[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
WILLAPA BAY VOLUME I THE COINvIERCIAL FISHERY OF WILLAPA BAY PART I The Fish, Clam and Crab Fishery * PART II The Oyster Industry of Willapa Bay By J. Arnold Shotwell Planning Division, Department of Public Works Pacific County 1977 THIS REPORT WAS FINANCED BY A GRANT FROM TlZ- WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECCLOLY WITH FUNDS FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSP&:ThC ADMINISTRATIONI AND APPROPFIATEO FOR CSrTICO, -L i. OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AC! OF i-J2 REVISED WILLAPA BAY VOLUME I THE COMMERCIAL FISHERY OF WILLAPA BAY PART I The Fish, Clam and Crab Fishery PART II The Oyster Industry of Willapa Bay By J. Arnold Shotwell Planning Division, Department of Public Works Pacific County 1977 FISH, CLAM & CRAB FISHERY OF WILLAPA BAY TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Salmon Fishery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Fish Traps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Seasons and Fishing Areas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 :Later Harvest- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 Factors- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 Growth of the Ocean Salmon Fishery - - - - - - -- - - - - 27 * Chum Salmon Decline- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 Other Salmon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 Salmon Propagation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 0 Hatcheries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 Natural Propagation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54 Fish Farming - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59 r* Other Species of Fish- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63 Dogfish Shark- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63 Sturgeon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63 Other Bay Finfish- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 66 Ocean Fish Landed at Willapa Bay - - - - - - - - - - - - - 66 Summary Salmon Fishery Willapa Bay - - - - - - - - - - - - - 67 Razor Clam Fishery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69 Crab Fishery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 76 Numbers of Fishermen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 83 Development of Regulation of the Commercial Fishery- - - - - 90 Legislative History- - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90 Current Regulatory Environment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 93 FIGURES 1. Total Fish Landings Willapa Bay 1935-1973 - . 2 2. Fish Trap Claim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 3. USCE Permit to Construct Fish Trap- - - - - - - - - - - - 7 4. Typical Fish Traps- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 5. Typical Fish Trap Placement Details - - - - - - - - - - - 9 6. Fish Trap Areas, Willapa Bay - - - - - - - - - 10 7. Claim Locations 1915-1920, South Willapa Bay- - - - - - - 11 8. Claim Locations 1915-1920, North Willapa Bay- - - - - - - 12 9. Claim Lcoations 1925-1930, South Willapa Bay- - - - - - - 13 10. Claim Locations 1925-1930, North Willapa Bay- - - - - - - 14 11. Salmon Harvest Willapa Bay by Species and Gear- - - - - - 16 12. Salmon Harvest Willapa Bay, Totals by Gear and Licenses - 17 13. Fishing Areas, Willapa Bay- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 14. Willapa Bay Fish Licenses - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 15. Salmon Harvest, Willapa Bay, by Species - -- - - - - - - - 21 16. Total Salmon Harvest, Willapa Bay 1915-1974 - - - 23 17. Fish Per Gear, Willapa Bay- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 18. Gill Net Licenses, Washington by Area - - - - - - - - - - 26 19. Ocean Fishing Increase- - - - - - - - - - 28 20. Ocean Salmon Harvest, Troll and Sport - - - - - - - - - - 29 21. Ocean Salmon Harvest, Total Troll and Sport - - - - - - - 30 22. Troll Fishing Areas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 23. Migration Patterns of Silver Salmon - - - - - - - - - - - 32 24. Migration Pattern of Chinook Salmon - - - - - - - - - - - 33 25. Willapa Bay Salmon Harvest, Proportion Chum 1935-1970 - - 35 26. Hatchery Returns Nemah and Willapa Hatcheries - - - - - -37 27. Chum Plants Willapa Bay - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38 28. Migration Pattern Chum Salmon and North Pacific Fishing - Area - 39 29. North Pacific Chum Harvest -................40 30. Willapa Basin Hatcheries - 43 31. Fish Farms - - - 60 32. Shark Liver Landings - 64 33. Sturgeon Harvest Willapa Bay - 64 34. Commercial Clam Harvest - 70 35. Commercial Clam Licenses -71 *36. Recreational Clam Catch - 72 37. Recreational Clam Diggers -73 38. Willapa Bay Crab Landings - 77 39. Crab Landings S. W. Wash., Proportion by Area - 78 40. Crab Licenses Southwest Washington - 79 TABLES 1. Finfish Landings Willapa Bay -........... 3 2. Fish Locations, Willapa Bay - S 3. Adult Escapement to Hatchery Racks - 44 4. Egg Take, Willapa Hatchery - 45 S. Egg Take, Naselle Hatchery - 45 6. Egg Take, Nemah Hatchery - 45 7. Total Egg Take, Willapa Hatcheries - 46 408. Yearly Comparable Table of Egg Take in Willapa Harbor Hat- cheries - 47 9. Fish Plants from Willapa Bay Hatcheries - 48 10. Fry Planted from Willapa and Grays Harbor Hatcheries - 49 11. Total Plant Salmon by Species for Coastal Districts- - - 50 12. Relative Proportion of Chum Released, Coastal Districts- - 51 13. Relative Proportion of Chum Released, Willapa Bay- - 52 14. Salmon Plants, Willapa Bay Tributaries - 53 15. Stream Improvements, Willapa Bay Tributaries 1948-1970 55 16. Fish Farming Plantings - 61 17. Total Landings Dogfish Shark Livers Pacific Ocean 1940-1953 65 18. Commercial Clam Harvest - 74 19. Recreational Razor Clam Digging - 75 20. Commercial Crab Harvest - 80 21. Proportion of Crab Catch by Area - - - - 81 22. Crab Licenses - 82 23. License Combinations held by Pacific County Residents- - 84 24. 1975 Commercial Fishing Licenses - 85 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S The following report depends heavily on past records con- cerning the fishery of Willapa Bay. Records concerning catch, licenses, hatchery and related data were supplied by the Wash- * ~ington Department of Fisherie's in the form of published Annual Reports, Annual Bulletins, Statistical Reports and re-ports prepared for other agencies. Unpublished data was supplied by the statistics division of the Washington Department of Fisheries. Tabular material was in some cases, directly reproduced from those reports or as composites from material in these reports. * ~We are indebted to Manny LeMier, Dale Ward and Gene Nye of the Department of Fisheries for supplying these records. Data concerning the international chum fishery was acquired from BCM Circular 315. Richard Stone and Herb Tegleberg of the Washington Department of Fisheries Coastal Fisheries Laboratory have read an earlier draft of this report and supplied comment and additional * ~data which are incorporated here. They are however, not responsible for the final incorporation of this material. Data and original fish location permit applications were supplied by the Pacific County Auditor. Session laws of all the Legislative sessions were searched for relevant acts. * ~~All of the graphic illustration is original with this report (except Figures 22, 23, 24 and 28) and constructed from the data and reports referred to above. Errors may creep into such a com- posite effort as this. We will appreciate having them brought to our attention. * ~~The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the United State Department of Commerce and appropri- ated for Sections 305 and 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (G-75-025D, G-76-025B, and G-77-025B). Prepared by J. A. Shotwell, Planning Division Department of Public Works, Pacific County SALMON FISHERY Fish are landed at Will~apa Bay docks from both the bay and the adjacent Pacific Ocean. The bay fish include sal- mon, sturgeon, sharks, smelt, shad, and anchovy. Ocean fish include a small amount of troll salmon, albacore tuna, and various bottom fish such as: black cod, red snapper, *flounder ling cod, rockfish, sole and true cod. Figure I illustrates the landings in millions of pounds for the period 1935-1973. Also present is the poundage for salmon showing its relative importance to the total. landings. Such illustra- tions do not indicate the relative values of the catches. For instance, the shark liver poundage is insignificant in the totals for any year during the ten (10) years they were taken however, their value was comparable to those of any other por- tion of the fishery. While in contrast the high poundage of bottom fish, much of it incidental catch with shrimp, of 1973 is a very low value. The graph shows long term trends and the wide variation in catch. The ocean catch other than salmon is important to the bay fishery in that it tends to extend seasons in the bay by supplying fishermen and processors income between the seasons of major fishery within the bay. The bay is closely * ~~related to the ocean fishery in that it acts as a nursery for the majority of the commercial fish species taken there and feed for some species after they mature in the ocean for in- stance the large amounts of herring and anchovy produced in the bay. * ~~FISH TRAPS Commercial fishing for salmon was one of the original in- dustries in Willapa Bay. Species considered as salmon at that time were chinook, silver; sockeye, pink, chum and steelhead. Legal fishing gear consisted of pound nets, setnets, gillnets, * ~~occasionally seines and hook and lines. Pound nets (traps) and setnets were fixed in position while the others were moveable gear. Rights to fishing locations for fixed gear, traps and set- nets, were originally acquired by occupation of the site and * ~~maintaining claim piling when the trap or net was not in place. The 1915 legislature formalized the rights to fishing locations in Willapa Bay. In order to insure his rights to a locati~on, a fisherman was required to have the site accurately surveyed by a Civil Engineer, make a location map to identify the site, prepare a certificate claiming the location and file the map * ~~and certificate with the County Auditor and a duplicate with the Fish Commissioner. This process gave the fishermen ex- clusive rights to hold and occupy the location. The location 2 .5 0 0TOTAL FISH LANDINGS WILLAPA. BAY 2.00- 1935-1973 1.75 TOTAL cn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II SALMON----- LL 1.25 o >f a 1.50 - II L .25- I;. 1930~~~' 19019019 6 0 1 9 70 I G U R I' CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I IfI) lii 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ liii I I t ~ ~~~~~~~~~ II i~~~~~~~~ ii .50- I ' .25- U 19'30 19'40 19'50 19'60 1970 FIGURE 1 FINFISH LANDINGS WII,.LAPA BAY IN POUNDS TABLE 1 YEAR SALMON STURGEON SHARK L. SMELT ANCIOVY ALBACORE BOTTOM FISH TOTAL 1935 1,017276 1,017,276 1936 1,145,181 38,274 1,183,455 1937 1,024,285 41,224 1,065,509 1938 1,032,879 12,025 1,044,904 1939 661,881 12,958 7,145 681,984 1940 982,619 5,434 170,600 1,158,653 1941 1,729,904 1,634 198,725 149 1,930,412 1942 2,508,988 3,762 246 83,088 380 2,596,464 1943 1,233,116 233 31,719 2,849 1,267,917 1944 927,616 14,037 40,110 8,375 533,727 57,515 1,581,380 1945 1,097,222 13,480 52,814 126,598 18,232 1,308,346 1946 1,472,857 24,396 70,379 92,256 10,460 1,670,348 1947 849,557 9,630 31,645 244,460 20,665 .1,155,957 1948 1,206,771 9,479 23,395 436,700 179,167 56,048 1,911,560 1949 886,066 9,788 4,525 448,781 112,222 12,881 1,474,263 1950 1,673,555 15,573 1,554 218,346 3,045 1,912,073 1951 1,875,111 27,927. 76,509 1,008 1,980,555 1952 1,852,586 32,166 935 17,780 1,406 1,904,873 1953 1,581,397 34,154 744 513 301 1,617,109 1954 1,849,490 17,007 390 10,091 1,876,978 1955 1,439,978 22,281 570 1,763 1,464,592 .1956 1,061,501 73,939 - . 