ication is contained in a statement from the underwriters which said in reference to the Coos Basin decision: Part 3 - Issues - 66 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon wRecent decisions by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission have brought into focus the arbitrary nature of decisions which fundamentally after future prospects for salmon ranching. We feel constrained to have public investors at risk in this business until the governors off ice, the state legislature and the Fish and Wildlife Commission develop a long term framework which would allow salmon ranchers to grow their businesses." A representative of Ore Aqua said, "This Is a major setback for both of us (Ore Aqua and Oregon Salmon, Inc.)" but Indicated that they will continue to operate while moving forwards with sales efforts. - A representative of Oregon Salmon, Inc. said, "We hope the state will recognize the importance of ocean ranching to the economy... At this point the support is not as strong as we think it should be." He also indicated that his firm will seek other financing means If necessary. - ODFW released a statement which quoted a spokesman, w Our action reflected our concern that salmon management in the basin strike a reasonable balance between hatchery and natural production. It was not our intent to unfairly inhibit private operations nor do I believe it will have that effect" The same statement started "Commission Supports Private Salmon Hatcheries - The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission believes privately-owned salmon hatcheries plan an important role in production salmon for public as well as private use ... " -Three coastal legislators announced that they would "attempt to revive a measure that would allow the state to take over Oregon Aqua Foods and other private state hatcheries." This referred to the 1987 legislation that was vetoed by the governor. What we have here 9s a failure to communicate, As this is written, and perhaps in reaction to the displeasure voiced in a number of sectors, the Commission and ODFW staff is working on finding a resolution that might be viewed as being more supportive of private salmon ranching. 4. Within the ODFW staff there is a wide variety of individual views as to whether private ocean ranching is good or bad or something else. These views not withstanding, each believes that what they do reflect the de facto policy of the Department. However without clear direction, they will follow their own bias and as they do they are often uncomfortable. Many of the ODFW staff with responsibility in this area have indicated to us a need for a clear policy. Those who felt that there was no pressing need felt that way because they saw within the detail of regulation, a policy statement. There is a question K ODFW has the authority to express a policy without it being first defined by the legislature. At a minimum they should be able to define policy within the framework of their propagation responsibilities. Aftematively they can ask the legislature for guidance. Proposed Consensus Response to this Issue - A clearly stated, and effectively communicated, ODFW policy defining Its level of support for of the concept of private salmon ranching would Improve the Department's consistency In dealing with Issues and developing regulations. A clearly stated, and effectively communicated, ODFW policy In suopgrt of the concept would Improve private salmon ranching's ability to develop financial support. Acceptance - This proposed consensus is almost universally accepted. Part 3 - Issues - 67 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon S. The Cost of Replacing Production Capacity Background - A point of interest to some has been the cost to replace the production capacity now in place In the private facilities. This is of interest to those who suggest that ocean ranching is appropriately a state function function and that the state should be producing these fish. The first question is "what capacity are we talking about?". For the sake of this discussion we will consider the same production scenarios that we considered in the earlier economic comparisons. (i.e., f rom "Closure" to "Maximum".) However, when we speak of production it will be releases that acheive the same public harvest levels rather than the same release levels. We will assume that the returns to the release shes will be managed to produce a return equal to 2010/0 of the total survival rather than 55%. (This would,of course, require harvest management changes that could have a negitive impact on naturally spawning fish but at this time we will ignore this ooncem.) The next question is how much it would cost to replace this capacity? This can be considered in three ways: 1. Purchase fish. In a recent study for the state of California, it was estimates that the State could buy salmon for $3.04/pound 0 they were available. ("California Hatchery Evaluation Study", The Mayo Associates, April, 1988) We will assume $3.00/pound and 45 gram smolts. (This production cost estimate has been generally validated by several private operators in Oregon. Exact values are not available.) 2. Buy the existing facilities and then operating them. (This was the subject of legislation that was passed in 1987 and then vetoed.) We assume that the total.effective cost is similar to purchasing fish directly. Specific estimates of the initial capital costs are diff icult to define since to do so will require more knowledge of the existing private facilftiy capabiilities than is now available. 3. Build now facilities and then operating them. Here we have the advantage of earlier studies of hatchery capital and operating.costs. ("Washington Salmon Plan", Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., 1976). Based on that study, updated to current price levels, the cost per pound of rearing capacity for a large salmon hatchery of average complexity, is $25 to $40 ($2.50 to $4.00/smolt). The operating cost is on the order of $1.80/pound. We will use the "purchase fish* options in this analysis and assume a $0.30/smoft cost in terms of annual public investment. We believe this is approximately the same as the cost of the "Buy Existing Facility" option and less than the "Build New Facility" option. (See "Economic Contrib. Table 11 in the Appendix for the detailed calculation.) Significance - The primary significance of this issue relates is in the public investment required to produce equal to the various private ocean ranching scenearios. This is illustrated on Figure 26 where it is indicated that the public investment required to equal the *Status Ouo" Scenario is just over $2 million per year with the investment equivalent to the "Expanded" and "Maximum" scenarios is $6.2 and $11.4 million respectively. Part 3 - Issues - 68 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 Annual cost to $6,000,000 - Purchase Smolts $4,000,000 - $2,000,000 - $0 Closure Limited Status Quo Expanded Maximum Figure 26 Annual Public Investment Required for the Purchase and Release of Smolts; to Produce Harvest Levels Equivalent to the Private Ocean Ranching Scenarios Indicated. Proposed Consensus on this Issue - Assuming the assumption made are valid, the public Investment that would be required to replace the contribution of the private ocean ranchers Is currently on the order of $2 million per year. The Investment that would be required to reach harvests equivalent to any of the expanded scenarios Is In excess of $6 million. Acceptance - This proposed consensus is accepted as reserved above. Part 3 - Issues - 69 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Table 3-OPI/Oregon Harvest Cdio Coho Ccho Ccho Ccho C4ho Chinook Total Troll Spo Total Troll Spon Total spo Sport Oow Oman OMM OMM OMM Claw Ocean own Catch Calch Catch Catch Catch Catch Catch Catch Salmon Inside Inside Inside OMm 0mon Onxion Ow-m O1Ww Reore. OPI OPI OPI Coastal, Coastal Coastal Coastal coastal Analer. Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Davs Year 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 11000's Note 1 Note I Cale. Note 2 Note 2 Calog. Note 3 Ca1c. Note 4 1971 2,422 682 3,104 1,490 312 1.80 30 1,832 1972 1,215 634 1.74 825 248 1,073 44 1,117 1973 1,267 422 1.680 796 232 1.02 61 1,089 1974 1.99 637 2,632 1,137 314 1,451 37 1,488 372 1975 1.028 442 1.469 657 252 909 76 985 37 1976 2,796 931 3,727 1,827 601 2,328 79 2.40 396 11177 633 393 1,025 446 195 641 61 702 3116 1978 1,052 Soo 1,551 612 260 872 23 895 396 1979 1,006 319 1.32 715 181 896 21 917 396 1980 483 601 984 383 326 709 19 728 396 11,11, 7119 328 620 200 820 29 849 311 1982 691 272 964 522 175 697 39 736 226 1983 401 261 662 320 147 467 26 492 226 1984 85 176 260 14 123 137_ 17 is 153 1985 132 264 397 841 182 266 56 322 252 1986 578 296 873 440 212 652 22 674 is 1987 430 286 715 355 1771 -532 69 591 255 85-87 380 282 662 293. 190 483 46 529 231 Note 1 - See Coho Balance Master Table I I I Note 2 - Table 1-5 1987 PFMC *Ocean Salmon Fisheries' Note 3 - Table A-10 1987 PFMC "Ocean Salmon Fisheries' Note 4 - Table 1-4 1987 PFMC "Ocean Salmon Fisheries* Part 3 - Issues - 70 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios This part of the assessment is intended to consider the scenarios defined in Part I in terms of the factors which will influence the ultimate choice of scenario These factors include: Public Support ODFW Policy Nature's Impacts Concern for Natural Production Economic Agreements Return on Investment Economic Impact Comparison of Scenarios Comparison of Public Harvest Levels Equivalent Public Investment Individual Initiative Harvest Management A. The Scenarios These are the scenarios defined in Part I which represent our view of the range of possibilities for private salmon ranching in the year 2000. 1. Closure - Of all operations (OAF, Anadromous, Oregon Pacific, Domsea). 2. Limited Operations (based on meeting farming needs) - Chinook: Anadromous, 1.5 million; OAF, 1.5 million; Oregon Pacific, 0.8 million; Total, 3.8 million. Coho: Anadromous, 0.5 rnillion; OAF, 0.5 million; Total, 1.0 million. 3. Status Quo - Chinook: Anadromous, 3.0 million; OAF, 4.0 million; Oregon Pacific, 1.0 million; Total, 8.0 million. Coho: Anadromous, 1.0 million; OAF, 4.0 million; Total, 5.0 million. 4. Expanded Operations - Chinook: Anadromous, 6.0 million; Domsea, 6.0 million; OAF, 6.0 million; Oregon Pacific, 2.0 million; Total, 20.0 million. Coho: Anadrornous, 6.0 million; Domsea; 6.0 million; OAF, 6.0 n-dllion; Total, 18.0 million. 5. Maximum Operations (Assumes full permit operations at all sites) - Chinook: Anadromous, 9.4 million; Domsea, 12.0 million; OAF, 10.6 million; Oregon Pacific, 5.0 million; Total, 37.0 million. Coho: Anadromous, 11.3 million; Domsea; 12.0 million; OAF, 9.5 million; Total, 32.8. million. B. Public Support for Private Salmon Ranching 1. The Questionnaire Perhaps the most important of the factors noted above is public support for private ocean ranching. This in turn is based on their perception of it which in turn depends on how well the various scenarios match those social goals that the public thinks are important. As a basis for testing this match, we prepared the following questionnaire and sent it to the advisory committee for this study, a list of individuals that we had been asked (by OCZMA) to interview and a number of OCZMA board members. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was about 65%. Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 71 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon The Questionnaire was as follows: "From: Ron Mayo To the Advisory Commiftee, Carol Brown, Jay Rassmussen, Interview List, Genetics Experts, Private Salmon Ranchers, Legislators and all. Enclosed is a partial draft of this study discussing the key issues in Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon. We are looking towards you for some type of response as indicated on the attached transmittal but we would appreciate it if you would answer a few specific questions about yourself and your general views. (We don't intend to use individual responses in connection with anyone's name but we would like to be able to understand you perspective and get a little help in deciding what's important to you.) Name - Phone Question #1. How would you characterize your role In Private Salmon Ranching? (Pick the one best description) a. Part of the Ocean Ranching Industry b. Part of the Commercial Fishing Industry c. Part of the Recreational Fishing Industry d. A Sports Fisherman e.A State (or Federal) Fishery Agency Representative f. A State (or Federal) Non-Fishery Agency Representative g. A University Employee h. A Legislator or a Legislative Staff Person i. A Local Government Representative j. An Interested Business Person k. An Interested Private Citizen 1. Other Question 412. How would you characterize your own views relative to ocean ranching? (Pick the response closest to you views.) a. Close all -It is a very bad concept for all concerned and it should be stopped as quickly as possible. b. Significantly Reduced - The risk are so great and the benefits are so small and to so few. Therefore, it is likely that ocean ranching will fail either for economic or scientific reasons and that any continuation should involve a significant tightening of the legislation as it now exist c. At or Below Present - Under very careful control, ocean ranching at or below present levels should be allowed but only under with some tightening of the legislation as it now exist d. At or Above Present - Under reasonable control, ocean ranching at or somewhat above present levels should be allowed within a balanced interpretation of the legislation as it now exist e. Well Above Present - Under some basic control, ocean ranching at well above present levels should be allowed and encouraged within the most liberal interpretation of the legislation as it now exist f. Significant Growth - The risk are so small and the benefits are so great for so many. Therefore, ocean ranching should be allowed significant growth with some liberalization of the legislation g. No Limits - This is a very good concept and there should be no limits on ocean ranching Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 72 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Question #3 We have defined (in Part 3 of the draft) a set of public goals as follows: Natural Production - To protect the natural production of salmon in the coastal rivers - because this production costs little and because this activity supports other social goals including the preservation of these rivers in their natural state. Genetic Integrity - To protect the genetic Integrity of wild salmon populations from further compromise - because these fish may have special value in a number of ways especially in the future health of the salmon resource. Maintain Benefits - To provide at least a continuation of past levels of fishing opportunity to sports and commercial fishermen - because this diversity of types of livelihood and recreation is socially desirable. Expand Benefits - To expand the economic benefits of the coastal salmon resource - because there is a need to Improve the economic base of the coastal communities and the State of Oregon. Consumer Interest - To protect the Interest of the consumer who buys these fish by fair prices and good quality - because the fishery resource should not be developed only to benefit the fishermen or the salmon or the rivers or the private salmon ranchers. Oregon Control - To keep control of the fishery resource with the State of Oregon - because such control is the best device we now know to provide long term protection of the resource. Taxpayer Cost - To minimize cost to the taxpayers - because this is what the taxpayer wants. Privatization - To benefit from the special resources of private Industry - because there are some things they do better than bureaucratic institutions. Investment - To provide Investment opportunities to the citizens - because ours is a free enterprise system. Jobs - To provide jobs whose content Is of Interest to people In Oregon - because to some an interesting job is more important than a high paying job and to support this philosophy in some is socially desirable. Please rate each of these 10 goals from not Important = 0, somewhat Important = 1, Important = 2, or very Important = 3." 2. The Response The response to this questionnaire is as indicated in a series of figures: Figure 27 indicates the mix of those making responses. We made no attempt to achieve any particular balance in the responses except as indicated in the description of the people to whom this questionnaire was sent. However, it would appear that most groups who have been interested in this question are represented in the responses. Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 73 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Interested Business Person Local Goverment Rep. Legislator University Employee State Non-Fishery Agency ODFW Sports Fishermen Recreational Fishing Industry Commercial Fishing Industry Ocean Ranchers 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 27 The Number of Individuals Responding to Questionnaire by Category (Total of 45) Figure 28 indicates the levels of support for Private Salmon Ranching as described in Question #2 above. These categories were not specifically defined as are the scenarios indicated above for several reasons. The most important reason was that the scenarios were focused on releases and public perceptions focus on results. However, we believe that the relationship between the two ranges is approximately as follows: Scenarios Question #2 Closure Close All Limited Operations Significantly Reduced (A little below Status Quo) At or Below Present Status Quo (None)... (A little above Status Quo) At or Above Present Expanded Operation (None)... Maximum Operation Significant Growth (Beyond Maximum Operation of Existing Facilities) No Limits Figure 29 describes levels of support for the various groups that responded. In general, support was a little more than "At or Above Present* (Approaching the "Expanded Operation" Scenario) with the Fishermen as a group being *At or Below" and the private ranchers being at a "Significant Increase". Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 74 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching In Oregon No Limits Significant Growth Well Above Present At or Above Present At or Below Present ONO Significantly Reduced Close All 0 5 10 15 iO 2's 30 35 40 Figure 28 Percentage of Responses Indicating Various Levels of Support for Various Growth For Private Ocean Ranching All (45) Other interview List (24) Advisory Committee(7) OCZMA (11) Others (22) ODFW (5) Fishermen (14) Ocean Ranchers (4) 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Figure 29 Support Level by Group for Private Ocean Ranching (2=Significant Reduction, 3-At or Below Present Level, 4=At or Above Present Level, S=Well Above Present, 6-Significant Increase) Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 75 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Figure 30 relates to Ouestion #3 on Public Goals. The Intent of this Is find out how people feel about those public goals which might be impacted by Private Ocean Ranching. The goals of expanding and maintaining the economic benefits received the highest response followed by protection of natural stocks and providing for genetic integrity. Of least interest was providing investment opportunities and jobs in private hatcheries. Expand benefits Maint.Benefits Nat.Production Genetic Int. Oregon Control Taxpayer Cost Consumer Privatization Jobs Investment 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Figure 30 Relative Importance of Various Goals (0-No Importance, 3-Very Important) As Defined by Respondents; to Questionnaire 3. A Comparison of Scenarios The above responses provide a basis for comparing the scenarios described above. Such a comparison, however, is very much an individual activity. How it might be done by three different, and mostly imaginary individuals is illustrated on Table 4 and Figure 31, On Table 4 we have three people comparing the scenarios. Person #1 would appear to be focused on hatcheries and private enterprise. Person *21s view seems more focused on fishing as an activity with a belief in natural production as a primary source for fish. To each person we have ascribed certain views as to the relative Impact of each scenario on the list of goals and to each goal we have ascribed a weight. (By the way, the weights are actual responses f rom two Individuals. They are compared to the weights defined by the entire group.) For each person we calculated weighted totals of points by multiplying goal values times assigned poinis (with 50 points assigned to each goaQ.. A third person's view (a "Strawman!) Is developed that uses the weights defined by the entire group and the average points defined for Persons #1 & #2. All three of the above point totals are illustrated on Figure 31. it is clear that within this development of comparisons to illustrate what would appear to be a range of public perceptions, we have opened a new area of disagreement. That is, What Is the public view? In fact, there is no one view but many and, at best, we canOnly illustrate a few. However, we feel that, Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 76 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon while a person may be interested In other's views the most important view is their own. For those who want to compare their views with our examples we are providing Table 5 - wThe Readers Ranking" and suggest that each may wish to go through the exercise for themselves. Person #1 M Person #2 [3 Strawman 350- 300- 250- 200- 150- 100- 50 Closure Limited Status 0jo Expanded Maximum Figure 31 The Weighted Rankings of Various Scenarios as Defined by Imaginary Individuals of Various Perception.s. This is based on the choices made on Table 4. (Higher point totals favor scenario) 4. Summary on Public Support What we have learned from this is: a. It would appear (through Question #2) that there is general support for some expansion of Private Salmon Ranching and that views are related to each individuals role. Few are willing to take extreme positions. b. That there is a diversity in views as to what goals may be best served by private salmon ranching but that economic benefits to the community rank above the rest. c. That quantification of goals as related to scenarios can provide Insights and could be viewed as supporting the conclusion suggested in (a) above, that there Is support for ocean ranching and for some expansion. d. That each Individual may wish to quantify their own views. While we do not pretend that this analysis of public support is definitive, we have found it interesting that one one has suggested that the conclusion is flawed. Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 77 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Table 4 - Scenario Ranking Per son 01 General This Voted Person's Category Cat g2!y Points Points Points Points Points Weight Weia Closure Limited Status Quo Dwanded Maximum Investment .15, 3.001 5 5 a 15 17. Jobs 1.52 2.00 5 7 10 14 14 Privatization 1.70 3.00 2 6 a 14 21 Consumer 1.76 3.00 i 7 10 12 15 Taxpayer Cost 1.84 3.00 8 a 10 12 12 OreQon Control 1.91 2.00 Is 12 10 8 5 Genetic Int. 2.08 1.00 20 is 10 3 2 Nat.Production 2.44 1.00 13 12 10 8 7 Maint.Benefits 2.53 2.00 4 7 13 13 13 Expand benefits 2.69 3.00 0 4 7 14 25 Weighted Points 144 166 215 282 343 Person #2 Closure Limited Status Ouo Expanded Maximum Investment 1.15 0.00 7 6 9 14 14 Jobs 1.52 0.00 7 8 1 1 13 1 1 Privatization 1.70 1.00 4 6 9 13 is Consumer 1.76 1.00 8 a 1 1 11 12 Taxpayer Cost 1.84 1.00 10 9 11 11 9 Orewn Control 1.91 3.00 17 13 1 1 7 2 Genetic Int. 2.08 3.00 21 16 11 2 0 Nat.Production 2.44 3.00 14 13 10 7 6 Maint.Benefits 2.53 2.00 6 a 14 12 10 Expand benefits 2.69 3.00 2 5 8 13 2 2 Weighted Points 196 180 179 146 149 Strawman Closure Limited Status Quo Expanded Maximum Investment 1.15 1.15 6.0 5.5 8.6 14.6 15.5 Jobs 1.52 1.52 6.0 7.5 10.5 13.5 12.5 Privatization 1.70 1.70 3.0 5.5 8.5 13.5 19.5 Consumer 1.76 1.76 7.0 7.5 10.5 11.51 13.5 Taxpayer Cost 1.84 1.84 9.0 8.5 10.5 11.6 10.5 Oreoon Control 1.91 1.91 16.0 12.5 10.5 7.5 3.5 Genetic Int. 2.08 2.08 20.5 15.5 10.5 2.5 1.0 Nat.Production 2.44 2.44 13.5 12.5 10.0 7.5 6.5 Maint.Benefits 2.53 2.53 5.0 7.5 13.5 12.5 11.5 Expand benefits 2.69 2.69 1.0 4.5 7.5 13.5 23.5 Weiahted Points, 171 174 199 207 230 Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 78 Table S-The Reader's Ranking 0 (D K L M 0 A B C D E F G H The The Reader 91 Generall The The The The Voted Readers Readers Readers Readers Readers > i Points* Columns Points* Columns Cata Points* Columns Points* Columns Points* Columns CXL w I Quo CxH C x J Maximum Wei ht Weight Closure CxD Limited C x F Status 0 IUD, I? U) Investment 1.15 al Jobs 1.52. Privatization 1.70 0 Consumer 1.76 axpayer Cost 1.84 Oreglon Control 1.91 _Iw Genetic Int. 2.08 (D Nat.Production 2.441 ca Maint.13enefits 2.531 -Expand benefiftts 2.691 Weighted Points Tte The Reader 02 General The The The The Readers 0 Voled Readers Readers Readers Readers Columns 7 Catago Catagory Points* Columns Points' Columns Points. Columns Points* Cokxnns Points cs Weigh -Weight Closure CxD Limited C x F Stews Quo CxH Exparded c x J Maximum CxL 57 0 CD Investment 1.15 [email protected] 0 Jobs 1.52 Privatization 1.70 nsurner .- 1.76 Taxpayer Cost 1.84 Oregon control 1.91 Geneti,' Int. 2.08 .t!a_t.Producfion 2.44 Maint-Benefits. 2.53 Expa I benefits 2.69 Weiqht ed Pointsl FOR EACH CATAGORy poINTS SHOULD ADD UP TO 50 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon C. ODFW Policy As we have seen, ODFW has little in the way of formal policy supporting private Salmon Ranching. However, that does not mean that their policies will not impact the which scenario the future will bring. It would appear to us that ODFW actions that would effectively favor private salmon ranching's expansion are: 1. A policy statement, supported by actions, defining ODFWs long term support of private salmon ranching as a concept. 2. The development of a "Propagation and Harvest" program that would effectively integrate private ocean ranching and the state's programs. Such a program might include: a. Management, and other, trade-offs for production level guarantees from the private salmon ranchers. b. A policy that quantifies acceptable straying at levels that are realistic both as percentages and as total numbers. c. Long-term release approval commitments from the state so as to avoid annual renegotiations. d. Research programs providing a balan.,ed evaluation of problems common to state and private facilities such as stock selection, straying, survival rates, and genetic impacts. e. Research into the decline of coastal rivers in salmon production. 3. An increased sensitivity, by ODFW, of the impacts of their regulatory actions on the industry, especially as typified by the Coos Basin Plan decision. To define the above policies that would support private salmon ranching is riot to favor ft. ft is simply to say that if the state does these things it will improve the chances of expansion. If they don't ft will improve the chances of the full closure scenario. D. Nature's Impacts At the end of Part 1, we put forth this verse: The moon sinks from sioht The old dog's barking vlops A night's job done. ft describes a basic condition of salmon ranching of any kind, which is that man can project and postulate and do many things to direct success but in the end nature will decide what each season will bring. This is best illustrated by looking at Figure 15 which shows adult survival rates that vary from less than 1% to more than 6%. When taken with the way, that the Private/Public harvest of private fish has varied (340/6 to 78%), a factor influenced both by man and nature, very large variations in what might come back up the ladder are easily visualized. These impacts have been a serious factor in the growth of private salmon ranching in the past and they will be important in the choice of scenarios for the future. Responses to Nature's Impacts that would favor expanded private salmon ranching would be: 1. A better understanding of the factors, especially upwelling conditions, that can improve adult survival for private salmon as compared to natural salmon in any given year. An example of this is discussed in Part 1: Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 80 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon *1988 - Due to a series of natural events (f loods and a late upwelling condition) the runs of naturally spawning salmon, especially pink and chum salmon in southeastern Alaska and Prince Wiliam Sound, are at vary low levels. Most harvest activities are based on private non-profit (PNP) hatcheries with PNP harvest well in excess of 10 million fish." The explanation put forth by the director of the FRED Division of the Alaska Fish and Game Department was the the PNP's monitored the upwelling conditions and held back their releases by 3-4 weeks when compared to the natural runs. In other word, the PNP`s were able overcome nature's actions and provide a fishery In the face of general failure. 2. Better harvest management to reduce the variation In Private/Public harvest levels that occur in part because of varying distribution of stcicks. 3. A willingness of investors to provide economic support to private salmon ranching in poor years and to establish reserves in good years. 4. A willingness of private ranchers to diversify, as some are now doing. To define the above responses that would support private salmon ranching is not to favor ft. It is simply to say that if these things are done they will improve the chances of expansion. If they aren't it will improve the chances of the full closure scenario. E. Concern for Natural Production This issue is frequently at the heart of disagreements over private salmon ranching both in terms of genetic impacts and straying impacts. In terms of the genetic issue, we can say little more than was said in the discussion of that issue. ft is hard to quantify and hard to find agreement. However, the genetic impacts of normal harvest management decisions are probably greater than impacts associated with hatchery releases at levels discussed here. Thus if we were to focus primarily on this issue ft would seem that we should close private hatcheries, public hatcheries and eliminate fishing, with commercial fishing being the first to go. We certainly do no propose such steps but use this as a way to suggest that the issue is common to all of man's actions, not just private ocean ranching. In any case, and as reserved above, genetic impact corH,.ems would tend to rTitigate towards less private salmon ranching. The straying impacts on natural production would appear to be better suited to quantification. InPart 3 a series of criteria were assumed for "Maximum Impact" straying losses. These included the assumption of 4% "In-system" and 1%"Out-System" stra,ong, a loss of 50 to 75 spawners for every 100 strays and the loss of one fish caught for each spawner loss. The impact of these losses on the harvest for the various scenarios is illustrated on Figure 25. Under the "Maximum" scenario the total harvest is estimated to be about 1,500,000 fish (coho and chinook) and the stray losses are 38,000 fish (See boxes G73 and G74 in the "Econornic Contribution Table" in the Appendix.). Under the "Closure" scenario the total harvest (with no stray losses) is 800,000 fish. Thus, Of the assumpleons are valid, the impact of stray losses is off set by about 20 to 1 by private hatchery production. On this basis, this concern would tend to mitigate towards more private salmon ranching. F. Economic Agreements In Part 3 various statelprivate economic agreements are discussed that could improve the chances for the expansion of private salmon ranching. These include., elements of the "Fair Rent" concept and the Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 81 Z8 - SOUeUWS 10 801040 84-L - Jr Pod sweas opeueos einsolo. eqj jo amp a4j'pupI ui pooeldej jou ajo A941 p IAIPUI pue uoseaj Aue jo; sliol4a iia4i din GA16 POAIOAUI MOU slenp -* mal eqj R -6uipuedxe Alqeaollou jou we sjGqwnu aso4m slenpiAipui mal AIOAIIBIGJ 8 10 GAI !I!Ul 841 pue Iseielu! 041 uo paseq sl Ajjsnpul lueseid a4l, le4l puelsispun ol juvoodwl ejow s! jI'JqAGmOH siaqwnu j!941 Aq peepjejen6 jou Apealo s! IMAM j!eql 't4ons se 'pue suug jo jeqwnu liews e si si4.L ."LIOU913 UOUJIBS 34PLId uo6ejo pue'spoo_A-enbV uo6ejo 'snotuojpeuV 'suollejaclo lie quelsqns a9i4l. Aluo jo ls!suoo wei6oid ftpuej umo aleAud uo6ejo 941'alets e4t til seenjulied atil, jo Isw 941 ot 1pajo anp Ile qj!AA. :Ajlsnpul siql jo juaixe juesaid a4l ol aouejejej UI'P!eS Om'IuOwssGSSLI SM 10 L lied ul 9AIjVljIUl lonPIAIPUI ')I .6ulqouL,j UOwles SleAud ajoLu spiemol ale6ilp ol pual pilnom sopeueos 6uipuedxe eqj jo joeckul 941 jo aleos 94.L -sopeueos snOUeA 841 JOI IS8AJB4 Ilail puepods o!lqnd jo uosuedwoo B sajoiIsnIl!'c lied u! Sa qjn6!-A SJOAO-1 lseAjeH ollqnd jo uospedwoo *r -6U1tjOUeJ UOLUICS GIL'Aud ejotu spiemol ale6ilp ol pual plnom 6uiqouej uesoo aleApd ui peiinbeiJUGWISGAU1 oilqnd liews eqj ol poiedwoo se uoilonpoid 10 SIOAGI jaq6i4 jol paimbeiSJUMISOAMoilcInd q6iq 94.L *sopeueos 6uipuej ueeoo [email protected] at4i jo snOUeA JUOW -GAUloilqnd 941 seleiisnij!'C Ved u! 9Z ain6! 