2,457 87 1,137,984 1957 735,081 20,353 9,931 765,365 1958 935,304 15,944 2,323 34,757 988,328 1959 887,215 23,502 6,522 3 917,242 1960 667,037 37,153 704,190 1961 543,284 47,075 72 590,431 1962 581,299 21,610 100 603,009 1963 295,280 29,980 2,923 328,183 1964 559,703 38,401 1,304 599,408 1965 473,330 32,289 '16,115 521,734 1966 422,137 76,420 33,621 532,178 1967 553,489 88,364 43,350 685,203 1968 477,652 75,917 50,818 604,387' 1969 773,249 109,313 9,384 891,946 1970 1,160,490 139,627 1,300,117' 1971 538,395 143,301 8,513 3,715 682,003 1972 942,158 95,604 30,684 2,705 1,065,895 1973 1,460,284 69,031 1,730,710 2,546,532 1974 826,187 53,382 28,055 BOTTOM FISH INCLUDE: BLACK COD, FLOUNDER, LING COD, ROCK FISH, SOLE, TRUE COD 0C�. became an item of real property which could be transferred 0 to heirs or successors. It could be mortgaged, sold or leased. The 1911 legislature declared fishing locations personnal pro- perty for purposes of taxation. Figure 2 is an example of a claim document. When the fishing right was established and the fishing license obtained it was then necessary to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct the trap at the location. A copy of a permit is shown in Figure 3. A license to operate the trap was necessary for each sea- son. The rights to the fishing location could be lost by not making use of the site. The location was considered to be a- bandoned if the trap was not constructed or a license not ob- tained. The time involved varied. The 1897 legislature declar- -ed that if the trap were not built during the season covered by license it was abandoned. The 1915 legislature extended the time to two consecutive seasons and the 1929 legislature extended the time to four years. No more than three licenses could be held by any person, firm or corporation. The numbers of pound net and setnet location permits issued for Willapa Bay each year are presented in Table 2. Traps in Willapa Bay could not exceed 800 feet in length. The lateral passage between traps was 900 feet and the end passage between traps 'was 30 feet. Meshes in nets used in constructing pound nets could be no smaller than three inches. Traps could extend no more-than half the way across a stream, channel or slough until 1899 when the legislation was changed, reducing this distance to one third. The piling of the trap extended above high water and the trap had a light at night as an aid to navigation. Figure 4 illustrates the basic design of traps used on Willapa Bay and Figure 5 shows typical placements of the traps in streams and channels. Figure 6 outlines areas in the Bay0 in which traps and setnets were used between 1915 and 1935. Five hundred and fifty three claims for fishing locations were filed and completed for Willapa Bay between 1915 and 1935. The distribution of these claims in specific areas is shown in Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10. It may be seen that between the two time periods represented by the maps, 1915-1920 and 1925-0 1930, that the fishing locations for the trpas moved down river in the Naselle and Willapa and out onto the flats of Bear River and Nemah utilizing the channels in the flats. Production by species and gear between 1915 and 1935, when fixed gear was outlawed, is illustrated in the graphs of Fi- gures 11 and 12. Those graphs indicate the number of licenses for each type of gear and the production from each by species. The low period in the early 20's which appears on all the graphs apparently is reflective of the depressed canned salmon market following World War I when a large surplus developed. It is also apparent from the graphs that production generally para- lels the amount of gear. Another obvious conclusion is-that pound nets (traps) were particularly effective in catching chum salmon. Pound nets, fish traps, fish-wheels, scow fish 4 TABLE 2 FISH LOCATIONS WILLAPA BAY - PERMIT FILINGS BY YEAR AUDITORS NO. YEAR NUMBER FILED 4-222 1915 79 223-225 1916 3 226-249 1917 23 250-271 1918 23 272-277 1919 6 278-291 1920 15 349-354 1924 4 365-413 1925 14 415-560 1926 96 561-713 1927 116 714-794 1928 37 798-879 1929 36 885-929 1930 14 -- 1931 0 983-986 1932 4 1034-107Z 1933 34 1073-1094 1934 8 0 ow ft c.lf j .r '0 S " ) '0 L.. 0* 0g .C �zr.-X rc 'I: % 1 4 C) * z.tti LJ0O rkJ A. -c & bitt.'t "'z'W cj. v)4 ;ofl o Qu0 1tf50 C Et O U)- .g 2 'v0 " -'c.g2n ' U. b 2 �' * u4'A wa vdvl"M Q4 2:$ - -U N. 0 .>d-,. j at Uz.., tiCt, rs I- � (U U -.*-.--c 0 .t.Jz �- 'C . �n0o-Afr,. -v ?04 + r flVSO DIiIOVd . * V. .3C 0 - 'p. I... * "P.1 * I.-? Z * * o *. :a.sI 0 % 'C '0 -A (L*c *. 0 'At" -- ILl JJ 0*00 *0' 4. *0 4 biW *tt' \J. . o N * 0 S 0. * II * 'N "44 a 'N -. at iv! .1 FIGURE 2 ' 0 6 0 - UNITED STATES ENGiNEER'S O)FFICE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Erfurrrug to Lun'r Applratlioi --------------t- fr authority to construct anmd mtaintainl a fish trap under State fishing license N'o.-Al5--- stA,;1� 94 a thof Nortb-izezab River oharnm 1 as shown on the map attached hereto, I have to advise you that tinder the provisions of section 30 of the river and harbor act, approved March 3, 18995 y-ou tire authorized by the Secretary of War ta construct and maintain the fish trap, subject to the fu]Iuwing conditions: CONDITIONS. 1. That tins authority alo. not floe Any property 1igtrt. eithe, Ia tro estate or nanrriAt no say, e .Ncl .v Iriirr:and thast It darn not authorize aay inju1ry to private property or inotnof po-l-rights, orsyir-na-eny of Feaerat, Stae or lees] laws or rertt oo sae-ar it obviate Abe n-a-csuty of obtahinig State acatot the n-rba-ra icd IT SIIICELY EXtItIISSES TtHE ASSENT OF TttR httt)tAL COIEtNhtLNT SO FAR. As CONCERNhS TIIE PUItLC ltUltTS tiE NAVIGATION. (See Vnaooioga &s Chirago, 255 v. .4., (tO). 2. Thaut .!t the pataaafllnt - ov rt na the wosh hereto ottansordz sallati ta bjeet to the opnrtsand opproral of the Eng-tarr WOoter of the United State Many tochrg of the loclity, who may tesapoenetty .soarear the work at any tisre it, In his . JdgmeaL, the interests of sir button no requirer. S. 'Ta~t the trap ahalt tut be treated or bufflt to sorb place are snaaar aa to nera-osbty utoltcat a, tIn~rrre with naigntts.. 4. I but non te omaer end of the tray the grostre a eaor on hall tmaintain *tga s inra.-rilca oith the State tt rooe omber In sr .af nt tree than aia inches in bright, eatable of hetrag redily read from pasri.gteaae -Jr W.tite to beep -oh aig. ounpiro canty aiiajlrt a lcr l otrt e notarcient reonna toe the eanerlation of Ita -inathurity sod foe trruccoien a. yroirledM in the rent pacagraph. A-tI reru Io the State ltierne eFaatt be ryoeted to the~ aleeot ...iraca It~e f acu th a- occu-,r, ftogathe uith the State ]tiroe nomb,-e. All c ,ige of nnecbip ehaft Ifo be ereynted to him iAracia-yand ttaio aitroity o.rt1Aroa~ to hi. tars P~rrt anotation thereon of oaah olangrs. S. That opos the ahoodosotest of the I-etton or open ei to one tIre trap a, trrer-b attas hd tia isoM-"ct of sothortty and the eas or -eps atieherd ttarrt ab ol he iaraartiry ret-rod to tire nbrc-irt 0 1eiree I.tl 0- retgte ia notice ol tbe han- toMeot. osd ttre ownr oball I eiwarefi ly arnaue the otooctue at hie e- entrcr, iarr-irrriaa oft tinae, atoher. cre.,. to , theiratitalon of the oloerairt F.neioeer Otteo-r. Fo tra 50 00 ...... e tte oa-r .1 af .l Ire-osirt-d ro-f err.rr for - r oeria rot the graote orowe for aitoes on iliegat tot roeriaraerin Oraitiou., a. .ct torth in oretiona IS aaart I 5 of tfLe rinr nod tr.,arhrst of Sfurrh s, lass9. VttAIttIbii,) that if ttae ore of ceid 6trartore Insaorredtryroia it nary Ir rrrrrrtnor-r Iracht or io psrt if the licroor saumbee to -nspe ..Aaeir y diuptayed andt the trap is prarpry tirotatra or ratbaeraie Oartr an. mn~ ---ri aa ae tepre-et oreau oahte ohotroctien to no- ai on.6 Any flb -ris, trat u ponf wtordat Io go into a coaditio' et tirra-frir no that it cannt he -ealy fteo, 0nor uaicta the I-tior ruanter is net Crueo1r -ica tY dittayr.oill be regatatrtl or ahu-oriecr, ant iist .Aprrarftty remonAt or -kred as shone pona~ a ler watt abiet the g-rate or Coors to prort .aert Any trap out in, on ar tia a the tII-non ori-e0 to oat diupayrd wal1 be s.bjeet to reoanna by the Coiled States at anay hoa.- 6. Tb. t If fotore opertions by Mtr traitrf States tralo~i, a. alteration in the lrt iarro the trap, or it the latter, in the opinion of the Secretary of Wa~r, shaft 000c ooeaea bto trrtnci- to the free naailjtirr ot tho neirt - t-ra the oroc ill to. ralcr. opu aloe netter fr"or the Secrtary of IN'us not n ithin thirty doys threfrr Ato r oaoa no ni tire trt, or obatrt ... Ha- rr thereby, aithont rote-oa to ttro Unitraf S1tates, o on to trr-e oarwaion rea,.oriay free, eoynd otorterret NO Claimrn ahait he ,wad against Ile toitcd States on oraunt of ane rmoal or atte...tiona. -7, That the trap hshlt he lfgtrted hetoer not and sa n.ty- oand At the enpen of the grantee, fare the saity of sos~lfloato The light Mchalt he diatrlspea at meets' satleoattsm ht~s"srssss sod at on eleraias of at Iless oho.-SiXteO .....feet shone high water hecratr ItOAr stra1 be otite.trSw-lh-lntts-,-, arar trslr.ai toerr t sn"li . n h nhip~~~~~~~~~......................................................t.-..... n-itS a raparaity 1.tat trr...Qiaf~t - - --- d.)P sa3.tt~enrer. 4tt , 0rl v Is tAr as-ea 0tir a.t-a5 of the afr-riat Estiare MMer P. That ti-er ot,.lI be lontattel sr raindart0 thre trap, try ant at ttLr -1-- -cr saO~e g-are. .,.h sadditiros tights -Ir sgalatal S. soap te" terrrtre try theIrara et liftoaa ha ....trr .i .-r ra4 ar t sta trarrrfnill orate try oat,h-r, r e-te for proper strieeof liaibt -1or set.0 to tha they aill aott rarel II,- ara s, o ire r arit nn 9. Thaot tIns snrbaaetsy is eroti at salt Ire it, Secetay cf Ilir, ..I--t sasaleno.. urrnder-~ rv ... tot,,lo ara ph ff1 shone shall Ileas and Ire ."II And totd-.......S........- By authority of the Secretttry of War: , VIE a- C., Is ot LU. rsr 3. Atm1. -Ardditrrrra to tI-, sa-e tar Ai.t c-aarit ir -na -atrrtroa A r t I', oran -a rt 551-ar torarar to prrra Inc letightAro lbs aastuaast taaa fre o sersrtare ast the roii, so the trarstr at--n te hyth Int.tsn 1n nreeln 0, 3I. FIGURE 3 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~ STREAM FLOW DIRE(CIIOI rYo1 BIG, HEARTBGIPLC LLEP -GAP HEART $MNAALL P RT [tA CHANNEL LI ASPILLCR TUNNEL C, 01 TYPICAL FISH TRAPS (POUND NETS) OF WILLAPA BAY SCALE PREPAREDA BY JEADHOTVLLL FIGUREI 4 FM FLATS CNANRIL FLOW TJO FLATS CHARLES GRUIJNSTRO TRAP SIE&RA CHANKEL I1I9 HARAY NEILSON TRAP WIllAPA RIVER 1915 CRRABER IRP NASELLE RIVER 926 FATH -FLOW .WHENDRICKSON TRAP WILLALPA RIVER 1932 JOHN THOMPSON TRAP WILLAPA RIVER 1919 'LOWr S ~~f(offrTER - A- JW.LAW TRAP LONG ISLAND 1920 AlD N' LAT - - M(AN OW WATERLINIE MOOREBCHRISTENSEN TRAP PALIX RIVER 1927 PLOt' TYPICAL TRAP PLACEMENT DETAILS IN ATER - WILLAPA BAY ScA>vA�rIoAJs HPREPARE GY' LA.SROTWELL DON SMITH TRAP NORTH RIVER 19Ii FIGURE S 9 WILLAPA BAY FISH TRAP AREAS0 1915 -1935 NA ELRVER, 0 ~~~~LONG I AND SLOUGH BEAR RIVER 10~~~~~~~~~ 0'6 14~~~~~~ RI VER FIGURE 6 10*0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fl A~~~~~~~~~~~~STNTIIW It LONGISLAD. NSELL PREPANOD By.R JASHTWEL FROM USGS QVAO MAPS FIGURE 7 RI~~~~~~~~t ~ 3 NORTH COVE .' NORTH RIVER fT14N RIOW GOOSE POINT ~~~~~~_ _I: ..~. . . . . . 0 ............... ~~~~~~~~~~~~WILLAPA RIVER PALIX RIVER WI1LLAPA BAY NORtH COVE .NORTH R.YER. VWILLAPA RIVER. PALIX RIVER AND NEMA. SINK FISH TRAP CLAIMS 1915-20 POUND NET *-- SET NET 0 SOURCE, PACIFIC COUNTY AUDITORS RECORDS PREPARED Sy' J A SIOTWELL FROMI USGS 01.1O MAPS FIGURE 8 12 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Vl *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~po e in. @~ *~~~~~~~~~~~~~n .0~N N RI~~~~~~~~~~SET RET -G~~~ORC PCFCCUT ADTR EOD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~713 R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I TI~S POINT NORTH COVE ) NORTH RIVER Oww GOOSE POINT R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w'. _ _ _ WItLLPA RIVER PALIX1 RIVER WILLAPA SAY NORTH COVE.NORTH RIVER. WILLAPA RIVER. PALIX1 RIVER AND NEMAII SINK FISH TRAP CLAIMS 1925-39 POUND NET -- OF,- ~~~~~~SET NET 0 SOURCE* PACIFIC COUNTY AUDITORS RECORDS LYNN POINTY0 PREPARED Sy- ).ASHOTWE~LL FROM USGS QUAD MAPS FIGURE 10 140 wheels, setnets, weirs and all fixed applicances were outlawed by Initiative 77 which was approved in the 1934 general elec- tion. This action left gill nets as the primary fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The 1915 legislature limited gill nets to 1200 feet in length and thirty six meshes deep. It also limited gill net licenses for use in a single district. Fish traps were for the most part locally owned and oper- ated. Commonly two or more persons appear as holders of a location such as: Guinn and Emerson Swenney Brothers Newton and Shroyer Williams and Kline Williams and Ford Williams and Prickett Howard and Prior Fisher and Nelson Harris and Pettit G. A. Mosher and Sons Broughten and Lampi Jensen and Mortncson H. E. and C. M. Jensen Moore and Christensen O'Mera and Herrold Most of those combinations were probably operating partner- ships. Packing companies also held fish trap locations such as: Pacific Fish Company Sunset Packing Company F. C. Barnes Co., later Chetlo Packing Company Barnes Packing Co. P. J. McGowan and Sons Chinook Packing Company These were local companies. Oystermen such as Wilson and Wiegardt and lumbercompanies such as Nicomen Boom Company held locations. There does not appear to have been any concentration of ownership in processors or absentee owners as was the case in Alaska. The depletion of the fishery is-not apparent until many years after traps and set nets were outlawed (See Figure 1 and 16). Gill nets increased in number and within ten years equalled in number the average of all gear for the twenty years prior to the removal of fixed gear from the fishery (See Figure 14). The primary result of the end to traps was to shift from a highly efficient system of harvesting to a less efficient one. The level of harvest was not changed until the number of fish was reduced with the decline of chum in the 1950's. SEASONS AND FISHING AREAS Fishing season was closed by the 1899 legislature from November 15 to December 15. The Fish Commissioner was given the authority to close the season at other times with a thrity day prior notice. The 1905 legislature changed the closed sea- sons to March 15 to April 15 and November 25 to December 25. The 1911 legislature changed the closed seasons to March 15 to April 15, August 1 to September 1 and December 5 to January 5. By 1915 the legislature had again changed the closure to March 15 through April 15 and December 1 through January 1 and allowed closure by the commissioner with fifteen days prior notice. POUND NETS(TRAPS) SET NETS GILL NETS SILVER 50- 25- 50- CHINOOK tL 25- ' 150- CHUM II00- 50- 1920 1930 1920 1930 1920 1930 SALMON HARVEST WILLAPA BAY 1915 -- 1935 BY SPECIES AND GEAR FIGURE 11 16 POUND NETS(TRAPS) SET NETS GILL NETS :r 200- L_ 150- 0 * 100-- o 50- 250- 200- o- 150- w 0 U z Lii o 100- 50- 1910 1920 1930 1910 1920 1930 110 1920 1930 TOTAL SALMON HARVEST WILLAPA BAY 1915-1935 BY GEAR INCLUDING NUMBERS OF LICENSES FIGURE 12 17 1918 1926 PRESENT CLOSED 4 PARTIAL CLOSURE /// FISHING AREAS WILLAPA BAY FIGURE 13 After 1921 season closures as well as emergency closures were made by the fisheries department. The pattern in Willap.a Bay has been to announce the season opening and closing date by director orders, usually July to October, then declare week- end closures followed by emergency closures based on the level of escapement. Regulation of the gill net season in Willapa Bay has then been based largely on the need to insure adequate salmon in the hatcheries and natural stream areas for propaga- tion. Deadlines were designated by the 1899 legislature as the limit of tide water in North River, Willapa River, and Naselle River. The 1911 legislature added the Palix, Nemah, and Bear Rivers. The 1915 legislature extended the deadlined streams to include the South Fork of the Willapa River, Cedar River, and Smith Creek. Tide water in the various rivers was design- ated as particular points on each of the streams. The 1917 legislature moved the North River deadline down stream from its earlier designation. As was the case for seasons, after 1921 the department of fisheries designated fishing areas. The Nemah flats were closed in 1958 to insure excapement to the Nemah hatchery built a few years earlier. The south bay was closed at about the same time to protect natural propaga- tion in the Bear River. Figure 13 illustrates the reduction in fishing area from 1918 to 1974. During the period from 1918 to 1974 there has been a considerable reduction in fishing 18 time and area in Willapa Bay. Most of the area occupied by fixed gear during early harvest years in now closed, or as is the case of the Palix River, has a shorter season than other areas. The Naselle River below the Highway 101 bridge and much of the Willapa River which were in the active trap area, are still part of the commercial fishery. LATER JARVEST After 1935, salmon were taken only by gill net in Willapa Bay. The amount of gill net gear as indicated by licenses in- creased over the next ten years until the total compensated for the loss of fixed gear in the fishery (See Figure 14). Licenses provide an indication of the potential amount of legal gear in the bay fishery. However this is only true when gear is licensed for specific areas. The 1915 legisla- ture created licensing districts. These were Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Columbia River. The later three included the adjacent ocean area. Under this system of districts gear could only be licensed in one district and licenses were transferable from one fishermen to another. Thus the number of licenses purchased indicated the potential amount of gear which might be used in the fishery. In 1949, the legislature eliminated districts and made gear licenses non-transferable. Apparently licensed gear could then be used in'-any of the former districts. No basis is thus available for estimating the potential gear that could be used in Willapa Bay under this arrangement. Fishermen from other areas could move to Willapa Bay if the season looked more promising there. The legislature again imposed a district system in 1957, but these districts, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Columbia River did not include the adjacent ocean area. A separate district was established for the ocean fishery at the same time. Licenses were still non-transferable but a fisherman could license gear from more than one district by paying three times the fee for a single district. After 1957 it is again possible to determine the potential legal gear that could be used in Willapa Bay. The 1971 legislature again changed the gear licensing districts by creating dual area districts. District one was Puget Sound. District two was a combination of Grays Harbor and Columbia River and District three Willapa Bay and Columbia River. This meant that gear licensed in district three could be fished in either the Columbia River or Willapa Bay. Licenses then do not give an indication of potential gear in the fishery under this arrangement. The catch of the major species of salmon in Willapa Bay is illustrated by graphs in Figure 15. Chum salmon appears as the most abundant species with wide variations for many years varying from 50,000 to 200,000 fish. Originally a low value salmon, it has become more valuable but has also declin- ed alarmingly in numbers seldom reaching 25,000 fish since 1960. Silver salmon has also varied greatly in catch but has not shown a major decline although the lows in the graph for the earlier 1960's were lower than previous lows. The silver is 19 450- WILLAPA BAY LICENSES 400- TRAPS, SET NETS,GILL NETS 350- w 300- I x 250- o 200- 150- co 100- Z . NO DIST DISTRICTS THREAT OF ONE LIC. TWO LIC. LIMITED 50- REO. TO REO. TO ENTRY AND DISTRICTS IN FORCE WORK WORK DUAL AREA TWO LICENSES REQUIRED COL. R. COL.R. ONE LIC. TO WORK COL. R. ALSO ALSO ALSO REQUIRED 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 14 20 0 - SALMON HARfVEST WILLAPA BAY 1912--1974 SILVER 50- , * . ** i . i . CHINOOK 100 - 1920-21 PEAK REFLECTS PURSE SEINE ACTIVITY I 50- LL 200- CHUM 150 - 0 "00 - 50 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 15 21 a more valuable salmon to the fisherman than chum, fish for fish, and is similar in size to the chum when it enters the Bay fishery. Chinook have not varied widely in numbers as have chum and to a lesser extent silver. They have usually been the lowest in numbers, seldom exceeding 10,000 fish, however they are much larger than either chum or silver and much more valuable on a per pound basis so that they are eco-S nomically an important part of the catch. FACTORS Major factors effecting the catch in any particular year are; number of fish available, amount of gear in the fishery, fishing time and area available to the gear and price. The number of fish reflects'the level of propagation, both arti- ficial and natural of the brood years involved, predation, losses to the ocean fishery and other unknown factors. The amount of gear is influenced by the price of salmon, the success in adjacent fishing areas such as the Columbia River, which may be more attractive than the Willapa to fishermen at various times during the season. The nature of the fish- ermen themselves enters into the factor.- Some are committed to fishing as major source of income augmenting their income with non-fishery employment only when the season is too poor to supply a minimum income while at the other extreme aye the moonlighters whose primary source of income is some area other than the fishery but jump iiito the fishery during their off- time from their basic employment when the season appears to be good or the price of fish attractive. Since licenses must 'be purchased before the season starts they appear as having potential gear in the fishery. Fishing time is primarily regulated by the department of fisheries. A season is de- signated before fishing begins and then closed on an emergency basis or extended depending on the escapement of fish to the artificial (hatchery) and natural propagation areas. The num- ber of fish in the run effects these decisions as well as stream flow conditions to the propagation areas or facilities. A dry year can reduce stream flows to a point fish will not move up to spawning grounds or hatcheries. Other factors limiting fishing time are storms which make fishing inadvise- able, high abundance of sharks which foul nets, poor catches by other fisherman, high levels of phosphorescense in the water, etc. A wide variety of factors determines the amount of gear in the water any given season. The amount of gear licensed prior to the beginning of the season would appear to not di- rectly indicate the actual fishing pressure but only the po- tential pressure on the fishery. The total number of licenses purchased for gear in Willapa Bay for each of the years from 1915 to 1971 appears in the graph in Figure 14. It s.hould be noted again that fixed gear (pound nets and set nets) became illegal in 1935 and this * point, is indicated on the graph. Figure 16 presents graphically the total number of fish of all species of salmon taken each year in Willapa Bay from 22 SALMON HARVEST WILLAPA BAY 300 1915 -1974 L,. 