01 JUOIBAinba se!llluLnb uiLISIJ GP!Aoid ol paiinbei is . . j JUSLUISGAU1 ollqnd IUGIBAlnb3 'I '6UI40UBJ UOLUIeS OIBAud ajow spiemol, aje6ijp ol pual pInom sopeueos 6uipuLdxa aqj jo joedwl opouwa aAillsod atI.L *spedLul otwoume jo uospedwoo L, scilLjlsnll! -C )Jed ul va ain6!.i solieueos ;o uosliedwoo 01WOU003 041 'H -11 ealuejen6 jou op Ae4j 'JGAGmOH ,6uiqouej ueaoo jo uo!suedxa spiemol. 9je6!jIw osle swntai opoume poo6 pue Msu jo uoijonpai e spiemolale6g1w 4o!4m suoi1puc)o *si4j sl Aes ueo am IIV *)Isu jo apnl!u6ew eqj jo [email protected] jo; leilualod Sqj UO luawadpnf ssed ol ju G*wssessB*s!ql IpuoAeq AliBalo oslei SI 11 'JOAGMOH -OpoU83S o 10 UOIJOGIGS 0141 ul sioloel APEGIO We GS94_L -6U140UBJ UOLUILIS BILApd jo Msp ssou!snq lawou eqj pue !1. ev Al iq goid 041 jo uo!isanb 941 sl juawssesse s!41 til eja4mesle passnosip senssi 941 jo Auew woij ejejeclaS silsiti jo uoltdo*JOd 941 PUB IUOLUISOAUI uo ujnj9&j !) I -inissawns jou siam eeiv S!qj Ul 'JOAGM04 SjJOgG JUGOGEI 'MO!Awiel 6uol e 9)lel pinoo sj84OUBJ GIBAUd 9qj pue ejels eqj 41oq p pue palUes aq pinoo sieUiew Aoilod p lelluelod ejotu 9Av4 swLj6ojd iia4i jo lied se eseelei jol 4s1j ;o ase4oind emis 941 so 4ons 6u!4ouvjUOUJIBS GIRApd pleuaq Aew re4i *Sjuawasift DIWOU008 J0410 wil8joacixe ptioAoq sjB9A a L ixou 941 ul uopezileei ile4l 93jew ot so juawa6eum saoinosai Aia4sg joSIGAGI Ile ILI SUOI oi cJLul 4ons GAB4 IB41 PUB jejuaLuBptjr4 .18 .1 os sie let4i Aoilod oilqrid ul se6uetp ejlnbei illm idemoodItIsieumo llnj/[email protected] 99j:I. 94.L -9je sjeqwnu. Glepdoidde 941 je4m 6uiu!lep jo A4n,.)i,4!p e4l jo asneoeq elq!ssodwl pug illm Auew le4i uoi esuedwoo pue sanleA ISOMBLIogloods jo uoi ope eiinbei 111m idemoo.juebi ilej. 941 " I. .1 .1d :je4j U! 6Ul43tJeJ UOUJIVS GIBApd jol opeueos e jo uopeles a4l. ol, eoueoglu6is leoijoeid eAi?4 jou Aew ase4i *jdaouoo.dj4sjGumO l1ni/impeyl asi-q. U060JO Ul 6U!43UeU IUOLUIBS GILAud 10 luGwssBssV uV An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Why Individuals might choose to stay involved or get invohied varies greatly. While the profit motive may be part of it, it is seldom, In our opinion, a major factor. If it were, there would be no one left. L. Harvest Management The way that ODFW manages the harvest is of continuing concern by all involved in this question and it has been stated that somehow the private ocean ranching is making the problem worse. We have seen little evidence that this Is the case though we have heard considerable apprehension of what might happen in the future. In many ways it would appear that this is an issue that is neutral on the question of "Less" versus "More" In private ocean ranching. On one hand Is apprehension over future actions and on the other is more fish available for harvest under certain management scenarios. M. The Prescriptive Solutions When this study was undertaken, an aspect of the work was defined filled "prescriptive solutions". This was to be where actions would be defined that would lead to the desired results. The problem is that this assessment does not define "desired results". it can't. "Desired results" have varied in the past and will in the future. Each group and individual must chose their own. When that choice is made the prescriptive solutions that will support them are easier to define. We will suggest here what they might be for some of the cliffererill desired results: 1. Expansion - For those who feel, after all has been said, that they would like to see private salmon ranching grow they should encourage these actions by the state and ODFW: 1. Promulgate a policy statement, supported by actions, defining ODFWs long term support of private salmon ranching as a concept. 2. Develop of a "Propagation and Harvest" program that would effectively integrate private ocean ranching and the state's pmgrams. Such a, program might include: a. Management, and other, trade-offs for production level guarantees from the private salmon ranchers. b. A policy that quantifies acceptable straying at levels that are realistic both as percentages and as total numbers. c. Long term release approval commitments from the state so as to avoid annual renegotiations. d. Research programs providing a balanced evaluation of problems common to slate and private facilities such as stock selection, straying, survival rates, and genetic impacts. e. Research into the decline of coastal rivers in salmon production. 3. Develop an increased sensitivity to the impacts of their regulatory actions on the industry, especially as typified by the Coos Basin Plan decision. 4. Focus resources on improved harvest management consistency. The ranchers should: 1. Stabilize their programs. 2. Improve their communications with the community and ODFW. Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 83 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon The coastal communities should, N this Is the case, express support for private salmon ranching and the companies and individuals involved to ODFW and the legislature. The fishermen should, H this is the case, express support or private salmon ranching as noted above and be willing to discuss mutually beneficial changes even where they appear to change traditions. 2. Closure - For those who feel, after all has been said, that they would like to see private salmon ranching fail they should encourage these actions: The passage of increasingly restrictive legislation targeted on ocean ranching. The conduct of high visibility public protest against private ocean ranching. The publication and wide distribution of critical scientific publications. 3. Status Quo - Those who feel that they would like to see private salmon ranching maintain its status quo also must do something. At first glance it seems that the answer is for the community to go on doing what it has, which for many is nothing. However, after some consideration, we believe that to maintain the present level of operation it is not enough to do nothing. Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon would appear to be on the decline. This has been brought about by a variety of factors, natural and manmade and while hope is still there for those who support the concept the signs are discouraging. Releases are declining and stated company policies are to move into areas that require smaller releases. To reverse the decline, and perhaps even to maintain the status quo will require many of the same steps as suggested above for the expansion option. N. The Choice of Scenarios & The Assessment We have made no choice of scenarios. Where private cx,,ean ranching goes in the future depends on what scenario people want to support and then on how willing they are to support that choice with action. However, we would like to summarize our assessment of where ocean ranching is today in the State of Oregon. We have heard it said that over $80 million dollars has been invested in private ocean ranching in Oregon in the last 15 years and we do not doubt the estimates. As a result there have been a number of technical successes and much has been learned. More important, as a result of these investments, there is significant public support for private ocean ranching from those who believe it is, on balance, good for the state and especially good for the coastal communities. This is supported by most of the issues and factors considered in this assessment. Even the detractors, taken as a group, are probably mon) supportive than they were in the past and there are few that are informed on the issues that will seriously propose that all pdvate ocean ranching operations be closed as a matter of public policy. Yet closure is well within the realm of possibility. it can I* argued, though riot yet proven, that the basic economics make this inevitable but there is little question that improved state support is a factor In the balance between continuation or failure. The form that this support might take is suggested above in simplistic terms in the discussion of "ODFW Policy" in Part 4 but, unfortunately, this is riot a.,;imple, one-shot, solution that can or will be imposed by ODFW. Survival of private ocean ranching in Oregon also requires an improved level of support, effectively demonstrated, from legislators, the governor, businesses, local officials, private citizens, and anyone else who wants it to continue. Even with such support, survival may not be possible but for them to let failure occur without trying would be irresponsible. Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 84 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon This is not to say that the private ocean ranchers have always performed in ways that invite support. Early expectations, still unfulf illed, continue to be put forth by a few as certainties. Public criticism of ODFW fish propagation operations, growing out of cornpetitive instincts rather that reasonable expectations, has created unnecessary antagonism that does not contribute to support in other areas. Perhaps more attention should be paid to inviting support and less to forcing it. We must also recognize that the arguments, pro and con, over ocean ranching have fallen into the hands of only a few individuals, the insiders. The have become so acquainted with the issues and so articulate in defending their long held positions that others, the outsiders, are shut out of the discussion. We hope that this assessment will help the outsiders take part In the decisions to be made for ocean ranching and to do so on an informed basis. Part 4 - The Choice of Scenarios - 85 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Appendix The following four tables provide statistical background for various parts of the text. They are: 1. Coho Balance Master - Which summarized state and private return and released data and derives various factors. Typically the data are directly from ODFW sources. Other values are calculated generally using the same "Harvest Rate" methods as typically used by 0DFW in their distribution calculations. The separation of the catch contribution values for the public coaslal hatcheries Is based on the general harvest rate values applied to the combined hatchery return and the estimates for in-stream harvest of public hatchery fish. The in-stream harvest values are generally total in-stream harvest less lake and stream values. Some adjustments for reported terminal harvest of private coho are included. 2. Economic Contribution Table - Is a summary of the economic contributions of the various scenarios for private salmon ranching development. 3. Economic Contrib. Table 11 - Is a calculation of the investments required to equal the public contributions of the various scenarios for private salmon ranching development. 