200- 0 z Cr) 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 16 23 1915 to 1970. Comparison of the variation in amount of licens- ed gear with catch records (Figure 14 and 16) reveals than many of the peaks and lows appear at about the same time. This may be examined more directly by calculating a ratio of number of fish gear licenses to number of fish caught. Figure 17 presents graphically this ratio for the period 1915-1970. If the varia- tion in gear and catch correlated exactly, the line of the ratios of fish to gear would be straight and horizontal. Upward diver- gencies indicate higher number of fish per item of gear while down trend indicated lower number of fish per item of gear. Fi- gure 17 shows wide divergencies upward or peaks. Four of these occur, one 1919, one 1923-25, one 1941-42, and one 1950-55. The first three peaks coincide with high chum catch years exceeding 150,000 fish and are thus explainable. The fourth peak 1950-1955 may represent an artifact of the regulations for licensing in force at that time. From 1949-1957 licensing districts were not in force. Apparently a gear license was good in any legal fish- ing area. Under these circumstances, Columbia River fishermen could fish in Willapa Bay without registering a license for the Bay so that data concerning gear licenses would not reflect the � true gear potential during that period. Washington Department of Fisheries annual reports at that period indicate that they were concerned by the increasing number of Columbia River fish- ermen with gear (as many as 100) in Willapa Bay. Gear licenses show a downward trend during this period (See Figure 14) reflect- ing the regulation change which made it unnecessary for Columbia � River fishermen to buy separate licenses to fish in Willapa Bay. This coupled with a peak in catch ahd produced a high peak in the fish to gear ratio but because of the reasons given above is an artifact of the regulations on licensing in effect at that time. Another major divergence is in the severe downward trend from � 1920-22. Again this apparently is not a reflection of gear-fish relationships as much as the fact that the market was bad and few licenses were obtained and few fish caught. The wider divergencies of the ratio of fish to gear line can be explained and understood once the factors involved at the time are taken into account. The remaining portion of the graph indicates minor variations over a general trend. This trend shows an increase in the ratio of fish to gear to about 1960 when it levels off. It is surprising that with all the factors effecting catch that there is any recognizeable relationship between numbers of fish caught and number of licenses obtained. The various fac- tors effecting catch must act together to limit the amount of gear licensed. The low fish to gear ratio of the 1960's does not reflect a significant increase in gear but is a response to the reduction in the low total number of fish taken during that period. This reduction in catch is largely due to the depression of the chum catch after the mid 1950's. It is in contrast to other areas, for instance Puget Sound, where the amout of gear has increased at a high rate since 1940 (See Figure 18). One would expect that in a declining period of a fishery the gear would not decrease until the ratio of fish to gear were so low that it was uneco- nomical for some fishermen. A significant number of part-time fish- � ermen and transients from other areas may tend to buffer this reaction 24 FISH PER GEAR WILLAPA BAY 1600 - 1200- z U .l w 800 - *_1910 1920 190 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 17 25 1400 - GILL NET LICENSES PUGET SOUND----- COLUMBIA RIVER------ WILLAPA BAY GRAYS HARBOR---..... w z 1000- C-)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f I1 w I 800- 1 VV"a LL i 600- E. I\ 400- z I I '.5 200- 'I I I I 19'30 1640 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 18 26 and that the same number of local full-time fishermen have been involved for sometime with the variations in gear li- censing accounted for by others. The dual area license created by the 1971 legislature will make it very difficult to estimate potential gear in the bay however, the limited entry porposals of the 1975 legislature may tend to force part-time fishermen out or to increase their committment to the fishery. The low fish to gear ratio of the 1960's sug- gests that too much gear is in the fishery and that the two area licenses tends to aggrevate the situation. Since the price of fish probably cannot increase without bad market reactions, the gear should be reduced in order to allow the fishermen to produce a lower priced fish. Limited entry may tend to aid this goal. GROWTH OF THE OCEAN SALMON FISHERY Marketing tests conducted by the Department of Fisheries indicate that the majority of the chinook and silver salmon leaving Willapa Bay migrate north along the coast of Washing- ton with a small number turning south. The bulk of the ocean harvest occurs along the north coast of Washington and the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Department of Fisheries esti- mates that an average of 50,000 silvers and 17,000 chinook from Willapa Bay were harvested each year in the ocean troll fishery between 1966 and 1970. The troll fishery has grown considerably since World War II. At that time there were less than fifty troll licenses issued for the Willapa and Grays Harbor Districts. The number in 1971 was nearly one thousand (See Figure 19). The ocean troll catch in this area has nearly quadrupled in that time (See Figure 20). The sport fishery also harvest in the ocean. An indication of the increase of this aspect of ocean harvest of chinook silver salmon is shown in Figure 20 which illustrates the ocean catch landed at Westport and La Push since World War II. The rate of increase of sport gear in the ocean fishery is apparent from angler trip records between 1955 and 1970. Figure 19 illustrates these trends and shows more than a doubling of gear each ten years. Figure 21 combines the sport and commercial troll catch to present trends and rates in the growing ocean fishery for chinook and silver. The level of ocean harvest of salmon originating from Willapa Bay has grown rapidly since World War II particularly since 1960. At the same time plantings of chinook and silver salmon from hat- cheries has increased as well as have returns to the hatcheries. (See Figure 26 and Tables 3-11). The productivity of the bay in silver and chinook salmon today may be compared to that of pre- vious periods by totaling the ocean catch originating in the bay and it's tributaries, both troll and sport and the gill net catch in the bay. Although accurate figures cannot be assigned, it is clear that the total catch of silver and chinook originating in Willapa Bay is now as high or higher than any time in the past. This also is true for the state as a whole. The primary differ- ence is that the harvest is being made largely in the ocean rather than in the Bay. There is very little regulation of the ocean salmon fishery. The season essentially is the time when the salmon are near shore 27 TROLL LICENSES SPORT FISH GRAYS HARBOR & ANGLER TRIPS WILLAPA DISTRICTS S.W. WASH. 1800 - 1500 - W z') 1200 - 250- 'o 900- ' C 600 - 150- 300 1950 1960 1970 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 19 28 OCEAN SALMON HARVEST SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON CHINOOK TROLL SPORT .50 - I .25- - All, I ' ' ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~, , /. , .I LL . , :,. - -; - SILVER 1.25- . ' o 1.00- . 75 *, \ ~'\-i,1l& -, - , , , , , . O'll l i lt a3 f:::)- n II ,' ; X o f *~~~~~~~~~ ' .l1 .I .5 , * * * , , ,V' Ii I I I I I I 1930 1950 1970 1950 1970 S.W.WASH.=LAPUSH a GRAYS HARBOR STATE TOTAL-- S.W. WASH. FIGURE 20 29 OCEAN FISHERY HARVEST TROLL AND SPORT .75_. S.W. WASH. .50- CHINOOK � .25- 1I. L E 0 1. 00- ' .75- o _..50- .25- i9'30 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 21 30 Cap.~ ~L ALASKA BRITISH COLUMBIA ~":~i~ ~-/WASH. ' co h i MMBRITI9SH COLUMBIA MM OREGON ~J;I~~mo _-':.~ WA..SHI NGTCN !';:~1ft[>~ WS -..1 COLUMBIA RIVER REGON ,,2 CALIFORNIA f ?lnx't 'CM ALASKA CCrotche Oty CALIF. kkm -FI GUIRE 22PtAeo S'al Froci-co Troll Fishing Areas (from NMFS Draft EIS Preliminary Management Plan) 0 ALASKA I ff ~~~ I ~~~Prince Rupert ~~~~~BITS COLUMBIA as shown by togging OREG ONept and marked hatchery releases Co a 1IlBRITISH COLUMBIA MMOREGON EZ] COLUMBIA RIVER E~E CALIFORNIA WMALASKA Erk (Wi dth of Itines d o not i ndi cote CLF strength of stocks) Migration Patterns of Silver Salmon (from NMFS Draft [IS Prelinimary Management Plan) 32 0 * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ALASKA �~~~~~W PrinceRpt ~~~~~ ~~~BRITISH COLUMBIA * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aberdee WASH. -as shown by tagging o a~d marked hatchery releases * 111BRITISH COLUMBIA Cecn WASHINGTON Erk ZJCOLUMBIA RIVER CLF 2I1CALIFORNIA (Width of lines do not indicate strength of stocks)a omc FIGURE 24 Migration Patterns of Chinook Salmon (from NMFS Draft EIS Preliminary Management Plan) 33 and not yet moving into the bays and rivers. Minimum fish size and in the case of sport fishermen, maximum catch are � the only limits on the fishery. In order to insure propa- gation of the runs, heavy season and emergency closure re- gulations are imposed on the gill net fishermen in the es- tuarine areas such as Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Col- umbia River. The benefits from the increased production of chinook and silver salmon accure to the ocean fishery and not to fisher- men in Willapa Bay. The ability of the bay and its tribu- taries to supply the estimated numbers of chinook and silver taken in the ocean fishery plus that taken in the bay indi- cates_ that the productivity of the area has apparently re- turned to former levels. CHUM SALMON DECLINE Chum salmon are taken primarily by nets. They are not caught by troll or sport gear and so do not contribute to the ocean troll and sport fishery. In Washington they are harvested by gill nets and purse seines in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the lower Columbia River with some catch in smaller coastal streams. The chum catch has typically varied widely from year to year but after the mid- dle 1950's declined dramatically. This decline occurred in all the fishing areas. In the Columbia River a major decline is evident in 1944 with a slight recovery through 1948 then an almost complete loss by 1960. In Willapa Bay a similar decline (See Figure 15) occurred but after 1955. The lowest catches occur in mid 1950's in Puget Sound. Until 1960 chum salmon were the major portion of the salmon catch in Willapa Bay. They accounted for, on the average, 71% of the number of salmon caught and 64% of the poundage of sal- mon caught (See Figure 25). In 1958 chum salmon averaged $.17 per pound, chinook, $.33 per pound and silver $.28 per pound. The chum catch that year was sold at the dock for $118,821, the chinook for $44,334 and silver for $28,564. The price per pound to the fisherman today for all species is about three times that of 1958, however chums are accounting for a much smaller proportion of the catch. Better than average chinook seasons in six of the seven years from 1967 to 1973 has helped to balance the economic effect of the decline of chum. However these better chinook years are believed to be in part the result of harvesting some Columbia River fish which are found on occa- sion in Willapa Bay. With the recent apparent decline of chi- nook in the Columbia River system, bumper years of chinook which are in part from that system cannot be anticipated. The harvest in Willapa Bay of chinook and silver is limited to that portion of the return not taken by the ocean fishery and not required for propagation. The increase of gear in the ocean and the lack of regulation of that increase in the past indicates that the chinook and silver harvest in Willapa Bay cannot be expected to fill the gap left by the decline of the chum unless ocean harvesting is reduced. 34 WILLAPA BAY SALMON HARVEST PROPORTION CHUM 1935-1970 80- 0 60- 40- 1940 ' 1950 1' 60 170 FIGURE 25 Although chum has a lower value per pound than chinook or silver, it has an equal ability to increase its value in pro- cessing. That is it can supply jobs in processing as well as can chinook and silver salmon. By-products from chum are of equal value to those of chinook and silver. The decline of chum catch in Willapa Bay roughly coincides with the closure of the Nemah flats and the South end of the bay to fishing. The reduction of fishing pressure might appear as the cause for the reduced harvest. However, returns at the Nemah hatchery show the same decline (See Figure 26) even when counts at the Williams Creek rack are included. While chum returns to the hatchery have fallen off the return of silvers and chinooks had increased (See Figure 26). A significant aspect to the chum problem is in the artificial propagation policy reflected in releases from the Willapa Bay hatcheries, Figure 27 illustrates the total numbers of chinook, silver and chum juve- niles released from these hatcheries. The total number had increased from 3 million in 1955 to 9 million in 1970. Chum have been released only since 1958 in this period. The proportion of chum released has reduced from a high in 1961 to 66% to 7% in 1970 (See Table 12 and Table 13). A similar trend is apparent if actual numbers of fish released is considered. Figure 27 presents this information for Willapa Bay. It appears that the silver and chinook release has been greatly expanded while chum production has been cut. It should also be noted that the high returns of chum to the Nemah hatchery in 1953, 54 and 55 were not taken for spawning (See Figure 26). No chum eggs were taken until 1957 at the Nemah hatchery. Although this may have been a missed opportunity it cannot be considered the major reason for the decline. Earlier production of chum in Willapa Bay was entirely dependent on natural' propagation. Since there has been no signifi- cant increase in fishing gear and probably a reduction of fishing pressure in Willapa Bay, the decline suggests that either the natural propagation of chum has failed since sometime in the 1950's or that ocean netting has taken large numbers of chum since 1950. Ocean netting for salmon has not been allowed in Washington waters for many years. North American and Asian chum occupy much of the North Pacific in the course of their ocean migrations. Japanese fishing areas are outlined in Figure 28. The Japanese shifted their fishery from an emphasis on a coastal and river fishery to an ocean drift net and longline fishery by 1952. The resultant Asian catch increased considerably while at the same time the North American catch dropped suddenly from an average of 14 million fish per year to 8 million fish per year (See Figure 29). There thus appears to be a possi- bility that a competing ocean fishery is responsible for the decline of chum in the fishing areas of Washington. However, tagging experiments indicate that Washington chum do not enter the area9 of the Japanese fishing although some may be taken illegally out- side the limits. 36 HATCHERY RETURNS 20- NEMAH 15- A It II II 10- Z II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5- I LL~~~~~~ILP I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 JI I- 8-C 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ II3 o *1I . ,I~~~~~~~~~ * 2-~~~L Z S I tV FIGURE 26 3 r~~~~~3 ,, ' CHUM PLANTS 9- ' F 6- 2 ' WILLAPA BAY Z: . ! lt , fL .I IX I I I! .! 5 - , ! XI t I I I I~~~~~~~~~~ I 7- I I i , I ., ,I I |,8f TOTAL SALMON PLANTED .. . .4 - TOTAL CHUM PLANTED ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IL IL ' 0I / \ Ii ' , \ t 5L it.1 / IXI II~~~ I �. I~, -vI LL . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l 2- 0')~ ~ ~~~' 955 1960 1965 1970 FIGURE 27 38 7O*N. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LSK SEA OF /BERINGUFO *~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. . . HOS . AAK 45N . 45'N. UNITED STATES PACIFIC OCEAN 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~--Known coastal and ocean distribution of chum salmon. i-ic io 70 1800 17011W. 16 1500 1400 / '~~~ ALASI(A OKHOTSK0 BER I N GULF OF ALASKA l 50 J~~~~~APANESE . J ~~~~MOTH~F1SHIP JAAEE LAND-r3ASED FISHERY 100, I 6OO 170" . I 00 1 700 1601, 1500 1400 I.301, i PACIFIC O C A N Coostol ond rivee fishef~es Important fishing areas for chum sailmon In Asia and North America (Kaisalarq, 1961; Internwiticnal North 'PacIflc Fisheries Commitision, 1964; Manzer et al., 1965). FIGURE 28 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~39 NORTH PACIFIC CHUM HARVEST 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 JAPANESE---- fill 31 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Iii Ii NORTH AMERICAN 25P- T j II I Vl ' Ij I� _Jl( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '' III*I oL20 i r I I/ \5APAN s JAPANESE MOTH VOTHERSWP 0 I I / OPERATION I ~I J~~~~~~~~~~~~ I _1 10 r~~~~~Il P ' APANNESOT I. I IAOTHBERSINPG 5d Ar A OPERATIO~ (r I I~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I Il I 1D F OF :i t ~AC~-(ATI~],J' NORTH- PACIFIC .j I ~~~COAcST ~ BERING SEA 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 0 FIGURE 29 40 40~~~~~~~~ The Washington Department of Fisheries biologist feel that the major cause of the chum decline, as well as that of the naturally produced chinook and silver salmon, has been the wholesale destruction of the spawning and rearing habitat by logging activity. OTHER SALMON Pink and sockeye salmon were also harvested in Willapa Bay in the past. Steelhead were classified as salmon until 1929 when they were declared a game fish by the legislature and could no longer be sold as fresh fish but could be processed. Pink and sockeye salmon did not make up a significant part of the catch and appear only sporatically in the catch records after 1921. Steelhead made up a larger portion of the catch than did pink or sockeye but were never a major element in the fishery. 41 SALMON PROPAGATION HATCHERIES At statehood it was recognized that artificial means were necessary to propagate salmon in order to maintain the resource. The 1889-1890 legislature directed the fish commissioner to establish hatcheries and in other action expressed their concern for the loss of natural spawning grounds. The 1895 legislature appropriated funds for hatcheries in each of the four fishing districts, and the 1899 legislature approved funds for fifteen additional hatcheries. Five hatcheries have been established in the Willapa Bay drainage (See Figure 30). Many of the early hatchery sites were poorly chosen and were eventually abandoned because they were unable to procure large numbers of eggs, returns were obstructed by dams or log jams, unscreened irrigation diver- sions trapped downstream migrants, or pollution interferred with operation. Three of the Willapa Bay hatcheries were abandoned. North River in 1922, Willapa No. 2 in the late 1920's and Naselle in 1954. The Willapa No. I hatchery was built in 1899 and sub- sequently added to and modernized. It is in operation today. The Nemah hatchery was operating by 1953. Returns to these hatcheries are presented in Table 3. As the foot notes indicate in Table 3, a number of spawners were taken at other sites than that of the hatchery. Particularly, Trap Creek and Williams Creek. This applied primarily to the taking of chum. Early hatchery programs involved the taking of large numbers of eggs with very little rearing of the swim-up fish. The records of egg taking at Willapa Bay hatcheries between 1900 and 1934 reflects this program, Table 4-8. Later hatchery programs involved taking smaller numbers of eggs and extended rearing of the fry. Egg taking at Willapa Bay hatcheries from 1948 to 1970, Tables 4-6, -follow this program and ponds were constructed at the Willapa and Nemah hatcheries for extended rearing of silver (about I year) and the shorter term rearing of chinook. Although considerable numbers0 of chum eggs were taken during the early hatchery program in Willapa Bay, chum were not incubated~until the late 1950's under the later program. The available records indicate that chum eggs were not taken for nearly 20 years proceeding the late 1950's. Department of Fisheries personel feel that hatchery operations before the 1950's did little to enhance the fishery and may have been harmful in some instances. The lack of disease control methods and an adequate hatchery food limited the success of the hatcheries. The early release of fish reduced their survival potential. Overloading of streams with young fish resulted in a poor quality seaward migrant because of the limitations of natural food and may have adversely effected natural populations in these streams. 42 �~J-.- L.A .JJ. ** I� -� L~...1 .4r__l~-- WRIA 22 .4;. 5 a,., m I --�-- Ca~~~~~~~~lr~~~ar~~~2- ' WRIACUt, ASN WI 25 *.-c.- Un~nM Y1*�r LI~lyl LPI(* t*IWWW laBs ~~) K> ( ~ HATCHERIES 'AEXISTING FIGURE 30 43 TABLE 3 - AIDULT ESCAP'I:IMNT TO IIATCIIIRY RA(UKS CHINOOK SALMON SILVIER SALMOIN CIIUM SALMION YEAR NS!AII WILLAPA NEXtUI WILLAPA NI!WI WILLAPA 1938 ---..... 296 ..... 1,690 -----..... 1939 -.- 125 ----- 1,118 1940 ---- 392 ...... 925 .......... 1941 ..... 474 ..... S87 ..... 1942 . ...- 145 ..... 360 ---...... 1943 ---- 75 --985 1944 ----- 20 ----- 2,208 1945 ----- 106 ..... 1,415 1946 ----- 104 ..... 362 .......... 1947 ----- 31 -.___ 708 ----- 1948 ----- 52 ----- 390----- 1949 1----- 47 ..... 451 1950 ----- 174 .----- -703 ---- 1951 --- - 215 . .. 1,031 1952 ---- 182 ..... 1,282 1953 10 240 674 766 20,382 1954 SO 241 831 616 13,982 ---- 1955 165 369 1,634 921 4,609 ----- 1956 175 400 2.068 411 2,714 1957 192 133 1.872 386 4,485 1958 644 127 2.180 339 2,440 1959 504 6191/ 805 479 1 860 ----- 1960 173 2392/ 6781 300 4,4788 2139/ 1961 373 244A/ 2,2125/ 988 1,6341.' 168 1962 400 358 8406/ 572 994 ----- 1963 403 399 733W/ 1,117 1,253 ----- 1964 1,298 742 1,607 1,100 1,373 ----- 1965 908 339 2,202 4,074 609 ----- 1966 796 419 2,082 1967 1,416 316 5,310 5,944 404 1968 2,303 353 8,020484 1,030 ----- 1969 1,398 745 - 6,310 7,719 1,994 7,719 1,994 1970 2,034 817 15,065 6,415 805 1971 2,302 , 567 9,916 3,875 1,415 1972 1,719 825 3,975 3,226 1,229 1973 2,842 2,645 10,137 7,398 991 1974 2,S00 2,500 4,954 6,306 1,099 ..... NOTES: 1/ 376 of this number were gaffed 2/ Includes 26 fish from Trap Creek 3/ Includes 22 fish from Trap Creek 4/ Includes 97 fish from Williams Creek S/ Includes 671 fish from Black Lake Fish Farm; 23 from Williams Cr. 6/ Includes 137 fish from Black Lake 7/ Figure represents only those fish that were spawned 8/ Includes 3,261 fish from Williams Creek 9/ Includes 71 fish from Johnson's Slough 10/ Includes 1,215 fish from Williams Creek (Composite from WSDF Annual Reports) 44 TABI.E 4 I.GG TAKE - WI.l.A'A IIAlTCIIRY� YEAR CHllNOOK S LVI!R ClllM TOTAl. 1948 11,299 189,953 201,252 1949 117,182 437,575 554,757 1950 1951 181,773 48,131 229,904 1952 263,483 503,841 767,324 1953 401,338 381,922 783,260 1954 307,247 161,571 468,818 1955 1956 1957 302,920 753,400 1,074,320 1958 299,235 407,565 2,000 708,800 1958 1,090,7941. 600,651 2,1002/ 1,693,645 1960 437,635- 287,601 165,580- 890,816 1961 239,646 694,481 157,509 1,091,o36 1962 473,749 582,026 1,055,775 1963 405,495 911,872 1,317.367 1964 1,862,080 1,235,333 3,097,413 1965 803,614 1,338,503 2,142,117 1966 2,986,874 2,986,874 1967 1,344,0223/ 1,755,956 3,099,978 1968 2,408 ,055s 2,098,911 4,506,967 1969 3,027,102-' 2,366,177 5,393,279 1970 575,774 3,330,023 3,905,797 1971 1972 1973 2,513,655 3,285,516 1974 TABLE S EGG TAKE - NASELLE HATCHERY 1948 461,360 461,360 1949 211,170 - 211,170 1950 1951 168,130 168,130 1952 21,696 351,000 372,696 1953 6,216 6,216 TABLE 6 EGG TAKE - NENLAH HATCHERY 1953 18,119 68,532 86,651 1954 122,449 193,026 315,475 1955 1956 1957 - 151,190 619,740 3,013,450 3,784,380 1958 618,211 821,896 1,984,520 3,424,627 1959 804,967 412,721 1,448,253 2,665,941 1960 236,6446! 