4.Planting Master - Is a summary of the private hatchery planting data. 5. Returns Master - Is a summary of returns to the hatcheries. Appendix - 1 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Coho Bailance Master P A B C D I E IF 1 0, H I I i K L I All Ore 3on Smolt Sources: coastal Return% 2 Private Troll SDort Total Spawned Catch OPI 3 Oosart Oom Ocean Owan Columbia Coastal or Used Ratio Catch+ 4 Catch Catch Catch Catch Escaw Escape- Coastal for % Escap.) s Smolts Outside Inside Inside Inside Inent ment Fresh- Oman. (Harvestl Div. by G Enterina OPI OPI OPI OPI +Fllver to. water Ranching OPI Harv. last 7 009M. Area Area Area Area Catch River Catch Harvest +Escape- ;ears e IYear millions 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's ment) release 9_1 Note 1 Note 2 Note 2 Note 3 Note 2 Note 4 Note 5 Note 6 Note 7 1 0 11969 1 1-11970 1 394 475 1.869. $72 330 40 290 61 VA 12 11971 682 3,104 $24 378, 24 354 77-4 13 11972 1 1 215 53i4 1.749 269 1581 17 141 80-4 1-4 11973 1 1,257 422 1.680-284 205 15 189 77-4 1 5 11974 1 1.995 637 2.632 453 183 14 169 a I VA 1 6 11975 1 1.028 442 1.469 292 178 14! 165 7 6 yj 17 11976 1 2.796 931 3.727. 326 225 20 205 87 18 11977 1 0 633 393 1.0251 87 93 14 so 65-4 19 11978 1 4 1.052 500 -1,551-297 102 5 97 a 0 .4 20 1979 25 1.006 319 1,325 264 250 2 249 7 2 YJ 21 1980 9 483 501 984 285 181 6 175 Go 22 1981 34 789 328 1.11 162 229 10 219 74 23 1982 23 691 272 964 436 354 Is 339 5 5 Vj 24 1983 107 401 261, 662 97 212 7 205 6 8 [email protected] 25 11984 is as 176 260 405 374 17 357 2 5 -/J 2611985 29 132 264 397 352 570, Is 554 3 0 Wj 27 11986 36 578 296 873 1514 732 38 694 2 a -/J 26 11987 11 430 286 715 267 251 15 237 58% 29 185-671 25 380. 282 662. 711 518 23 495 39% 30 1 Private Ranched Salmon 3 1 1 1 Note 8 Note 1 Note 9 Note 10 Note 1 Note 11 Note 12 Note 13 Note 7 Note 14 3-2-11969 1 .0 3 3 11970 1 .0 34 11971 1 .0 3 5 1972 .0. 36 1973 .01 37 1974 .1 38 1975 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 39 1976 2.1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.00% 40 .1977 2.4 0 5 3 8. 4 0 4 66% 0.59% 4 1 ji978 9.9 4 15 7 22 12 0 12 64% 1.41% 42 11979 1 5.8 25 31 10 40 49 0 49 45% 0.91% 43 1980 1 14.8 9 22 23 44 39 0 39 53% 1.43% 44 1981 23.9 34 102 42 145 lie 1 118, 55W 1.78% 45 1982 23.1 23 as 35 122 186 1 185 40.4 1.29% 46 1983 16.1 107 82. 53 135. 135 1 134 50-yj 1.17% 47 1984 10.9 18 3 7 10 117 2 115- 8-4 0.79% 48 1985 8.6 29 21 42 63 339 7 332 16-4 3.69% 49 1986 8.7 36 63 32 95 472, Is, 454 17 6 59% so 1987 4.6 11 102 68 170 1241 51 119 58 3!38% 51 85-871 7.3 25 62 47, _109 3121 101 302, -30-/4 4.55% 2 3 4 394 P422 215 1. _ 257 1 9 Appendix - 2 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Coho Balance Master A 1 0 C 0 1 E IF I G1 H I A K L 5 2 All Ex DI Private Hatcheries Return% 53 Troll Sport Total $pawned Catch OPI 54 Cow 0ow 0ow Columbia Coastal or Used Ratio Catch+ 55 Catch Catch Catch Esc=e- E coastal for % Escap.) _56 smolis Inside. Inside Inside. iinent meng Fresh- 0owl (Harvest) Div. by 17 Enterino ON OPI oPI1 +Fliver tol water Ranchhol OPI Harv. last so 008an Area Area Area C atch River Catch Harvest +Escape- years 59 IYear I million 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's ment) release) -60 1 1 Note 9 Note 10 Note 15 Note 2 Note IS Note 15 Note 15 Note 7 61 11969 1 1 6211970 1,394 4751 1.869 872 330 40 290 61-4 43 11971 2,422 682 3.104 524 378. 24 354. 7 7 YJ 64 11972 1 215 534 1.749 269 ISO 17 141 eovj 65 11973 1:257 422 1.68 284 205 15 189 7 7 &A 66 1974 1.995 637 2.632 453 183 14 169 8 1 *A 67 1975 1.028 442 1,469 292 178 14 165 7 6 *A 68 1976 2,796. 931 3,727. 326 225 20 205 8 7 *A 69 1977 628 389 1,017_ 87 89. 13 76. 850/4 70 1978 1.037 493 1'530 - 297 89 4 85 80% 71 11979 976 309 1.285 264 201 1 200 73% 72 11980 461 479 940 285 142 6 136 69% 73 11981 687 285 972 162 110 9 101 78-4 74 11982 604. 238 841. 436 168 14. 154-- -58-4 75 11983 319 207 527 97 76 5 71 75-4 76 1984 at 169 250 405 257 16 241 27% 77 1985 111 222 333 352 231 9 222 36% 78 1986 515 264 778 1,514 260 20 240 30% 79 1987 328 218 545 267 127 10 117 58% 80 85-871 1 318 2351 552 711 206 13. 193 42% 81 Public Hatcheries 82 Note 16 Note 9 Note 10 Note 17 Note 11 Note 18 Note 19 Note 20 Note 14 83 11969 1 3.4 84 11970 1 3.4 77 26 104 67 26 41 61% 5.02% 85 11971 1 4.1 122 34 1571 46 16 30 77% 5.96% 86 11972 3.8 69 30 100 24 11 13 80% 3.02% 87 1973 3.9 9S 32 127 37 10 27 77% 4.32% 88 1974 4.1 141 45 ISO 45 9 36 81% 5.92%. so 1975 3.4 32 14 46 Is 9 6 76% 1.47% go 1976 4.0 284 94 378 56 13 43 67% 12.77% 91 1977 3.2 60 37 96 17. 9 8 85% 2.83% -92 .1978 4.01 30 14 44 111 3 a 80-Q 11.73;@ 93 11979 4.5 56 18 74 271 1 26 73VJ 2.52% 94 1980 3.4 30 31 61 28 2 26 69.4 1.98% 95 1981 3.9 75 31. 107 30 6 24 78-4 4.01% 96 1982 4.3 33 13 46 33 101 23 58%J 2.01% 97 1983 3.0 28 18 48 15 4 11 75-4 1.42% 98 1984 4.5, 5 11 is 43 9 34 27Y4 1.98% 99 .1985 3.8 a 13 19 34 4 30 36*4 1.18% 100 1986 4.8 19, 10 28 64 15 49 30VA 2.44% 101 1987 4.9 351 231 58 42 5 37 58-4 i.10% 102 85-87 4.5 20 151 351 471 81 39 42V4 1.91% Appendix - 3 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Coho Balance Master I A I a I C D I E IF 43 M I i K L 10 3 1 Coastal Natural Streams Sh eks I 104 Troll 1BEELs Total Catch 1051 Clow Oman Coasta or U Ratio 1061 Catch Catch Catch EIM Coastal for % 107 Inside Inside, InsWel inen. Fresh- 009M. (Harvest) 1081 ON Opt to water Ranchina OPI Harv. 109 Areal Areal Area River Catch Harvest +Escape- I 10 Year 1000's 1000-61 1000.8 1000's 1000's 1000's ment III Note 9 Note 101 Note 17 Note 11 Note 21 Note 22 Note 20 112 1969 1 113 1970 280 95 375 241 13 229. 61.4 114.1971 807 227 1,034 301 7 293 77VA 11511972 347 152 500 12 5 117 so-A 11611973 382 128 slo 148 5 144 77-4 1 1 711974 410 131 541 131 4 126 81.4 11811975 343. 147 490. 157 4 153 76 119 1976 829 2761 105 163 a 157 87-4 120 1977 233 145 378 65 4 el 85-4 12111978 197 94 291 74 1 72 sovj 122 1979 351 ill 462 167 0 167 73-4 123 1980 116 121 237 108 4 104 69.4 124 1981 1851 77 261 73 3 71 78-4 125 1982 128 50 178 128 3 125 58 126 1983 104 so 172 57 1 56 75-4 127.1984 24 51 75 199 5 194 27-4 12811985 3 71 107 Is$ 4 183 36-4 12911986 53 27 80. 163 4 179 30% 130 1987 65. 44 1091 79 4 74 58% 131 85-87 sil 47 99-- 15 4 146, 42% 132 Coastal Natural Lake Stocks 133 Note 9 Note 10 Note 17 Note 11 Note 23 Nola 24 Note 20 134 1969 -135 1970 2 9. 34 22 1 21 61-4 1 3-611971 as 24 1091 32 1 31 77-4 1-3711972 321 14 471 11 1 11 80.4 13-811973 Sol 17 67 19 1 19 77-4 1-3911974 23 -i 30 7 0 7 81.4 140 1975 Is 5 21 7 11 6 76% 14111976 28 9 37 6 0 5 e7% 1 11977 42 25 Is 41 7 0 7 85% 143 1978 13 6 1 5 0 5 80% 14411979 14. 5 19- 7 0 7 73% 145 1980 7 8 Is 7, 0 7 [email protected] 1981 is 8 26 7 1 7 78V 146 4 147 1982 a 3 11 a 0 7 58-4 148 1983 9 6 14 5 75-4 149 1984 2 4 a 1 2, 14 27VJ 150 1985 2. 4 5- 10 ol 9 36 VJ 15111986 4 2 0 12 30-4 ll 5 2L1 987 5 3 8 0 6 [email protected] 11 5 3185-671 1 3 3. 6 0 42VA Appendix - 4 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Coho Salience Mastor A I a c D I E IF a N I i K L 13 4 Coastal Natural S, Coastal Public Hat m 155 Private Troll Sports Total Catch 156 Clow oom Oceark Oaw Columbia Coastal or Used Ratio 157 Catch Catch Catch Catch Escmw E Coastal for % 158. Smolls Outside Inside Inside InsWel nment monq Fresh- Ocean- (Harvest) 1591 Enterina OPI OPI OPI +River to water Ranchirta OPI Harv. loci 0ow Area Areal Area Area Catch River Catch Harvest +Escape- 16 1 ]Year millions 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000's Mont) 1621 Note 25 Note 25 Note 25 Note 11 Note 25 Note 25 Note 7 16311969 16411970 382 130 513 330 40 290. 61-4 16511971 1.015 285 1,300 378 24 354 771d 16611972 449 197 646 Ise 17 141 80-4 167 1973 527 177 703 205 15 189 77YA 168 1974 574 183 757 ISM 14 169 81-4 169 1975 389 167 557 178 14 165 76-4 170 1976 1.140 380, 1.520 225 20 205 87-4 171 1977 318 197 515 so 13 76 8 5 VJ 172.1978 240 114 354 89 4 85 80% 1 11979 33 555 1 73 422 1 201 200 7 3 *A 17411980 154 160 313 142. a 136 6 9 OA 1 7511981 278 115 393 110 9 101 7 8 0% 17611982 168 as 234 168 14 154 58% -17711983 1 141 91 232 76 5 71 75% 17811984 32 65 97 257 18 241 27% 17911985 44 as 132. 231 9 222 36% 18011986 75 39 114 2601 20 240 30% 18111987 106 70 176 127 10 117 58% 182 85-87 75 66 141 206 13- 193 42% 18 3 Columbia River 184 Note 26 Note 26 Note 26 Note 26 185 1969 1 1 186 1970 1.012 34 1.356_872 187.1971 1,408 396 1.804 524 1 1972 766 336 1 103 269 189 1973 731 245 976 284 190 1974 1,422 454 1.875, 453 1 191 1975 638 274 913 292 192 1976 1.656 551 2,207 326 193 1977 310 192 503 87 19 4,1978 797 379 1, 176 2 9 7 19511979 554 175 730 264 19611980 307. 319 627 285 19711981 409 170 579 162 19811982 436 171 607 436 19911983 1 178 lie 294 97 200 1984 50 103 153 405 201 1985 67 134, 201, 202 1986 439 2251 6641 1514 203 1987 [email protected] 370 - 267 204 85-87 .0 0 24 1691 4112_ 711 01 01 of 0 345 39 6 @3 3 6 245 454 274 Appendix - 5 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon C~oho Balance Master A ~q9 1 C I ~qD I E I F I H I K 205 + I I I I I 2 ~q0 6 Note I -Table 1~. 'Fishery Contribution of C~oho Salmon R~el~easod from O~r~eg Coastal Private ~Hat~ch~e~r~1~qw~, 2 0 ~q7 Steve Jacobs, Fish Division, ~4qQDFW~, may, ~i~9~qe~qs. - - 1 ~q-T- o~6qF 1 ~q1 2 ~0 8 Note 2-Table 1~1~1-~q5~, *Review of 1~q987 Ocean Salmon F~ish~erl~e~s'~. Pacific Fishery Manaae~m~tnt Council, Febr ~jar~y. 198~8. 2 0 ~q9. Note 3~-Tot~a~ql Of Sport and Troll Catch. (Columns ~qD~q6E~q) I ~q21~q0~qINo~t~e 4-Columns ~qI~&J. I I I I 2 11~q1 Nola 5~-Column T~. 'Updated OPI Area Historical ~qCoho Data ~qB~a~s~e~"~, Dan Bo~qd~enm~qil~ql~er~, ~8q0~qD~qFW~, July 12~, 19~q68. 1 2~qINo~l~e ~q6~-Total of Private Ranch~ed Salmon ~is~qi Publ~qi~qk~e Hatc~qh~e ~. Coastal Natural Stream S and 2131 Coastal Natural Lake Stocks. I I 2 14 1 Note 7-C~olumn F divided by Columns F G & H. ~q:~6qH ~qS~qINo~t~e ~qS-S~e~e Planting Master Table. ~q1 2 ~161 Note 9-Column F-Column E. I I 2 171 Note 10~-(Total Sport Calch~/Total Catch (a~ql~ql sources)) x Column F. 2 181 Note 11-Columns ~ql~+~qJ I I 1 ~q1 2 1 9INot~e 12~-See Table 2-R~e~turns I I I ~qi ~qi 2 2 ~0~qINo~te ~13~-Column AB~, *Updated OPI Area Historical Coho Data Bass'. Don Bodenm~iller ODFW July 12. ~1 ~8. 2 2 1 ~qINot~e 14~-This year's Columns J~, 1, & IF divided by last loses releases (Column 8~q) 2 2 2~q1No~t~e 15~-~qTo~lal less Private Hatcheries L I I I 2 2 3 1 Note I ~6~-U~0qoate (provided by Harry Wagner, ODFW) of Table ~q5 of the ~'C~oho Salmon Plan Status R~e~qWr 2241 dated, ~qF~eb.11, 198 by ODFW. 225~qINot~e ~17~- (Col. H/~q0 -Co~ql.K~q)~q)-Col. H) 2 2 6 1 Note I ~8-To~tal-Pr~qiva~le and Natural Lakes ~anc ~q1 2 2 7~q1Nole 1~q9~-Column S, *Updated OPI Area Historical Coho Data Base' Don Bodenmil~qler, ODFW, July 12, 1~q98~8~. 2 2 ~8 1 Note 20~-Sam~e as *All Except Pr~qiva~q!e Hatcheries". I I I 1 ~q1 2 2 ~q9 1 Note 21 -Column ~qB. *Updated OPI Area Historical C~oho Data Base" Don Bodenm~ill~er, ODFW~, July 12, ~19~q8~8. 2 3 0 1 Note 22-Column U, 'Updated OPI Area Historical Coho Data [email protected] Don Bodenmil~l~er, ODFW, July 12, 1988. 2 3 11 Note 2~q3~-Column a, 'Updated OPI Area Historical Coho Data B~mse'~, Don Bodenmill~e~r, QDFW, July 12~, 19~88. 232 Note 24-Column V. *Updated OPI Area Historical Coho Data Bass' Don nm~i~l~lIer. 0D~qFW~, J l~y 12. 1~q9~q6 233 Note 25~-Tota~ql of Natural Lake and Stream and Coastal Public Hatcheries. 234 Note 2~6-Tola~t less Private, ublic Coastal. Coastal Natural Lakes & Streams. 23~qS 236 237 238 239 240 241 242~, 2431 2441 ~q2~4 5~q1 2461 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 2471 ~q2~~4 ~~8~q1 2491 2501 2~q511 252 2~3~3 254 255 Appendix - 6 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Ewe, ~~nt~1l~~t~~~ Table -A ~C I ~DI EI FI a I I L~i~m~it~ed~ql ~S~t~a~l~u~sl E~qma~n~d~edl Max~imurn~qi 2 Closu~r~el ~O~D~*~ta~t~lonl Mal O~c~era~l~ion~qi O~D~erat~ion~qi 3 S~o~ona~t~iol ~S~c~an~ar~l~o~ql S~c~anar~iol ~S~c~en~a~r~lo~ql Sc~an~a~r~l 4 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 5~ ~C~oho Released ~(M~i~l~i~o~n~a~l A~n~ad~rom~ou~s .~5~q1 ~f.~0~q1 ~6.~0~q1 11~1~1. ~6 Chinook Released (Millions) A~nad~romou~s ~.~0~q1 ~1.~5~q1 ~3.0~q1 ~9.d ~9. 7 ~C~oho Released (Milian) Do~m~s~e~a~ ~.~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~a. 12. ~9 Chinook Released ~Ow~l~i~l~lio~n~s~] [email protected] .~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~a.d 12. ~9 C~oho Released (Mi~lion~s~) C~M~F ~.~0~q1 .~5~q1 4.01 a. ~9. ~2p~~hinook Released (Millions) ~O~P~F .~0~q1 ~1.51 4.01 ~a. ~10. I I ~C~oho Released (Milk,) Orson Pacific A ~.~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~.~0~q1 ~12 Chinook Released (Millions) Oregon Pacific ~.~0~q1 .~81 ~1.~0~q1 2.0~q1 ~5.0~q1 1 3 Baseline C~oho Survival ~qL~4 All 4.00~%~q] 4~.00~%~q1 ~4.~0~0~%~q] 4~.~00~%~q1 4.~O~O~%~qJ ~4 Baseline Chinook Survival % All ~2.~8~0% 2.~80~%~q1 2.00% 2~.~80~%~qJ 2.~00~%~q1 1 5 ~Coho Survival this Calculation All 4.00% 4.00~%~q1 4.00% 4~.~00~%~q1 4.00~%~q] ~~6 Chinook Survival this Calculation All ~2~.~6~0~qa 2.~60~%~q1 2.~60% 2.~60~%~q4 2.~60 17 Private C~oh~o Survival (IO~qW~s~) A~nad~r~omou~s 0 20 40 2401 4521 18 Private Chinook Survival ~(~I~O~qWs~) A~n~ad~r~omou~s 0 ~3~9 78 ~1~5~6~q1 244 1 9 Private C~oho Survival ~(1~000~'~s~) ~Do~"~qM~a ~0 ~0 0 2401 ~4~80~q1 20 Private Chinook Survival ~(~1~O~qW~s~) D~om~q"a 0 0 ~0 ~1~5~6~q1 3121 21 OAF 0 20 ISO 2401 ~3~80~q1 22 Private Chinook Survival ~(1~000~'s~) OAF ~0 ~3~0 104 ~1~5~6~q1 27~61 ~"3 Private Coh~o Survival ~1~1~0~0~0~'~s~) Oregon Pacific ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0~q1 ~0 24 Private Chinook Survival ~(~1000~-~8~1 Oregon Pacific ~0 21 2~6 521 1301 25 ~R~olur~l~i ~10 Hatcheries All ~5~5~% 55 55% ~5~5~%~qj 55~%~q1 2~6 Private Coh~o ~to Hatcheries~ ~(~I~O~qW~s~j A~n~ad~r~omou~s ~0 ~1~1 22 1~321 24 27 Private Chinook ~to Hatcheries ~(1~O~qW~s~) An~ad~romou~s a 21 43 ~8~6~q1 134 28 Private C~oh~o ~to Hatcheries ~(~I~O~qW~S~) D~o~rn~s~ea ~0 ~0 ~0 1321 2~641 2~9 Private; Chinook to Hatcheries (~I~O~qW~S) D~om~e~sa 0 ~0 ~0 gel 1721 30 Private C~oho ~t~o Hatcheries ~(~J~OD~(~Y~a~) ~0~q- 11 GO 1321 20~9~q1 31 Private Chinook ~to Hatcheries ~(~I~O~D~O~*~G~) OAF ~0 21 57 Sol 1521 32 Private Coho ~to Hatcheries ~f~iO0~0~'~s~) ~O~r~o~o~o~n Pacific ~0 ~0 0 ~0~q1 0~q1 33 ~qIP~?~Iva~l~e Chinook to Hatcheries ~(1000~'~s) Crown P~ac~i~t 1~1 14 29~q1 7 [email protected]~qt~c ~q_~_~qR 34 ~qlPr~iva~l~e C~oho to Hatcheries ~(~J~O~qW~s~) All ~0 22 ~qi~1~o 3~9~6~q1 7221 3S ~qIPt~iva~t~e Chinook to Hatcheries ~(~i~O~D~O~.~s~) All 0 54 ~114 28~6~q1 ~52~91 3~6 ~qI~'~ln-Sv~i~l~em~, Strays All ~q1 4.0~0~% 4.00% 4.00% 4.~00~%~q1 4.00~%~q1 37 Private Coh~o ~'~In~-S~y~s~l~o~m~* Strays A~n~adromou~s 1 ~0 440 ~$8~0 ~5280~q1 ~9~9441 3~8 Private Chin k ~*~In~-S~y~g~i~e~qw Strays An~ad~romou~s ~0 ass ~171~6 343 53771 3~9 Private C~oh~o ~- ~i~n~-S~y~s~t~em~- Strays D~w~r~e~sa O_ 0 ~0 5280~q1 105~60~q1 ~q4~0 Private Chinook ~Nn-S~y~p~sm~l Strays DOM"& ~0 0 0 34321 ~6~8~6~4~q1 41 Private Coh~o ~*In-~S~yst~e~qw Strays OAF ~0 440 3S2~C 52801 ~93601 42 Private Chinook ~*~I~n-S~y~qL~a~em~l Strays OAF 0 ~9~5~8 228~9 34321 ~60~6~3~q1 43 1 Private Coh~o ~Nn-~S~y~s~i~sm~, Strays Oration Pacific 0~1 ~2p~ ~0 ~0~q1 0~q1 44 ~qlPr~iv~a~l~e Chinook ~'~In~-~S~y%[email protected]~* Strays ~O~r~ooon Pacific 1 0~q1 ~4~5~81 572 11441 28~60~q1 45 ~'~I~n~S~Ou~t~-Sy~s~t~er~n' Stray impact O~.Mln.~. I.Max. Ali ~11 ~1~q1 ~1~1 ~1~q1 46 ~'~Ir~t-S~y~s~.~' Loss per Stray All 0.7~q1 ~~_ 0~.75~ 0.~7~5~q1 0.751 0.751 47 ~1n-Sy~s~t~e~n~t~" C~oho Spawners (in This Drainage~) Anadromou~s ~0~.~1~10~q-~0 ~8~.~90~0 ~8.~9~0~0~q1 ~8.90~0~q1 ~8~.~9~0 4~8 '~In-Sy~st~em~* Chinook S~0qawn~er~s (In This Drainage) Anadro~m~ou~a 7. 100 7~,~600 7.~60 7.~60 7.~60 4~9 ~"~lm-Sy~st~em~* C~oho Spawners ~(~in This Or~a~inag~e) [email protected] ~20~A~qL~O~O 20~.~90 20.~200~q1 20.~900~q1 20.90 SO ~'~In-Sy~s~t~em~* Chinook ~qI~l~qL~own~er~s (in This Drainage) Dams" 4~,~000 4~.00 4.000~q1 4.000~q1 4.00 ~5~1 ~'~I~n~-~S~v~st~o~m~f C~oho Spawners (in This Drainage~) OAF ~1~O~,~._ ~1~0~.~30 ~10~,300~q1 ~10.3001 10.3001 ~52 ~*In-Sy~st~en~t~' Chinook ~qE~g~g~u~m~er~s (in This Drainage) OAF 11~.~0~0~0 1.900 ~1.900~q1 ~1~.~9~0~0~q1 ~1.~9~0~0~q1 --~ 53 ~"~In~-S~y~s~t~e~m~' C~oho Spawners (in This Drainage) Oregon Pacific 0~ ~01 ~01 ~0~q1 54 ~"In-Sy~s~t~em~* Chinook Spawners (in This D~ra~t~na~q"~) Oregon Pacific 0 ~0 0~q1 01 ~01 ~9~5 ~*~I~n-S~v~o~em~l Coho ~qL~qm~8qf~8qts due to Stray A~n~ad~r~om~ou~i~k ~0 3301 ~6~60~q1 ~2.~9~6~0~q1 7.4581 5~6 ~-~in~-Sy~s~t~ern' Chinook Losses due to Stray Ana~d~q-~g~qa ~q_~q_~q2 ~6~4~4 1.28 2.5741 4.0331 57 ~'~I~n~-~S~y~s~t~ern~' Coh~o LOSS" due to Stray Dw~r~qma 0 3.9~6 7.~9201 ~~68 ~*~In-~Svs~t~*m~* Chinook ~L~g~a~qm due to Stray ~D~O~M~qM 2.5741 4.000~q1 SO ~*~In~-S~y~v~e~m~* Coh~o Loss" due to Stray OAF ~q1 _2 _____~.~6qL3~0 3.~9~601 ~6.2~701 ~6 ~0 ~1~n-S~y~s~t~e~m~* Chinook ~L~q~qu~e~s duo ~t~o Stray OAF ~q-~q2 ~64 ~1~.~7~1 ~1~.~9~0~0~q1 ~1.~9~0~0~q1 ~6~1 ~"~I~n-S~y~m~ern~' Coho ~L~0_~6~6~q" due to Stray O~r~s~t~io~n Pacific ~0 ~0 ~0 of ~0 ~.~20qL2 ~q*In.~qS~qy~qs~qt~qem~q* Chinook L~qy~qs~qs~qa~qs duo to Stray Oregon Pacific ~q0 a 0 ~q01 ~q0~0q1 ~.~0q1~q3 ~q"~qO~qu~ql~q-~qs~qy~qs~qt~qe~qm~q" Strays - All 11~q.~q0~q0~q%~8q- ~q1.00% ~q1.~q0~q0% ~q1~q.~q0~q0~q%~4q] ~qI~q.~qo~qO~q%~8qj ~q64 ~q*Out-S~qyst~qem~q* Losses 2~qgr Strays All ~q1~q,0~q% 50 50% 5O~q%~2qJ 50~q%~8q] IS ~q-~qOu~qt-S~qy~qs~qi~qom~q- C~qoh~qo ~qLo~qs~qe~8qm duo to Stray A~qn~q&dro~qmo~qm~ql ___~2qR ~q5 11 ~q6~q60~4q1 ~04qJ~08qA ~q, .~16qL~qe ~q-~qOu~ql~q-~qS~qv~qx~qt~qe~qm~q- Chinook Loss" duo to Stray Anad~qrom~qou~qt ~q0 107 21~q5 ~q42~q0~2q1 ~q6721 ~q67 ~q'~qOu~ql-Sv~qe~ql~qem~q' Coh~qo Lose" duo ~qt~qo Stray owns" 0 0~2q- ~q0 Goal 1.3201 ~q9~q8 ~q-~qOu~qt-~qS~qv~qs~qt~qem~q- Chinook Loewe due to Stray [email protected] ~q-~2q2 ~q0 0 429~4q1 as ~q6~q9 Coho Losses due ~qto Stray OAF of 5S 440 ~q6~q6~q0~8q1 1.04 70 Chinook Losses duo to Stray OAF ~q0~8q1 1071 2~q8~q6 42~q91 75~q9~8q1 ~q7~q1 ~ql~qO~qu~qt~q-~qS~qv~qs~ql~qe~qm~q' ~qCoho Losses due to Stray Oregon Pacific ~q0 ~q0 ~q0 ~q0 ~q01 7 2 ~q'Ou~qt-S~qi~qs~qt~qe~qm~q* Chinook Louse du~qe to Stray ~qO~qr~6qWn Pacific 0 5 72 143~8q1 3501 ~q7 3 Estimated C~qoho Stray Losses ~q(~qI~qOW~qS) All ~q- 3. 2S.31 ~0 ~0 ~64 ~qF2 3 A~"~.~d~8q=~q- ~8q:A~.ad ~U~s ~8q1 71 7~q4 Estimated Chinook St~qr~0q!~qj Losses ~q(~qI~qO~0qW~qS) All 12.~q6~2q1 ~q7 ~q5 Baseline C~qoho ~q'~qNa~qlur~qal' Harvest Contribution ~q(~qI~qO~0qW~qs~qj is~q, ~q10 ~q1~q0~q5.~q0~0q1 ~qin~qg~.~q0~0q1 Appendix - 7 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Economic ~~nt~~butl~~n Table A ~C ~0 ~q1 E F a C ~ ~ ~B~a~s~o~l~ln~e Chinook ~'~1~1~,~,~Iu~,~.~I~* Harvest Contribution ~1~1~0~qW~,~) 135.0 135.0~q1 ~1~3~5~.~. 1135.~( ~1~3~5.~0~q1 ~ ~ Baseline ~ID~th~er~' Coh~o Harvest Co~r~d~r~bu~l~lon ~(~I~O~qW~9~1 ~4~4~8. 448.01 448. 44~8.C 448.01 7 1 Baseline *Other" Chinook Harvest Contribution (Iowa) 270.01 270.0~q1 2~70. 270. 270.01 ~ ~ This Year C~oho *Natural' Harvest Contribution ~(~I~O~qW~s~) ~1~0~5.~0~q1 ~10~5.0~q1 ~10~5. ~1~0~S~.~. ~1~0~5.~0~q1 1110 This Year Chinook "Natural, Harvest C~on~lr~b~u~l~lon ~(~I~O~qW~e~l ~1~3~5.~0~q1 1~35.0~q1 135. 135. ~-~1~3~5.~0~q1 ~~ITh~Is Year *Other" C~oho Harvest Contribution ~(~I~O~qW~s~) 448. ~4~4~9.0~q1 44~S.. 448. 440. ~2 ~qIThi~s Year ~*~qOhw~* Chinook Harvest Contribution ~(~I~O~qW~s~) 2~70.0~q1 270.. 270. 270. ~~ ~qlAd~iu~s~t~ed ~'N~a~lur~ar Coho Harvest Contribution All ~105. 104.2 1~0~1.21 9~11.. Ire. ~4 ~qlAdi~qo~ld *Natural* Chinook Harvest Contribution All 1135. 133.4 131. ~1~2~6. 122. ~5 ~qV~T~O~IA~I~* Public C~oho ON Harvest Co~ntr~ib. ~(1100~(~Y~e~l All ~553~.. 552.2 ~5~4~9. ~5~3~9. 527. ~ ~ *Total* Public Chinook Harvest Contribution (Iowa) All 405. 403.4~q- ~401.~4 39~6. 3~92.41 Private Coh~o Harvest Contribution ~(~I~OW~e~l An~ad~romou~s 0 ~9 is ~1~0~8~q1 2031 Private Chinook Harvest Oregon C~o~n~ir~lb. ~(~I~O~qW~a~l Ana~dromou~s ~0 Is 35 ~7~0~q1 ~1~1~0~q1 I I Private C~oho Harvest Contribution ~(~1~0W~A D~orn~e~s~s 0 0 ~0 tool 21~61 ~1~~ Private Chinook Harvest O~r~s~o~on Co~ntrib. ~(~I~OW~e~l D~om~e~a~t~t 0 ~0 0 701 1401 ~1 Private Coho Harvest Contribution ~(1000~e~l C~A~F ~0 9 ~7~2 ~10 ~1~71~q1 ~i~-~ Private Chinook Harvest O~r~e~qwn Co~ntr~ib. ~0~0W~%~) OAF ~0 Is 4? 701 12 ~ ~ Private Coho Harvest Contribution ~(1000~'~s) Or~e~qwn Pacific ~0 ~0 0 ~0~q1 0 ~i~-4 Private Chinook Harvest Oregon Co~nt~r~ib. (1000~'~s~) Oregon Pacific 0 9 12 231 ~6~9~q1 ~~ 'Total' Private C~oho OPI Harvest Contr~i~b. ~(~1~0~qW~O 0 Is a; 3241 5~9~0~q1 1~ ~'T~ctal~' Private Chinook Harvest Oregon C~on~t~r~i~b. ~(10W~e~) 0 ~4~4 ~9~4 23 4331 ~q7~~- Publ~.~&Pr~iv. Coh~o OPI Harvest Co~ntr~i~b. ~(1000~'~s~) 5~53 570 ~639 as: ~1~1~1~6~q1 ~~ Pu~bI.~&Pr~Iv. Coho Or~e~c~i~on Sport Con~tr~ib. ~(1000'~s) ~1~6~5 1~67 172 ~1~9~, 21 ~9 Publ.~&P~r~)~v~. C~oh~o Oregon Troll Co~ntr~i~b. (~100~0~'~s~) 235 244 278 3~8~i ~51 ~~o Private Coho Troll Contribution ~1~1000~'~s~l 0 ~0 39 1~4~! 27 101 Public Coho T~fol~l Contribution ~(1000~'~a~l 235 23~6 23~9 24~: 24 102 P~ub~l.~&Pr~iv.Chin~ook Oregon Harvest ~C~ontr~ib ~([email protected]~) 405 448 4~95 ~63' ~82 103 Pub~l.~9 Priv~.Chi nook Oregon Spon C~ontr~ib (100~0~'~s) 51 ~55 so Sol a 104 Pub~l.~&Pr~i~v~.Ch~inook Oregon Troll C~ontrlb ~(1000~'~s~) 354 393 4~37~~~ 5~62~q1 ~741 1 05 Private Chinook Oregon Troll Cor~dri~b ~(~1~0D~O~'~s) 0 39 ~~83 20~8~q1 3891 ~~~ Public Chinook ~O~r~e~a~on Troll Co~n~tr~ib ~(1000~'~s~) 354 354 35~4 3531 ~3~5 ~T 0~-~ Total Sports Harvest In Oregon ~(Co~h~o~&Chin.~)~-~(10~qW~*~) 217 222 231 2~601 29~61 ~~~ Oregon Angler Days for Recreational Fishing 24824~9 24~6~712 247821 250~4~4 253~96 ~7~~-~ 1 1 110 Ave. Weight Coho Returns to P~r~iv. Hatchery r~e Each 5.5 ~6.5 5.5 ~5.~5~q1 5.51 III Ave. Weight Chinook Returns to P~rtv. H~a~l~ch~e~r~V ~r~s Each ~10.~1 ~10.1 ~10.~1 ~10~,~1~q1 ~1~0.~1~q1 ~71~-2 Average Weight Troll Harvested Coho ~V~s Each ~5~.0 5.0 5.0 [email protected] ~5.0~q1 ~~ 3 Av~e~r~a~2~s W~ei~ch~t Troll Harvested Chinook ~Vs Each ~9.0 9.0 9.0 ~9.~0~1 ~9.~0~q1 ~~~ ~q1 ~q1 1 1~ Pounds of C~oho Returning to Private Hatcheries ~(~1~0~1)~(~7~s~) 0 121 ~605 2.~1781 ~3.~9~6~9~q1 ~~ ~ Pounds of Chinook Returning to Private Hatcheries (low&) ~0 ~54~9 ~1~.~1~5~5 2.88~91 5.34 ~1p~ 1~7 Pounds of Coho Harvested in Oregon ~(1000~'~s) 1~,177 1~.21 ~1~.~3~8 1.93 2.55 lie Pounds of Chinook Harvested In Oregon ~(~1~0~0~0~,~6~1 3~,182 3.53 3~.~92 5.055 ~6~,~673 lie Oregon Angler D~a~q" for Recreational Fishing 1 24~6.249 24~6.~71 247~,~621 250~.44 253.9~6 120 121 Economic Value of C~oho Returning to Private H~atch~w~v~/# ~s~i.