519,7267/ 2,853.552gX 3,609,922 1961 S22,800 ' 1,716,300 , 427,300- 2,666,400 1962 562,400 690,780 -/ 1,042,700 2,295,880 1963 502,900 558,8201- 1,336,615 2,398,335 1964 1,241,097 1,038,690 1,863,350 4,143,137 1965 1,365,520 752,095 607,200 2,724,815 1966 468,760 1,355,580 891,400 2,715,740 1967 1,425,400 1,176,300 441,780 3,043,480 1968 3,149,080 2,027,500 1,007,600 6,184,180 1969 2,073,694 2,349,042 1,388,195 5,810,931 1970 1,096,560 2,571,570 978,100 5,646,230 1971 1972 1973 1,809,105 1,497,440 1,473,680 1974 NOTES: 1/ 31,129 Chinook from Trap Creek 2/ All Chum from Trap Creek 3/ 1,643,800 Chinook from Deschutes River 4/ 1,616,370 Chinook from Deschutes River 5/ 2,121,635 Chum from Williams Creek 6/ 244,750 Chum from Williams Creek 7/ 958,130 Silver fish farm Black Lake 8/ 224,000 Chinook Decschutes 9/ 152,395 Silver -Black lake 10/ 177,260 Silver-Bllack Lake 45 TABLE 7 TOTAL EGG TAKE - WILLAPA IHATCHERIES YEAR WILLAPA NASELLE NEMAtI TOTAL 1948 201,252 461,360 662,612 1949 554,757 211,170 765,927 1950 714,886 564,000 1,278,886 1951 229,904 168,130 398,034 1952 767,324 372,696 1,140,020 1953 783,260 6,216 86,651 876,127 1954 468,818 - 15,475 784,293 1955 1956 1957 1,074,320 3,784,380 4,858,700 1958 708,800 3,424,627 4,133,427 1959 1,693,645 2,665,941 4,359,586 1960 890,816 3,609,922 4,500,738 1961 1,091,636 2,666,400 3,758,036 1962 1,055,775 - 2,295,880 3,351,655 1963 1,317,367 2,398,335 3,715,702 1964 3,097,413 4,143,137 7,240,550 1965 2,142,117 2,724,815 4,866,932 1966 2,986,874 2,715,740 - 5,702,614 1967 3,099,978 3,043,480 6,143,458 1968 4,506,967 6,184,180 10,691,147 1969 5,393,279 5,810,931 11,204,210 1970 3,905,797 5,646,230 9,552,027 46 TABLE 8 YEARLY COMPARATIVE TABLE OF EGG TAKE IN lILLAPA HARBOR DISTRICT SALMON HIATCtIERIES YEAR CHIINOOK CHUNM SILVER STEELtlEAD TOTALS 1900 --------- ---------- --------- ......... 726,000 1902 --------- ---------- --------- ......... 4,958,910 1903 --------- ---------- --------- --------- 1,605,300 1904 700,000 ---------- 2,000,000 320,000 3,020,000 1905 588,500 ---------- 2,400,000 189,500 3,178,000 1906 437,400 ---------- 2,500,000 585,000 3,522,400 1907 678,600 ---------- 654,500 148,500 1,481,600 1908 322,200 ------5--- 504,000 399,000 1,225,200 1909 455,200 ---------- 64,000 --------- 519,200 1910 773,000 ---------- 2,731,000 400,000 3,904,000 1911 788,000 ---------- 3,457,500 405,100 4,650,600 1912 768,000 ---------- 1,540,000 510,000 2,818,000 1913 1,345,500 ---------- 2,004,000 292,000 3,641,500 1914 437,700 ---------- 953,500 87,500 1,478,700 1915 1,759,775 ---------- 807,600 11,250 2,578,625 1916 1,759,775 ---------- 807,600 11,250 2,578,625 1917 2,237,800 ---------- 1,151,250 813,800 4,202,850 1918 1,608,200 336,350 2,219,750 285,500 4,449,800 1919 7,389,250 1,016,000 3,002,700 1,531,400 12,939,350 1920 .323,000 5,348,500 5,589,850 2,224,750 13,486,100 1921 6,587,200 --------- 6,756,500 2,482,600 15,826,300 1922 3,217,000 --------- 9,139,000 2,299,000 14,655,000 1923 7,572,900 --------- 8,382,000 2,222,000 18,176,900 1924 2,903,000 ---- ----- 6,688,000 1,321,000 10,912,000 1925 6,498,600 --------- 7,163,500 1,391,000 15,053,100 1926 10,801,100 227,500 3,286.500 762,500 15,077,600 1927 6,997,000 184,500 3,370,000 1,201,500 11,753,000 1928 3,636,200 5,852,000 4,416,000 846,500 14,750,700 1929 7,258,800 4,760,700 3,814,000 638,000 16,471,500 1930 5,880,700 2,748,500 5,450,500 982,000 15,061,700 1931 11,478,500 9,722,500 3,960,750 510,000 Z6,671,750 1932 16,282,500 5,147,500 1,452,000 520,000 23,402,000 1933 12,089,000 1,228,500 1,842,00 470,000 15,629,500 1934 7,828,000 3,452,500 2,322,000 670,000 14,272,500 47 TABLE 9 FISH PLANTS from WILLAPA BAY HATCHERIES M~~~ 0 �rl ~ Cf *H *H, a a W H4 X4 C4 H U)14., H ~~-i H H ~ U) C~~ ~ H C~rS r--l r-i E V) W 4 --I d .,.i c *r. 0 a) W a r 0 H M 0(P-4 YEAR P z ; _ z z uz 1948 X X X X X X 1949 X X X, X X X 1950 X X X X X X 1951 X X X X X X 1952 1953 1954 X X X X X S 1955 i95t 1957 X X X X X X 1958 X X X X X X 1959 X X X X X X 1960 X X X X X 1961 X X X X 1962 X X X X X X 1963 X X X X X X 1964 X X X X X 1965 X X X X X X 1966 X X X X X X X X 1967 X X 1968 X X X X X X 1969 X X X X X X X X 0 1970 x X X X X X X 48 TABLE 10 YEARLY CONLPARATIVE TAML.E 0r FRY PI.ANTI'D FRONM TIlE STATE IIATCHIERIES DISTRICT AND YEAR Chinook Do- Silvcr Steelhead Totals GRAYS HARBOR DISTRICT- 1913 139,000 497,300 2,600,000 701,118 3,937,418 1914 93,250 1,230,000 4,136,840 561,900 6,021,990 1915 674,760 3,404,465 4,324,207 801,806 9,205,298 1916 674,760 3,404,465 4,324,208 801,867 9,205,300 1917 2,978,288 17,725,949 12,275,990 967,975 33,948,202 1918 279,200 4,763,000 6,017,655 1,847,400 12,907,255 1919 318,800 5,610,000 10,593,100 2,245,700 18,767,600 1920 1,928,839 27,694,449 13,134,755 1,007,500 43,765,543 1921 4,376,450 --------- 12,706,213 1,296,005 18,378,668 1922 1,599,530 --------- 17,218,000 799,870 19,617,400 1923 826,420 5,601,420 17,822,610 504,172 24,754,622 1924 313,519 3,640,000 9,720,231 450,640 14,124,390 1925 172,279 9,773,459 16,023,401 306,300 26,275,439 1926 458,700 1,131,000 19,209,590 626,550 21,425,840 1927 314,000 1,340,000 19,501,790 530,950 21,686,740 1928 173,425 2,052,700 9,185,148 554,890 11,966,163 WILLAPA HARBOR DISTRICT-- 1913 3,247,345 --------- 1,636,765 248,555 5,132,665 1914 302,461 1,581,750 291,460 105,440 2,281,111 1915 2,374,145 590,860 769,290 -------- 3,734,295 1916 2,374,145 590,860 769,291 -------- 3,734,396 1917 5,411,725 2,359,805 1,809,901 771,600 10,353,031 1918 1,460,206 318,100 372,500 197,000 2,347,866 1919 5.458.500 936.400 2.184,900 931,100 9,510,900 1920 294,604 5,613,783 4,885,268 1,666,500 12,460,155 1921 6,023,500 80,585 3,208,420 1,240,900 10,563,405 1922 2,536,780 --------- 10,865,300 1,909,000 15,311,080 1923 5,072,605 --------- 4,705,340 979,885 10,757,830 1924 3,784,325 --------- 3,591,000 631,790 8,007,115 1925 6,338,790 --------- 8,270,645 1,085,342 15,094,777 1926 8,989,450 205,265 2,820,165 530,535 12,545,415 1927 5,214, 95 167,395 7,393,235 206,410 12,981,735 1928 2,559,306 5,344,940 1,970,445 596,825 10,471,516 (Adapted from WSDF Annual Report) 49 TABLE 11,. TOTAL PLANT OF SALMON BY SPECIES AND AGE GROUP 1950 -- 1970 WILLAPA HARBOR, GRAYS HARBOR, AND COASTAL DISTRICTS CALENDAR FALL CHINOOK SILVER CHUM TOTAL YEAR Fry Reared Fry Reared Fry Reared All Species 1950 ---- 1,545,151 ------- 889,645 ------- ------- 2,434,796 1951 ------- 3,467,262 156,636 806,325 ------- ------- 4,430,223 1952 ------- 3,889,507 17,864 670,432 ------- ------- 4,814,260 1953 ------- 4,369,748 - ------ 1,610,299 ------- ------- 6,369,407 1954 ---- 1,616,713 - ------ 1,297,384 ------- ------- Z,914,097 1955 ------- 3,065,192 - ------ 1,491,612 ------- ------- 4,557,804 1956 ------- 2,541,867 - ------ 1,883,846 ------- ------- 4,425,713 1957 ------ 4,374,081 - ------ 1,571,225 ------- ------- 5,945,306 1958 ------- 2,942,143 ------ 3,593,255 ------- 1,969,383 8,504,781 1959 ------- 3,195,958 - ------ 1,213,153 1,950 1,815,430 6,226,491 1960 ------- 4,240,849 - ------ 1,557,973 2,000 2,106,192 7,907,014 1961 ------- 717,945 - ------ 1,739,277 ------- 3,653,316 6,110,538 1962 . ------- 668,160 972,050 3,222,305 63,000 754,610 5,680,125 1963 ------- 1,206,692 - ------ 1,035,837 ------- 1,634,995 3,877,524 1964 ------- 2,056,999 - ------ 2,508,608 ------- 1,496,580 6,062,187 1965 ------- 3,613,375 331,050 3,167,122 100,000 1,551,200 8,762,747 1966 ------- 2,817,164 292,940 3,311,784 - ----- 504,275 6,926,173 1967 ------- 2,428,503 - ------ 2,841,754 - ----- 748,880 6,019,137 1968 ------- 3,783,755 - ------ 3,537,218 80,000 412,360 7,813,333 1969 2,292,977 4,549,223 1,752,400 3,347,289 253,844 659,685 12,855,418 1970 1,481,510 7,482,669 2,062,860 4,150,625 - ----- 666,930 15,844,594 TABLE 12 REI.ATIVE PROPORTION OF CHIUM RELEASED Fry and Reared WILLAPA BAY -GRAYS HARBOR - COASTAL DISTRICT YEAR CHINOOK SILVER CHUM TOTAL % CHUM 1950 1,545,151 889,645 ---- 2,434,796 1951 3,467,262 962,961 ---- 4,430,223 1952 3,889,507 688,296. --- 4,814,260 1953 4,369,748 1,610,299 ---- 6,369,407 1954 1,616,713 1,297,384 ---- 2,914,097 1955 3,065,192 1,491,612 ---- 4,557,804 1956 2,541,867 1,883,846 ---- 4,425,713 1957 4,374,081 1,571,225 ---- 5,945,306 1958 2,942,143 3,593,255 1,969,383 8,504,781 23% 1959 3,195,958 1,213,153 1,817,380 6,226,491 29% 1960 4,240,849 1,557,973 2,108,192 7,907,014 27% 1961 717,945 1,739,277 3,653,316 6,110,538 60% 1962 668,160 4,194,355 817,610 5,680,125 14% 1963 1,206,692 1,035,837 1,634,995 3,877,524 42% 1964 2,056,999 2,508,608 1,496,580 6,062,187 25% 1965 3,613,375 3,498,172 1,651,200 8,782,747 19% 1966 2,817,164 3,604,734 594,275 6,926,173 9% 1967 2,428,503 2,841,754 748,880 6,919,137 11% 1968 3,783,755 3,537,218 492,360 7,813,333 6% 1969 6,842,200 5,099,689 913,529 12,855,418 7% 1970 8,964,179 6,213,485 666,930 15,844,594 4% TABLE 13 RELATIVE PROPORTION OF CHUM RELEASED - WILLAPA BAY YEAR TOTAL PLANTED CHUM PERCENT CHUM 1957 3,030,553 -0- -0- 1958 5,973,446 2,404,756 40% 1959 3,056,435 1,652,080 54% 1960 3,564,958 1,215,392 34% 1961 3,932,484 2,587,316 66% 1962 3,571,809 754,610 21% 1963 2,472,056 898,420 36% 1964 3,629,799 1,205,580 33% 1965 5,748,877 1,551,200 27% 1966 4,431,228 504,275 11% 1967 3,527,773 748,880 21% 1968 4,665,202 412,360 9% 1969 7,425,954 685,029 9% 1970 8,976,437 666,930 7% 52 TABLE 14 SAt glN P'I.ANr S - WI 1.1 I'A BAY Till lt'ITAR I'S i'lI l' I'.AN IrS BIAR NASI.II.l. NI MAII P'AI.I X NIAl AKUIM BONE WI I.lAl'A sI III NOIIR ll Cli ltl W [I L.AI'V YIAU _ I__ V _ U 11.1 RIki RI_ I RI_ 1 HRIVE R RIVI R IRVI R (1,I Il Ri k' R RIVI H I\k 195 1958 1,645,781 755,975 1959 1,650,130 1,950 1900 1,213,392 2,000 1961 2,433,470 106,260 47,586 1962 614,490 140,120 1963 898,420 19b4 1,205,580 1965 1,551,200 1966 504,275 1967 748,880 1968 412,360 1969 659,685 25,344 1970 666,930 SILVER PLANTS 1917 29,042 105,821 226,064 38,275 300,661 59,543 40,000 1958 26,000 116,680 437,561 50,728 801,043 101,702 801,048 1959 15,770 96,612 75,284 24,990 185,598 44,268 114,200 1960 55,880 333,448 8,100 454,582 18,120 35,112 1961 169,965 402,053 218,793 1962 50,500 516,830 636,637 815,661 33,081 196,437 1963 70,312 313,152 23,174. 21,250 195,032 1964 53,400 317,980 451,052 45.042 151.776 1965 162,640 357,131 667,130 175,131 72,930 1966 25,050 441,579 40,162 409,092 64,782 550,969 1967 555,946 1,385,997 1968 42,090 121,258 802,122 765,380 81,862 1969 97,760 380,640 1,137,610 759,303 97,884 76,400 1970 106,050 733,292 952,617 1,147,014 303,980 134,400 CHINOOK PLANTS 1957 187,465 896,960 67,060 1,079,752 1958 98,000 647,963 1,227,705 1,227,705 1959 30,000 583,385 233,648 1960 18,065 470,039 956,220 1961 209,235 345,116 1962 422,285 145,768 1963 447,138 373,293 30,060 100,225 1964 775,643 629,286 1965 986,939 1,623,210 50,024 102,542 1966 1,422,455 938,724 34,140 1967 836,950 696,363 1968 1,266,654 1,172,606 1969 2S2,R90 1,742,415 117,900 1,541,023 340,600 196,500 1970 242,400 1,286,740 1,834,964 738,870 53 The numbers of fish planted from the various hatcheries that have operated in the Willapa Bay drainage are shown in Tables 9, 10, and 11. The streams and area in which these plants were made are indicated in Table 13. References in Table 13 to Black Lake and Johnson Slough are concerned with fish-farming experiments by the Department of Fisheries and will be reviewed later. Table 14 indicate the number of fish planted in each of the major streams draining into Willapa Bay by species since 1957. Analysis of the results of marking experiments with hatchery fish has led WDF to conclude that a major portion of the harvest of salmon in Willapa Bay is from hatchery stocks. It also indicates that stocks originating in Willapa Bay hatcheries con- tribute heavily to the ocean fishery. Chum salmon tend to spawn low in the drainage of tributary streams in the bay and even in brackish water. The location of the existing hatcheries well up in the drainages does not make it likely that they can effectively handle chum salmon. An enlarged hatchery program with chum has been delayed by WDF. This delay has been due to the low appraisal the department has of the economic value of chum salmon to the state, the fact that chum does not contribute to the sport fishery and a lack of the technology needed to develop a major hatchery program in chum. NATURAL PROPAGATION With the view that hatcheries can only supplement natural propagation, the legislature and Department of Fisheries initiated a stream improvement program in 1951. The aim of the program was to clear access to spawning beds, protect downstream migrants from various water- diversions by use of screens and maintain minimum stream flows. The 1967 legislature provided the Director of Conservation the authority to establish minimum stream flows after consultation with the Director of Fisheries or the Director of Game, however, existing water rights, storage rights, and use by hydro-electric or water storage reservoir plants were not effected. The removal of splash dams, log jams, beaver dams, and other debris which completely blocked many streams to the migration of salmon, was accelerated. Table 15 lists stream cleanup activities in tributaries of Willapa Bay between 1948 and 1970. The early activities involved initial removal of splash dams and major log jams which provided access to many miles of stream. Latter activities appear as maintenance operations with occasional major removal jobs. These projects were largely involved in the removal of stream blockages. However, as this work began clearcutting became the universal logging practice and stream damage was extreme. The area clearcut between 1950-1974 is depicted in Figure 11 of the Water section of this report. It includes nearly all the spawning stream areas in the Willapa Bay drainage. The damage to fish involves the removal of shade effecting temperature levels and the silting of gravel beds so that they can no longer function as incubation areas. This has been compounded by the practice of 54 TABLE 15 STREAM IMPROVEMENTS - WILLAPA BAY TRIBUTARIES - 1948-1970 EAR IMPROVEMENT LOCATION 1948 2 log jams removed East Fork, Naselle Riv. 2 old splash dams removed .South Fork, Willapa 1 old concrete dam removed North River 1 dam removed Ferrier Creek 3 splash dams removed Palix River 1949 Install fish ladder ard culvert baffles Stringer Creek 1950 2 log jams removed Middle Fork, Nemah Riv. 1951 & 1952 2 splash dams and several log jams removed-opened 20 miles of stream Willapa River Stream clearance North & Naselle Rivers 1953 2 splash dams removed South Fork, Willapa Riv. splash dam removed Higgins Creek partial removal splash dam Naselle River 2 large log jams removed North River & Ramie Cr. 1954 No details available 1955 log jam removed South Fork, Naselle Riv. 1956 Removed large log jam - opend up approximately 32 miles of stream N Fork, Naselle River small log jams removed on tributaries Naselle & Bear Rivers 1957 Stream clearance Salmon Creek & Cedar River 1958 No details available 1959 No improvements indicated 1960 No improvements indicated 1961 Work in Pacific County not detailed 1962 Obstruction removal - constructed fish S Fork, Naselle River, passage cement creek & Davis Creek 1963 log jams debris removal Cement, Bean and Davis Creek, S Fork Naselle River log jams and debris removal Crusher, Dog Salmon Higgins Cr., of S Fork, Naselle, River debris removal Salmon Creek debris removal-tributaries Salmon Creek debris removal Dell Creek beaver dam removed Ellsworth Creek beaver dam removed ard debris S Nemah River beaver dam removed Tarlett'Slough Cr. log jams, debris and beaver dams removed Williams Creek blow down removed Higgins Cr.-Naselle Riv. 3 large log jams removed Middle-Nemah River log jams, debris and beaver dams removed N Nemah River log jams-created fishways Fail River debris removed Smith Creek debris and log jams removed Fishtrap Creek-Willapa beaver dams removed Fredricks I-I, Fleiss Creeks 1964 removed numerous log jams Alder Cr., (E Fork Naselle River) removed large log jam N Fork, Naselle River removed log jams, debirs and beaver dams N Nemah River Debris and beaver dams removed Bean Creek (S Fork, Naselle River) Removed Debris South Fork, Naselle debris removed Dell & Horn Creeks Naselle River Beaver dams removed Ellsworth Cr. Naselle Riv. Beaver dams & debris removed Salmon and Pietta Cr. Naselle River Removed log jam Bear River " " " Fall River 1965 Beaver dams removed Tarlett Slough Debris removed Fall River Beaver dams removed S Nemah River Beaver dams removed Ellsworth Cr. Naselle Riv. Removed beaver dams Fleiss Cr. & 1-1 Creek Log jam removed Smith Creek Log jam removed Williams Creek 56 0 1966 Removed log Jams & debris North Nemah River " " " Middle Nemah River Windfalls, log jams removed N Fork Naselle River Removed log Jams and debris Savage Creek N Fork Naselle River Removed log jams Alder Creek S Fork Naselle River Log jams removed Bear River " " " Fall River Blasted falls for salmon passage Middle Palix River Removed log jams Ellis & Forks Cr. (Willapa River) Log jams removed Finn Creek (N Nemah River) Removed log jams Ramie Cr. (North River) Removed beaver dams, brush: & blow downs Tarlett Slough Beaver dams removed Pietta & Salmon Creeks (Naselle River) Removed beaver dams Bear, Cement and Davis Creeks, (South Fork Naselle River) 1967 Removed windfalls, debris, log North Nemah River jams Removed two large log jams South Fork Willapa River 1968 Removed windfalls Fall River Removed windfalls South Fork Naselle Riv. 1969 Removed debris and log jams Mill Creek, Willapa Riv. Removed log jams, stumps and debris Williams Creek Removed log jams Nemah River Removed beaver dams & debris Salmon Creek & other Tributaries, Naselle Riv Removed debris, beaver dams and windfalls Redfield Creek (North River) Removed beaver dams and debris Martin Creek (North River) Removed beaver dams and debris Cement, Davis, and Bear Creeks, (South Fork, Naselle River) Beaver dams and debris removed Ellsworth Creek Removed beaver dams, windfalls and Trap Creek log obstructions (Willapa River) 1970 Removed beaver dams Redfield Creek North River Removed beaver dams Piettta Creek Naselle River Removed log jam and debris Dell Creek, Naselle River 57 1970 (Cont'd) Windfalls removed Stringer Creek Willapa River Log jams, beaver dams removed South Fork Nemniah River Removed debris Fall River Windfall and Debris removed Higgins Creek Naselle River Log jam, stumps and debris removed Williams Creek Debris removed Burnham Creek South Fork Naselle River Removed old bridge, log jams North Nemah River Log jams removed North Fork Naselle River Debris and Windfalls removed Salmon Creek " Beaver dams, debris removed Fleiss, I-I, Electric and Fredericks Creek Removed debris and beaver dams Bean, Pavis and Cement Creeks (South Fork Naselle River) Beaver dam and debris removed Ellsworth Creek Removed debris Oxbow Creek Willapa River the removal of gravel from stream beds for road construction. Stream runoff patterns are also changed producing lower low flows. The Department of Fisheries estimates that the damage will continue to keep the natural propagation level low for another 10-15 years until there is regrowth of vegetation in the stream areas. All indications are that the current natural propagation of all salmon species in the Willapa Bay drainage is at a very low level. During the period of activity of stream improvement and presumably added natural propagation little or no improvement was evident in the Willapa Bay fishery, however, at the same * ~~time the ocean catch of chinook and silver salmon increased greatly. As noted earlier, if the contribution of the tributaries and hatcheries of Willapa Bay to the ocean fishery are considered, plus the catch in the bay, it appears that the productivity of the bay in chinook and silver must be close to its earliest pro- duction levels. At the same time the chum fishery has fallen * ~~off disasterously. Hatchery production has not been increased for chum but more significatly chum do not seem to have respond- ed to the stream improvement program. In fact it almost appears that they have suffered from it although there is no direct evi- dence which would lead to such a conclusion. Possibly the stream improvement program has concentrated on upper drainage problems * ~~thus tending to benefit chinook and silver spawning grounds while those more preferred by chumn continued to degrade. Some areas worked, however, were known as chum areas and they are not neces- sarily separate from those of chinook and silver. The loss of the chum fishery has not been limited to Willapa Bay but has occured in other areas sometimes earlier than in Willapa Bay. FISH FARM\ING Milo Moore became Director of the Department of Fisheries in 1957. He instituted a "fish farming" program which involved the rearing of salmon in lakes, ponds and estuaries. The program * ~~is described in the 1957 Annual Report of the Washington Depart- ment of Fisheries as follows: "Less than 30 days after taking over administration of the Department, the Director ordered steps taken to in- itiate a fish farming program to take advantage of know- ledge gained from similar programs in other parts of the world. The practibility of rearing salmon in natural ponds and lakes is an idea shared by many employees of the Department. 59 - r .. I *..d..- h..ft N.,~~~ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ R~o WWECLI SAS-NjJ 22~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W (1- -j-3T *~~~~~~~~~~~~PLP SAS1 * - ' - ' - - -~~~~ ~ ( xv.RI A0 6~~~~~~~~0 TABLE 16 FISH FARM PLANTINGS JOHNSON SLOUGH YEAR SILVER CHINOOK CHUM SOURCE 1958 60,403 Willapa 1959 50,600 Simpson 1960 1961 56,245 Lake Pleasant 1961 47,586 Trap Creek 1962 45,000 Johnson Slough 1963 27,002 Bingham Creek 1963 100,225 Deshutes River 1964 40,590 Forks Creek 1965 100,000 Deshutes R. & Forks Creek Hybrids 1966 34,000 Deshutes R. & Forks Creek Hybrids BLACK LAKE 1959 63,450 Simpson 1960 35,000 Willapa 1961 150,000 Pleasant Lake 1962 153,000 Black Lake 1963 168,030 Black Lake and Bingham Creek 1964 88,800 Black Lake 1965 -------Plants made--but no numbers available------------------- Compiled from WDF Annual Reports 61 The success the Department has in the future in restoring salmon production to a higher level for both commercial and sports fishermen will depend to a large extent upon the expansion of the lake, pond and marine estuary salmon rearing program initiated during 1975.---------- During the past year, approximately 1,050 surface acres of fresh water and 35 acres of salt water were developed by the Department of salmon rearing. In general, silver and chinook salmon will be reared in predator-free, min- eral and fertilizer improved fresh water, and chum and pink fry will be raised in salt water estuaries that have been freed of predators.----------------- The program now under consideration calls for vast expan- sion. As additional bodies of water become available through direct Departmental purchase, lease easement or permit, more hatchery-incubated fish will be planted into these productive areas and will be reared without loss from predation in planktonic enriched waters until they are ready for ocean existence. With the inclusion of such large lakes os Ozette, Palmer, Big, Samish and Mason, many thousands of acres of water can be producing salmon at a miximum rate. It is highly possible that in the fu- ture a sufficient number of hydraulically and environment- controlled rearing areas can be brought into production to increase the Departments present reared salmon output from 60 million to 500 million fry each year."0 The fish farming program grew out of earlier experiments in salt water rearing at Hoods Canal. Local areas used for this program were Johnson Slough near the mouth of the Willapa River and Black Lake at Ilwaco. At Johnson Slough, silvers were planted until 1965 when it was decided that the higher summer temperatures, salt water intrusion and low dissolved oxygen made long term rearing impractical. Chinooks were introduced after 1964 to avoid the summer problems. In 1960 a 10 foot rotating screen was installed at Johnson Slough to prevent the loss of young fish and in 1962, the slough was poisoned to remove undesirable species. Table 16 includes the record of plantings in Johnson Slough. At Black Lake only silvers were planted and are also recorded in Table 16. In 1965, WDF sponsored an economic feasability study of the fish farming program. The conclusions from this study were: "1. Some hope of economic feasability can be obtained by closing down operations in areas where production is demonstrably low. 2. A controlled natural rearing program is unlikely to meet the full test of economic feasability without some effort to enhance the natural productivity of the areas. 