~71 ~$1,711 ~$1.71 ~$1.~71 $1.71 122 Economic Value of Chinook Returning to Private H~atch~ery~/~0, $2.~6~6 ~$2.~6~6 ~$2.~6~6 ~$2.~6~6 $2.~6~6 123 Economic Value of C~oho Cau~ah~t In Comm. F~i~sh~q"~M ~83.4~6 $3.4~6 ~$~3~.~4~6 $3.4~6 $3.4~6 ~T 2~-4 Economic Value of Chinook Caught In Comm F~Ww~v~/~o ~$5.77 $5.~77 ~$5.~77 ~$~5~q5~q5~- ~$5.~7~7 125 Economic Value/Angler Day ~$52 ~$52 ~$~62 ~$521 ~952 ~2~ ~2~ Economic Value of Coho R~a~turn~in~a to Private Hatchery ~q00 $20~6~910 ~$1034550 ~$3~7243~80 ~$~6786~6~4-8 ~2~ Economic Value of Chinook Returning to Private H~m~t~ch~*~r~V so ~$145~98~98 ~$3073470 ~$~7~68~3~6~7~6 ~$1~4214801 12~ Ew a Value of ~Coh~o Caught In Comm. Fishery ~$40~72714 $421~8475 ~$4801517 ~$6~696405 ~$88536~63 130 ~E~qwn~em~ic Value at Chinook Cau~ah~l in Cw~n~r~r~L Fishery $1~9358034 $20414353 $22~673057 $291~67~6~17 ~$38~504~647 131 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery _~6qL~qL~I~2q&49~7~1 $12~929005 ~$1287~62~9~6 $130230~63 $1320~60~60 132 ~33 134 13~ 13~6 137 Scenario (Assuming Maximum Straying ~qI~qr~6qm~qa~qct~ql Closure Limited atom C~ql~qu~qo Expanded Maximum ~q7~3~q-~8 Total Economic Value of Scenario (~qI~ql~qiMil~ql~qion~qs) Total ~q$~q352 ~q$~q39.~q1 ~qIl~ql~2q"~q.~q5 ~4qWO.3 111.11~q1~q1.~q6 ~13~9 Increased Economic Value Over Closure Scenario t~q$Mill~qi~qo~qn~qe~qj Pr~qIv~q,Con~q!r~qIbut~qI ~q$~q0.0 ~qS3.9 ~q$~q0.2 ~q$25.1 ~q$46~q.3 ~1~40 141 142 Scenario ~q(A~qs~qsu~qm~qI~qn~qa Minimum, I.e. ~q*~4qW~q. ~qS~qt~qr~qa~qy~qi~qn~qa ~qk~qn~qPa~qc~qi~ql~ql Closure Limited Status Quo ~qE~qm~4qw~qd~qo~qd Maximum 143 Total Economic Value of Scenario ($Mill a) Total $352 ~q$3~q9.2 ~q6~6q".7 ~q$~q6~q0~q.~q8 ~q$~q82~q.4 144 Increased Economic Value Over Cl~qo~qaur~24qM~qa~qri~qo ($1~q4~q11ill~qion~qs~q) Pr~qiv.Contr~qibutl ~q$~q0.0 ~q94.0 ~q$~q0.4 ~q625.~q6 $47.2 ~1~4~5 ~q1 ~q1 ~14~6 Closure Limited Status O~qu~qc, ~2q[Ex~qc~qi~qan~qd~qe~qd Maximum ~4q1 147 Total O~qr~qe~qa~qon ~qS~qD~6qW C~qoh~qo ~q& Chinook Harvest ~qO~qr~qs~qa~qo~qn Sow 21~q6~q,831 221 547 23~q0 82 25 2 2~q95.53 ~q1 [email protected] ~1 ~41 ~0 21 ~1 ~q.~q1b jut I C C ~;392qk ~14 8 Total Oregon Troll Coho & Chinook Harvest 10~qr~qe~6qwon Troll 588~q.~q93 _ ~q63~q6~qa9551 7~q14~qf~qf~qi~ql5~0qg 94~0q:~0q1~q74~2q4 1~q,253~q,245 149 ~;392qu Total Stray Losses I Ma~qx.~qS~qir~qa~qy I o~qs~4ql ~q0 2~q,3291 7~q,~q4251 22~q,338~4q1 ~q%~q7 ~qA~qIA~0qI Appendix - 8 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon ~f~ton~m~c C~n~r~~.T~b~~ 11 A a ~C~: 1 ~0 ~q1 a I ~F I Limited ~S~ta~l~u~a~ql ~E~X Maximum 2 Assumed C~l~o~sur~el C~l~o~o~r~stl~on~qi CIA Operation C~l~o~or~st~i~o, ~q3 Location ~S~o~o~na~d~ol Sc~or~war~lol Sc~onar~i~al Scenario Scenario 4 ~q1 ~3 C~oho Released to Equal Private Scenario ~(~qM~i~l~o~n~e~) Silo 1 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 ~0.~13 ~0.~8~8~0~q1 2.440 4.445 ~4 Chinook Released to Equal Private Scenario ~(~qM~il~l~o~n~s~) She 1 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 ~0.~5~1 ~1~.~0~9~0~q1 2.~730 1~5~.~0~1~1~6 7 ~qlCoho Released to Equal Private Scenario ~(~qM~l~l~or~w~) ~q- She 2 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 0.~13 0.~6~8 2.4401 4.445 ~8 Chinook Role ~ad to Equal Private Scenario (~qW~i~f~i~o~n~al~i~q- Site 2 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 0.51 ~1.0~9 2.73 5.0~8~6 9 ~qlC~oho Released to Equal Private Scenario (~qM~i~lon~s~) She 3 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 ~0~.~1~3 ~0.~6~80 2.~44 4.445 10 ChIn~ook Released to E~gu~a~ll Private Scenario ~(I~i~All~i~o~ns) ~51~1~1~0~3 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 ~0.~5~1 ~1.~0~9~0~q1 2.~73 ~5~.~0~1~1~6 I I Coho Released to Equal Private Scenario ~(~P~A~l~lon~s~) ~S~I~I~e4 ~0.~0~0~0~q1 ~0~.~1~3~5 ~0.~9~8~0~q1 2.44 4.445 12 Chinook Released to Equal Private Scenario (~qM~il~ion~a~l- Site 4 ~0~.~0~0~0~q1 0.~5~1 ~1.0~9 2.73 5.0~9~8 13 Baseline C~oho Survival % ~ All ~4~.~0~0~%~q1 ~4~.~0~0 ~-4.00~%~q) 4.00 4.00% 1 4 1~8~a~s~el~l~n~e Chinook Survival ~q% All 2.~60% 2.~60 2.~60~%~q1 2.00 2.~60 1~3 Coho Survival this Calculation All 4.00% 4.00 4.00~%~q1 ~4.~00 ~4.00% ~1 ~6 Chinook Survival this Calculation All ~2.~60 2.~60 2.~60% 2.~60% 2.~60% 1~7 Release She Coh~o Survival (~1~0W~s~l Site 1 0 27 go 1~7~8 1~8 Release Site Chinook Survival (low~e~l Site 1 ~0 ~1 2~8 71 ~0qM ~1~9 Raise" Site C~oh~o Survival ~1~1~0~0~0~'~s~) Site 2 0 ~5 27 9~8 ~17~8 20 Release She Chinook Survival (~I~OW~91 She 2 0 13 2~8 71 132 2~1 - Roles" Site Coho Survival ~(~I~O~qW~S~) -S~h~o 3 0 5 27 go 17S 2 2 ]Release She Chinook Survival ~(~1~0~0~0~'~s~) Silo ~3 0 13 28 71 132 2 3 ~q1 P~r~iv~a~t~eR~e~l~ea~s~s Site Site 4 0 ~5 27 go ~178 24 ~qI~R~*~I~o~a~s~o She Chinook Survival ~(~1~0W~s) S~l~I~o4 0 ~4~1~3 2~8 71 ~1~3~qi 2~5 ~qlR~o~turn ~to Release ~S~h~e All 20% ~20% 20% 20% 20% 2~6 ~qlR~e~l~o~as~s She Coho to Hatcheries ~(~I~OW~S) Site 1 ~0 ~1 ~5 20 3~6 27 [email protected]~I~o~as~o S~h~e Chinook to Hatcheries (~1~0~qW~s) Site 1 ~0 ~3 ~6 14 2~6 2~8 ~qlR~e~l~es~s~o She Coho to Hatcheries (Iowa) Site 2 0~q- 1 ~5 20 3~6. 2~9 Release She Chinook to Hatcheries ~(1000~'~s) Site 2 0 3 ~6 1~4 26 30 Release She Coho to Hatcheries (~1~0~qW~s) Site 3 0 ~1 ~5 20 3~6 31 Release ~S~l~I~sChin~ook ~8qM Hatcheries (Iowa) Site 3 ~0 ~3 ~6 1~4 2~6 32 Release She C~oh~o to Hatcheries ~(1000~'~s) -S~h~o ~4 ~0 ~1 ~5 20 3~6 33 Release Site Chinook to Hatcheries 0~0~qW~s) Site 4 0 3 a 14 2~6 34 Release She C~oho to H~och~or~l~e~s ~(1~0~0~0~'~s~) All ~0 4 22 781 142 35 Release She Chinook ~to Hatcheries ~(~1~0~qWs) All 0 ~1~1 23 57 ~10~6 3~'~6 ~*In-S~yst~em' Strays All 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% ~4~.00% 37 Rol~e~qm She Coho ~l~in-Sy~s~i~sm~, Strays Site 1 0 43 2~18 ~7~8~1 1422 3~8 Release She Ch~lr~ook ~*~In-Sy~st~em, Strays Site 1 0 ~i~0~a 227 see 1058 3~9 Release She Coh~o ~*~ln-Sy~st~em~, Strays She 2 ~0 43 218 781 1422 40 Release She Chinook ~*~In.S~y~st~em~* Strays Site 2 ~0 10~8 22~7 SOS ~10~5~8 ~41 Release She Coho ~'~I~n-S~y~s~i~om~l Strays Site 3 0 43 218 7~81 1422 42 1 Release She Chinook ~*~In~-~Sy~g~t~o~m~* Strays Silo 3 ~0 ~10~8 22 see ~10~5~8 43 1 Release She Coho ~'In-Sy~st~e~qw Strays Site 4- 0 43 2~1~S 781 1422 44 ~qlR~ol~ea~s~s Site Chinook ~9n-Sy~s~t~em~* Strays She 4 0 ~10~8 227 see ~10~5~8 4~3 1~1l~n~9~Ou~I-S~vs~I~em~* Stray Impact ~O.~qWn.~, 1~.Max~. All I I I 1 ~1 ~4~4 1~-~in-~s~y~s~.~* Low per Stray All 0.75 0.75 0.75, 0.75 0.75 4~7 ~*In-Sy~s~ter~n~' Coho S~pawn~ar~s (in Is Drainage) Site 1 ~8~,~900 ~8~,~900 ~8~,~900 ~8.~900. ~8.~900 48 ~*~I~r~s~-Sys~l~e~m~* Chinook Spawners (in This Drainage) Silo ~1 7~,~600 ~7~.~60 ~7~,~600 7~,~600 ~7~,~600 4~9 ~'~IrS~y~s~t~em~' Coh~o Spawners (in This Drainage) Site 2 ~~2~0~.~90 20~.~90 20~,~900 20~,~900 20~,~900 ~50 ~'~In-S~y~s~t~o~m~' Chinook Spawners (in This Dra~i~n~a~o~s) Site 2 ~.~q- ~4~.~00 4~.00 4~,000 4~.00 4~,000 ~51 ~In-S~y~st~em~' C~oh~o Spawners (in This Drainage) Site 3 ~10~.30 10~,~300 10~.30 10~.30 10~.30 52 ~*~In-Sy~st~em~' Chinook Spawners (In This Dra~i~n~a~a~e~l She ~3 ~q1 ~1~.~900 ~1.~900 ~1~.~90 ~1~,~900 ~1~.~00 83 ~"~in~-Sv~at~o~r~n~* C~oho Spawners (in This Dra~i~n~s~p~o~l Silo ~4 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 0 ~34 1~-~In-S~y~st~e~m~* Chinook Spawners ~(~i~n This Drainage) Site 4 0 ~0 ~0 0 0 ~35 ~qF~in~-~S~v~e~l~o~qw C~oho Loam due to Stray site 1 ~0 32 SOS ~1~,0~67 ~50 ~qFln-S~y~st~em' Chinook Losses due to Stray Site 1 ~0 ~$11 170 42~6 7~93 ~5~7 [email protected]~s~v~s~t~o~m~, C~oho Loam due to Stray Site 2 a 32 ~1~6 see ~1~.0~6 so ~8qhnsys~i~o~m~* Chinook L~o~s~qm due to Stray Site 2 ~0 ~$~11 170 42 793 ~5~9 ~qI~l~in~-S~vs~t~o~m~* Coh~o Losses due to Stray Site 3 ~1 ~0 32 1~63 5~8~6 1.0~67 ~40 ~q1~1~k~i~-Sv~st~e~r~n~* Chinook Losses du~e~q.to Stray She ~3 ~0~_~_ ~11~1~11 1701 42~6 793 ~q6~q1 ~qW~qv~q-~qS~qv~qx~qt~qo~qm~q* ~qCoh~qo Lose" due to Stray She 4 a ~q0 ~q0~8q1 ~q0 ~q0 ~q62 ~8qI~q-~qI~qn~q-S~qy~qs~qt~qe~qr~qn~q" Chinook Loam due to Stray Silo 4 ~q0 0 ~q0~4q1 a ~q0 ~q4 3 'Out-System. Strays All ~8q-~q1.00% ~q1~q.~q0~q0% ~q1~q.~q0~q0~q%~8qj ~q1. 0~q% ~q1~q.00% ~q8~q4 ~8qI~qO~qu~ql~q-~qs~qy~qst~qem~q' Loam Der Strays All ~q50% ~q50% ~q50% so ~8q-~q50% ~q6~q5 I~q-Out-S~qys~qt~qe~qm~q' C~qoho Losses due to Stray She 1 ~q0 ~q5 2 go 178 ~q6~q6 ~8qV~qo~qut~q-~qs~qy~qs~qt~qe~qm~q, Chinook Losses due to Stray She 1 ~q0 ~q11~q3 2 71 132 ~q6~q7 Ou~qt~q-~qS~qy~qs~qt~q#~qm~q. C~qoho Loam due to Stray Site 2 ~q0 ~q5 27 go 1~q7~q8 ~8q" ~q'~qOu~ql~q-S~qy~qst~qe~qm~q' Chinook Losses due ~qto Stray Site 2 ~q0 13 2~q8 71 132 ~q.~8q1~q9 ~q'~qO~qut~q-S~qy~qs~qt~qe~qm~q* Coho Losses due to Stray S~qit~q* 3 ~q0 ~q5 27 go 178 3 ~;992qr ~9 So ~5 ~88q5~2 ~83 ~q6~4q17 ~q7~q" 32 ~q17~q8 ~0qL~q.0 ~q'~qOu~ql~q-S~qy~qs~qt~qe~qm- Chinook Lou" due 10 Stray Site 3 a 13 2~q8. 71 132~2qi ~4q" ~q'Out-Sy~qs~qt~qern~q* ~qC~qoho Losses due to Stray lilts 4 0 ~q5 2 go ~q1~q7~q8 ~q72 ~q-~qOu~qt-S~qy~qs~qt~qern- Chinook Losses due-to Stray Silo 4 0~4q1 13 2~q8 71 132 73 Estimated Coho Stray Loss" ~q(~q1~q0~q0~q0~q,~q6~q1 1AII A ~q.~q1 2.~q1~000q0~84q:3 Appendix - 9 ~0 An Assessment of Private Salmon Ranching in Oregon Economic ~~~t~ll~~~~~~~~ ~1 A ~C ~0 E F a ? 4 Estimated Chl~"ook ~S~l~rav Losses ~111~0~0~0~1~1~1 All .31 A ~1.~6 2~q7 ? 5 Baseline C~oh~o 'Natural- Harvest Contribution (1~1000~1~s~) ~i~0~qi~. ~105.01 ~105.0~q1 ~10~5.0 ~10~5.0 ? I Baseline Chinook -Natural- Harvest Contribution ~(~l~oW~a~l 135. 1~35.0~q1 135. 135.0 ~1~3~5.0 ~ ~ Baseline *~1~0~1h~e~r Coho Harvest Contribution ~(~I~OW~a~l ~4~4~8~.~. 448.0~q1 448.01 448.0 448.0 ~q2~ Baseline ~-~qah~er' Chinook Harvest Contribution ~(~1000~s~) 27~0~.~. 270.01 270.0~q1 270.0 270. 7~ This Year Coho 'Natural' Harvest Contribution ~(~l~o~l~qw~a~l ~10~5. ~1~0~5.~0~q1 ~1~05.0~q1 ~10~5.0 11~0~5.~0~1 ~~ This Year Chinook 'N~a~lurar Harvest Contribution ~(~100~(~Y~s~l 1 ~q;~5~. 135.0~q1 ~135.~0~q1 ~1~3~5~.~0 135.0 ~~1~ This Year ~%~Xh~o~r~* Coho Harvest Contribution ~(~1~0W~9~) 440.0~q1 448. 448. 448.0 448.0 ~~qL2 This Year -Other Chinook Harvest Contribution ~(~1~0W~s~) 27 ~.~0~q1 2~70.0~q1 270.0~q1 270.0 ~2~70. ~3 Ad~iu~s~l~ed 'Natural* Coho Harvest Contribution All ~10~5.0~q1 104.9~q1 104.41 102.~9 ~10~1.1 ~~ Ad~*us~l~od *Natural, Chinook Harvest Contribution All ~1~3~5.0 134.7 134. 133.4 132.~1 ~~ 'Total* Public C~oh~o OPI Harvest Co~n~tr~ib. ~(~1~0~qW~s~) All ~6~5~3.0 5~62.0 ~5~62.41 ~5~50.~2 549.~1 ~~ 'Total* Public Chinook Harvest Contribution ~V~OW~a~l All 40~5.0 404.7 404.~4 403.41 402.~1 ~7 Release She Coh~o Harvest Contribution (10~qM~) Site 1 0 4 22 78 142 ~ 1 Release, Sits Chinook Harv~e~w 0 ~o~qw Cont~r~ib. (~I~OW~S~) She 1 ~0 ~1~1 2 ~5 lot ~~ Release She C~oh~o Harvest Contribution ~11~OW~s~) ~S~he 2 4 2 ~7~8 142 ~0 Release Site Chinook Harvest Or~o~qw Co~ntr~ib. ~1~1000~'~a~l Site 2 ~0 ~1 ~11 2~3 ~6 ~11~0~6 ~1 Release She C~oho Harvest Contribution ~(~1~0~qM~) Site 3 0 4 22 142 92 Release Sit~a, Chinook Harvest Or~o~qw Co~ntr~ib. ~(~1~0~qM~) Site 3 0~q- 1~1 23 57 10~6 ~3 1 Release S~i~t~* Coh~o Harvest Contribution ~(~1~0~qM) Site 4 0 4 22 142. ~4 Release Site Chinook Harvest Or~e~con Co~n~tr~ib. ~11~1~O~qW~S~) Silo ~4 a 1~1 23 5~7 ~10~5 ~5 'Total* Release She Cone, OPI Harv~o~w C~o~ntrib. (~ID~0~0~'~s~) ~0 ~1~7 ~8~7 312 ~5~6~9 ~~6 'Total* Release She Chinook Harvest Croon Co~n~trib. (11 ~6~1 0 43 ~9~1 227 423 ~7 Pub~l~.~&R~o~l~oas~s She ~C~oho C~IPI Harvest Co~n~lr~ib. ~11000~'~s~) 553 ~5~70 ~639 8~63 1~~1~~1~8 ~~4 Pub~f.~&R~s~l~o~a~s~o S~h~e C~oho Oregon Soon Co~ntr~ib. ~(1000~a~l ~1~5~5 ~1~6~7 1~72 191 212 ~9 Pub~l.~&R~o~l~o~a~s~o S~i~t~* C~oh~o Oregon Troll C~o~n~tr~ib. ~(~1~0~0~0~'~s~) 235 244 27 387 512 ~00 Release S~h~e C~oh~o Troll-Co~nt~r~ibut~ion t~1~o~qw~s~) ~0 7 38 140 2~60 ~q701 Release She C~oho Troll Contribution ~11000~'~s) 235 235 240 247 251 102 Pub~l.~&~R~o~l~oa~s~o Sl~f~sChinook ~O~r~o~i~)~o~n Harvest Contrib (towel 405 4~48 4~95 ~631 825 103 Pub~l.~&R~o~l~oas~s She Chinook Oregon Span Co~n~tr~ib (~I~O~qW~S~) 51 ~5~5 so ~6~9 84 104 Publ.~&R~o~l~oas~o S~f~t~*Chir~ook Orson Troll Con~tr~ib (100(~Ys~) 354 ~3~93 437 ~$52 741 105 Release She Chinook Or~e~pon Troll Co~n~trib (1000's~) ~0 38 ~8~0 202 ~-~0qT~O~-~0 10~6 Release Site Chinook Oregon Troll Co~n~tr~ib (1000~'~s) ~3~5~4 355 35~7 359 3~61 107 Total Sports Harvest In Oregon (Coho~&Chin~.~)~-(1000~'s~) 217 222 231 2~60 2~9~6 108 Or~e~c~on An~cl~or Days for Recreational Fishing 248249 24~6711 247~624 250444 2539~61 ~0~9 ~q7~0 Ave. W~e~i~ah~t Coho Returns to Release~ She We Each ~S. ~5 ~5~.~5 ~5~.~5 ~5~.~5 5.~5 1 1 1 Ave. W~o~i~ch~l Chinook Returns to Role&" She ~I~r~s Each 110~.11 ~10.~1 ~1~0.~1 ~10.1 ~10.~1 I I 2.Av~e~r~s~o~o W~e~i~ah~t Troll Harvested Coho We Each ~5~. 0 5.0 5~.0 5.0 ~5~.0 ~~ 3 Av~er~a~c~e ~qM~i~ah~t Troll Harvested Chinook We Each ~1~1.0 ~9.0 ~9.0 9.0 ~9.~011 ~7~~4 11~5 Pounds of Coho Returning ~to Release S~f~t~e~(100~(~Y~s~l 0 24 120 429~~ 782 ~~~6 Pounds of Chinook R~e~tumin~g to Release S~h~e (1000'~s) 0 109 229 574 ~1~,0~6~8 117 Pounds of ~Coho Harvested in Oregon ~(~100~(~Y~a~) 1~,~177 1~1219 ~1~,~3~8~8 1~,935 2~,~55~9 11~6 Pounds of Chinook Harvested In Oregon ~(~100~(~Y~s~) ~3~,182 3538 3.~93 ~5~,055 ~6~,~673 ~T~~ ~9 Or~e~c~o~n Angler Days for Recreational Fishing 24~6~,24~9 24~6.711- 247~,~624 250.44~4 253~,~9~61 120 ~q1 ~2p~~Economic Value of Coh~o Returning to Release S~N~W~# $~1.~71 $1.71 ~$1.71 $~1.~7~1 122 Economic Value of Chinook R~atum~in~a to Release Site* $2. ~6 ~q$2.~6~6 $2.~6~6 $2.~6~6 $2.~e~e 123 Economic Value of Coho C~au~ch~l In Comm. F~i~sh~or~y~/111~1 ~q$3.4~4 ~q1~3.~4~6 ~q13.48 $3.48 $3.~4~6 124 Economic Value of Chinook Cau~ah~t In Comm. Fl~i~sh~e~r~y~/~8 ~$5.~17 ~q$5.~77 ~q$~5.~7~7 ~q$5.~77 $5.~7~7 125 Economic V~alu~e~/An~al~or Day ~S~I~Q ~qM ~q$52 ~s~qw $~62 ~~~4 12~7 Economic Value of C~oh~o Returning to Release S~h~e ~I~0qL ~$40.830 ~qt~2~04~,~6~53 $734.3~42 ~$~1~,~337~,~7~67 112~1111 Economic Value of Chinook Returning to Roles" Site ~l~qp ~$2~90~,024 ~$~6~0~9~,~1~0~6 ~$1.525.5~5~9 ~92~,842~j22 129 Ec~a m1c: Value of Coho Cau~ah~t In Comm. ~F~qW~*~r~v $4072~,714 ~$4~,217~,8~93 ~$4~,803~,984 ~$~6~,~6~9~6~,~683 ~$8~,852~,854 130 Economic Value of Chinook C~au~c~i~t~o In Comm. Fishery ~q$~1~8~,~3~5~8~,0~3~4 ~$20~,4~1~3~,~520 $22~,~674~,~952 ~$2~9~,~170~,130 ~$3~9~,501~,009 131 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery ~$~12~,~q04~,97~11 ~$12~,828~,~9~6~9 ~$12~,87~6~,433 $13~,023~,~0~97 ~$13~,205~,9~90 132 ~qT3 3 134 Data from Above (is 20~q% ~q10 ~qf~qol~qe~qa~qs~qs She): ~4qL3 ~q5 Total Economic Value of ~qSo~qo~qn~qa~4qf~4qt ~q(~0q$11~q61111~q1~ql~qi~qo~qn~qa~ql ~0q$~q3~q5,2 $37.8 ~4q$41.2 ~q$~q5~q1.~q1 $~q64.7 ~13~q6 Increased Economic Value Over Closure Scenario ~q(~q$11~q61111~q11~qi~qon~qs) ~q$0.0 ~q$2.~q6 ~qS~q5~q.~q9 ~q$~q1~q5~q.~q9 ~q$2~q9~q.5 13~q7 ~138 Dole from Above (is 20~q% ~qto release She): ~8qT3 ~q9 To,&] Oregon Soon Coho & Chinook Harvest 21~q6.03~q1 221~q.54 2~q30.85 2~qS~q9,~q83 2~q95.524. [email protected]~4qL4 ~q0 Total Oregon Troll Coh~qo ~q9 Chinook Harvest 5~q6~q8~q,~q932 ~q638~q.90 714.331 ~q9~q48~q,812 ~q1~q,2~q53~q, ~q12~q8 141 0 ~0 78 7~0 ~qh 4 2 Data from 'E o~qn~qomlc Contribution Table* (Is 55% ~qto release ~qS~qt~qt~qs~q)~q: Total O~qr~qe~qc~qion Soon Cone, A Chinook Harvest ~8q1 31 221~q.54 230.82 259~q.~q62 295 S38 Total Oregon Troll C~qoho ~q9 Chinook Harvest .. ~q714~q,152 ~q9~q48~q,747 1 253 24S Appendix - 10 ~0 ~~ planting Master 1000~'s ~1000~'s ~100~0~'~s ~1~0~0~0~'~s ~1000~'sl ~1000 Private Salmon Ranchin~q eleases Release ~1000~'s ~-~qp~qlan~t~'d Plan Spade Permitted Plant~'d Plan~t~'d plan~i~'d Plan~t~'d Planrd 197~6 1977 19 Operator Site Permitted Millions ~-~'[email protected] 1973 1974 1975 S~trickl~qin Sk~4qbanon R. Ch~t~w~n 5.0 Neh~el~em Land ~qW Salmon Neh~O~lem Ba~y Chum 5.0~q1 ~1 Harris A Hu~ale Tillamook Say Chum ~.~1 ~8 ~1~0~q1 ~9 ~q9~q8 4~0q( Kola, Inc. Sand Creek Ch~qm 5.0 51 252 3111 ~1~.160- Hampson (In Kola) Sand Creek Chum ~5~.0 33 324 2 15 Oregon Aqua-Foods Ya~quin Say Ch~t~x~n 20.0 7 ~~ ~qOrecl~on Aqua-Foods Yaquina Bay Cd~w 9.5 ~8~8 142 ~qJ.171 ~1.37~q6 8~q.8 Oregon Aqua-Foods Ya~qu~ina Bay F~-Chi~n~o~ok 10.6 27 is 148 31 oregon Aqua-Foods Ya~qu~qina Bay S~O~.Ch ~qI~n~qFa~l~lCh~in ~6 ~1~q6~1 42 ~0q1 Oregon Aqua-Foods coos Bay Ch~Lwn 20.4 Oregon Aqua-Foods coos Say ~qC~qdIo 11.3 Oregon Aqua-Foods coos Bay F.Ct~*~qmk 1 ~q9.4 Oregon Aqua-Foods Coos Bay Sp.Ch~i~noo~qk ~In~qFallCh~in ~q500 C~e~ra~todus ~qS~lus~l~a~w River Ch~t~x~n ~5~.0 Do~n~qma S~luslaw Bay Ch~t~x~n 25~.0 4 Dorns~ea Sius~law Ba~V Coho 12.0 IS~iuslaw Bay F.Chinook 12.0 ~113oms~ea ~0qf~q-~q- ~q% Sius~law Fished" S~qius~law River Ch~tx~n 5.0 ~10 221 Boo Anadromous, Inc. coos Say Ch~L~wn 20~.5 -- Anadromous, Inc. coos Bay ~- ~qC~o~t~m 11.3 909 90~q8 ~0q6~0q1 Anadr~omous. I~nC~. coos Bay F.~C~J~*~wok 9.4 991 ~A~n~adro~mou~s-~qI~nC~. coos Say ~qS~P~.Chinook ~qIn~qFallCh~in [email protected] ~qH~eckard coos say ~qCh~tx~n ~5~.0 Oregon-Pacific Burnt Hill Cr~. F.C~ql~Onook 5.0 ~;72qre~qon-Pacl~qf~qlc Bum~l Hill Cr. SP~-C ~qIn~qFallChin ~- ~~ Total Annual Pla~ntI~qN Chwn 51 269 565 2~,784 2 121 4 Coho 0 0 ~8~8 142 2.0~q80 2~,370 ~9.9 F~.Chin ~0 0 27 1~,009 148 0 ~0q5 Sp.Chin 0 ~0~ of ~6 ~1~6~1 42 Note I Note 11 Note I Note I Note I Note 11 Note I -Note Note I I Note 1~1 mole CL Planting Maslef Fteleasel I 000*s 1000's 1000's 1000's 1000-91 1000,81 1000,81 1000'sl 1000's private salmon Ranchimm Spode Permitted Plant'd Plant'd Plani'd Plant'd Plant'd Plant'd Planrd Planrd Planrd 1988 Operator site Pe millilecl Millions 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 gesl 1986 1987 SIfIcklin Skipanon R. Chum 5.0 Netmlern Land W Saknon Nehelmn Bay Chun 5.0 650 5761 893 1118- 275 394 208 200 > Harris & Hude Tillamook Bay Chun .1 - Kota, Inc. Sand Crook CMm 5.0 1.41 770 1.19 75 150 250 125 Hanwson (in Kota) Sand Crook Own 5.0 - (A Oregon Aqua-Foods Yaquina, say Chum 20.0 3,180 244 2.95 200 1.136 289. 914 Oreaon Aqua-Foods Yaquin Say catop L 9.5 7.5851 11,925 20,589 14,884 8,647 4.337. 5.584 4.092 4.000 Oregon Aqua-Foods Yaouina Say F.Ch*cxk 10.6 1521 2491 3.18 8611 52 9571 950 4.48 4.00 Oregon Aqua-Foods yaqLjna Say Sp.O*@ InFaWhin 89 54 3541 3121 Or"on Aqua-Foods coos Bay Chm 20.4 1 Oregon Aqua-Foods cow Bay Cato 11.3 5.4461 10,870 803 2.272 "0 43 1. Oreoon Aqua-F coos Bay FVskma 9.4 - Sm Oregon Aqua-Foods Coos Bay SP.CNro-d InFalChin 112 (D Ceralodus Sluslaw River rz;@ 5.0 Doffmea Sluslaw Say Chrp 25.0 17 5 212 Siuslaw_Bay _ Who 158 61 47. Dom % - - Domses Siuslaw Bay F. ChammA 12.0 911 341 741 2211 3) Siuslaw Fisheries Siuslaw River Clim 5.0 81 110 1 Anadromous. Inc. coos say CIIm 20. 1 Anadromous, Inc. coos say C4d= 11-3 1.54 899 1.65 1.341 3,071 477 1.200 Anadromous, Inc. coos Bay F-Chimmocak 9.4 96 174 159 311 815 1,031 100 Anadromous. Inc. SIP. hFANChin 623 616 93 924 1.159 421 598 5,323 1.075 Heckard Coos Bay Ofm 5.0 350 140 4 22 0 Oregon-Paclfic Suml Hill Cr. F-Mmocili 5.0 991 59 a Oregon-Pacific Burnt Hill Cr. So.VA4nc& InFeNChin 6351 939 258 1.006. 194 454 879 866 Total Annual Plan*m ChLm a 5.529 1,650 5.603 11.4189 718 1.55 555 200 Oft 14.61 23.852 23.108 10.919 8.5861 0.655 4,569 5.20 ail "at P4 2411 Ba 103 Ba 42 it F.Chin 438 500 630 16277 1.33 1.99 1.05 0 0 1 194 754 1,052 10.490 5,941 Sp.Cliin 1.258 1,756 351 1 98 ,985 Note I Nola 1, NN-4 -11 Note I Note I Note I Note I Note I No I Note 11 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note I -AN data Own colmns basW on 'Pirivele Sallm4m Hatcheries in Oregon, im, by T. Edwin Cumminp, Fish Division. ODFW, SWL, 1987 Mole 2-Alf data in this colymn based on ptellimb-sycialla from T.EdMn Cummings, ODFW. I I - I I I INote 3-AM data tMs cohimn based on produclion mWm4 Iplans submitted to ODFW, except N9hGWM Land n' SaIRM. (Chum Was DML=A file no plan. Returns Master CL x Smolts Panted (lows) - S urce: Planfina aster Table: CA) 1972 197311974 1-975 19761 1977 1978 1979 1980 lgel 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Chun 51 269 565 2.784 21 121 46 10.94 8 5.52 1.65 5.60 1.46 718 1,558 555 200 Coho 0 0 88 142 2.08012.370 9.90 5,811 14.818 23,852 23.10 16.27 10.91 8.58 8.65 4.56 5.20 F.Chin 0 0 27 1.009 0 5221 222 4361 500 6301 1.194 1.335 1.9961 I.OSO 0 OR ,Sg).Chinl Ol 0 0 6 16 1.39 1.258 1.756 351 1.985 1.70 757 1.052 10.49 5.941 I ChinoW 01 Ol 271 1 015 538 1.62 1.69 2.25 991 3.17 3.04 2.75 2,102 10.49 -5,941 Salmon Return o Release SWS (Nu rs)-Nole 1: 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 `19841 1985 1986 `1987 to Chin.A I lie. Over 24-) 213 271 752 2588 7644 5117, 3571 9288 62827, 37109 Chin.J (io, Under 241 31, 145 2642. 2499 4439 974 2728 25387 81571 2158 AN Chinook 2441 416 33941 5087 12083 6091 6299 3467 70784 39267 ckn 1 539 14 5451 477 1132 515 821 322 769 323 Coho A tie. Over 20*) 8069 47726 27745 98681 165034 127845 84501 288488 445103 118603 Z Coho J (is, Ynder 6557 1445 15639 19098 19687 6098 30902 43S64 8641 1424 0. Total 15409 49601 47323 123343 1919361 140549 122523 369947 525297 159817 CD V) Saknon Return I* Release Sims (Poundsl-Nole 1: 19781 1979 1960 '1981 198 1983 1984 1985 1986 198 Chl n.A lie. Over 20 3952 2872 9386 35860 87654 54441 551961 1189291 747989 497321 CA. 13657 1 20521 620-1 ii3675-i 2965ol 79981 Chin.J Cie. Under 241 2- 5i-1 -!I-!gl e 4. hinook 3975 3391 165651 41906 101311 56493 634041 2328071 777547 505319 Chimn 4841 110 4815 4053 9133 3961 7561 214701 6798 2661 Coho A fie, 201 38903 -225105 145614 631619 932886 504685 458235 1831704 2345616 646336 Coho i (19, Vnder n 15736 2224 31922 42070 48356 10210 89363 101986 15328 3326 Total 63455 230830 198916 719648 1091686 575349 618563 1987967 3145287 1157841 0 2 Saknon Return too Releaso (Po inds/Each)-Note 1978 19791 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 19861 1987 Q 0 Chin.A fle. Over 241 18.6 10.6 12.5 13.9 11.5 10.6 15.5 12.0 11.9 13.4 Chin.J tie. Under 24*1 .7 3.6 2.7 2.4 3.1 2.1 3.0 4.5 3.6 3.7 IAN Chinpa 1 1 16.3 8.2 4.9 8.2 6.4 9.3 10.1 6.7 11.0 12.9 ctwm- 1 9.0 7.9 8.81 6.5 8.1 7.7 9.2 6.7 8.8 [email protected] Coho A I (Is, over 203 4.8. 4.7 S. 6-41 5.7. 3.9. 5.4. 5.7. 5.3 5.4 Coho J I lie, Vp!iw 20-1 1 2.41 1.5 2.0 .21 2.51 1.71 2.4 2.4 1.81 2.3 I-AN Return data thru 19H on "Private Salmon Hatcherief. in Oregon, 19W by T. Edwin [email protected], Fish Division, 0DFW, Soo., 1907. AN data for 1987 based on preliminary data from T.Edwin Cummings, ODFW. I I I -- I I I I 3 6668 14108 5342