62 3. It would take a large differential in physical producti- vity to justify expansion of controlled rearing of chum and pink salmon, both of which are relatively low valued in the commercial usage and contribute comparatively little to the sport fishery." The later statement apparently reflects the Department of Fisheries' policy towards chum salmon, judging from the state- ment itself, the placement of hatcheries and the production of chum fry. The fish farming experiment ended in Pacific County in 1966. No more plants were made after that date. The department no longer reported on fish farming after 1966 but did refer to * ~~programs in "Natural Rearing Areas". S~~~~~~~~~~3 40 OTHER SPECIES OF FISH DOGFISH SHARK Dogfish shark liver produced oil which was used for illu- mination and lubrication before electricity and petroleum de- rivatives were readily available. They did not become an im- portant element in the fishery however, until it was discovered that the livers of the dogfish and soupfin shark contained Vit- amin A. By the early 1940's the demand for shark liver was high and lively fishery developed in Willapa Bay, as well as in other coastal areas. The development of synthetic substitutes and the availability of foreign fish oil sources depressed the local mar- 4N ket until very few shark were taken for livers after 1950. Fi- gure 32 shows the poundage landed at Willapa Bay. A small portion of this catch was taken outside the Bay. Table 17 shows the re- lative values of shark livers from 1940 to 1953 to westcoast fish- ermen. *. �Dogfish shark are readily caught in gill nets and often occur as an undersireable incidental catch to strugeon and salmon fish- ing. The lack of value and the damage of nets, large numbers often being caught in a single drift, make them a nuisance to the gillnetter. The intense fishery for them in the 1940's greatly reduced their numbers and when they returned to abundance in the * 1950's, considerable concern was expressed that as a predator they would wipe out the food fishery. (See WDF Annual Report 1958). Massive programs were initiated or requested to subsidise the harvesting of dogfish in order to control them. Such attempts are not usually biologically sound. A market for dogfish may develop if it can fill the need for marine fish protein in hatchery food for salmon. Such a market would probably not be lucrative but if it provided an income for this incidental catch to pay for lost fishing time and gear damage, the dogfish shark would serve to augment the fishery rather than reduce the profitability. STURGEON Sturgeon are taken by gill net in Willapa Bay as incidental catch to salmon. They often make up the bulk of the catch during 0) the first few weeks of the gillnet season in July and early August, and appear in catches throughout the season. There has been a minimum length of four feet for sturgeon since 1897 and later a maximum length of six feet was imposed. Annual catch in pounds is presented in Figure 33. A long term'increase in catch peaked at 140,000 pounds in 1971 and has dropped off radically since then. Both green and white sturgeon are taken; the green being the major portion of the catch. Price 63 (I. "' SHARK LIVER LANDINGS 3 o I00- IL 0 o 50 - .z 0 o I 1940 1950 FI GURE 32 � STURGEON HARVEST WILLAPA BAY 150 - z 1920- 1973 0 a:L 100 - 0 z ,50- 0 r 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 FIGURE 33 64 Table 17 Total Landings of Do,;�ish Livers in viashington, Oregon,California, British Columbia and Alaska 1940-1953 Year Price per Pounds of Liver Pound Landed 1940 5.7 cents 1,915,077 1941 26 5,648,703 1942 27 6.468,180 1943 46 8,280,761 1944 44,6 13,542,960 1945 40.2 9,020,188 1946 55.5 6,010,373 1947 6,025,624 1948 56.6 5,145,170 1949 42.5 5,873,185 1950 15.6 766,933 1951 26.5 1,209,468 1952 17.1 1,011,568 1953 10.4 898,900 From WDF Annual reports 65 and the prevalence of dogfish sharks during the early season effects the sturgeon catch. It is not clear if the drop in catch since 1971 reflects the condition of the resource or some other factor. OTHER BAY FINFISH A.number of fish other than those already noted are taken sparotically in Willapa Bay. These include shad, anchovy, white bass, smelt, herring and flounder. The baitfish are not regularly taken primarily because only a small number of sport and troll boats operate or make landings in Willapa Bay. Bait- fish, however, are often in high abundance within the bay. A small shad fishery operates occasionally in the bay. Flounder and rarely white bass are taken as incidental catch in gill nets -but are usually not marketed. The potential for expansion of catches in these fish has not been pursued. OCEAN FISH LANDED AT WILLAPA BAY Small amounts of troll salmon are landed in Willapa Bay. Occasionally trollers interrupt their salmon fishing to catch tuna. This occurs when warmer ocean water moves northward and shoreward, usually in late August, so that smaller boats can enter the tuna fishery (See Table 1). Bottom fish occur as incidental catch to crab and shrimp in recent years. Incidental catch to crabs does not enter the market. Large amounts of bottom fish, 1,500,000 -pounds in 1973, are taken in shrimp trawls. Since 1972 a black cod fishery has developed out of Willapa Bay-and takes about 200,000 pounds each year. Some ling cod and red snapper occur as incidentals in the black cod traps. Outside fishery is important to the bay fishery because of its potential ability to fill out the season for fish- ermen and processors. 66 SUMMARY The predominent characteristic of the finfish fishery is its high variability from year to year in production. This makes it difficult to recognize short term trends, however in Willapa Bay it is clear that there has been a decline in the total salmon catch beginning in the late 1950's. This decline * ~is attributed largely to the reduction in the catch of chum salmon which formerly represented 71% of the number of salmon caught. The actual number of fishermen in the bay has remained relatively stable but the declines in numbers of fish caught results in a lowering of the fish to potential gear ration. The natural propagation of chinook and silver salmon has been severely reduced by habitat damage due to logging practices. Artificial propagation of chinook and silver salmon has increased * ~through the expansion of existing facilities. Most of the current harvest in Willapa Bay is from these facilities. At the same time the ocean fishery for chinook and silver has increased greatly both in the numbers of fish caught and in the amount of sport and commercial gear in use particularly in the areas through which fish pass on their return to Willa-pa Bay. The increase in the *1 resource has not benefited the bay fishery. There has been very little effort towards artificial propa- gation of chum and this effort has diminished over recent years. The development of the Japanese high seas net fishery for chums in the Bering Sea area coincides with a major reduction of chum * ~catch in the mid 1950"s along the coast of North America. Chum returns to hatcheries has declined in recent years while that of chinook and silver have significantly increased. The local gillnet fishery has been reduced to a position where they are allowed only those fish not taken by-.the ocean * ~fishery which has continually expanded and those fish not needed for propagation. Increasing the number of fish propagated and reared as juveniles in the bay both naturally. and artificially will not necessarily benefit the local fishery as long as other elements of the fishery are not limited in their opportunity to catch fish before they can return here. Although there is a * ~potential to increase the number of fish produced, the larger question is who will benefit from this increase and will the local fishery be further limited in order to provide the spawning material for this increase. 67 A low fish to gear ratio indicates an inefficient fishery and forces a higher price for the fish produced. Regulation philosophy in the past has been to leave the fishery open but limit seasons and gear in such a way that it is inefficient. Higher cost of fish results in higher market price and may limit the marketability of the product and thus become a more serious problem than who gets the fish. There is little chance of change in the present harvest level until vegetation is reestablished in stream areas. Reduction in the ocean fishery could provide some increase in the Willapa Bay harvest. 680 RAZOR CLAM FISHERY The commercial Razor clam harvest in Pacific County averaged over one million pounds per year until quotas were invoked by the 0 Department of Fisheries in 1942. In 1950, the Pacific County ocean beaches were closed to commercial razor clam digging. The spits in the mouth of Willapa Bay were left open to commercial clam dig- ging. At the time the Pacific County beaches were closed to com- mercial razor clam digging over 2500 licenses were held cach year. Twenty to thirty percent of-the reported clam harvest was used for crab bait, (See Figure 34 & 35). The recreational razor clam harvest has varied widely from one to six million clams per year on each of the north and south county ocean beaches. The average appears to be around two and one half million clams from each area. (See Figure 36 & 37). The number of diggers has increased from 250,00 digger trips in the late 1940's to about 650,000 digger trips in recent years for all the Pacific Ocean beaches, Grays Harbor and Pacific County. Local numbers have varied between 100,000 and 200,000 for each of the Pacific County areas for the last ten years. Sampling and counts by the Department of Fisheries indicate that the wastage of clams by diggers ranges from twenty to thirty percent of the total taken by recreational diggers and three to five percent by commercial diggers. A commercial hardshell clam fishery grew to over 250,000 ND pounds a year in Willapa Bay in the 1950's, but dropped off to less then 50,000 pounds per year after 1960. These clams were primarily taken by oystermen from their beds. The razor clam provides'another example of the conversion of a resource in Pacific County from primarily a commercial utiliza- tion to largely a recreational utilization. 69 COMMERCIAL CLAM HARVEST 1.4 - WILLAPA HARBOR DISTRICT mr 1.2- t 0 Q 1.0 - RAZOR HARDSHELL- �.6- z .4- ~~~~_ I t~II E .2- ( ' I' , ! , II , , I 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 34 70 COMMERCIAL CLAM LICENSES WILLAPA HARBOR DISTRICT 2700 U U, w2100 o w z w c ,L1500- 0 I O i \ ~ LL 0 w 9~~~~~~~00 rn~~~~~~~~~~~~~r 300 - w co * z 300 - 19'10 1620 1930 1940 1950 1960 1670 FIGURE 35 71 RECREATIONAL CLAM CATCH 6- LONG BEACH _%E~ |GRAYLAND .t5- I <~~~~~~~~~~~~ o I 0~~~~~~~~~~~~ N <~~~~~~~~~~I N 7 I n 4- I 3- ', -7 I' Zi I I o I i' I I iI 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 36 72 RECREATIONAL CLAM DIGGERS 800 - 700- co~~~~~~~~. a. 600 - 'I-- r 500 - TOTAL PACIFIC BEACHES uJ .~ ~LONG BEACH ......... O 400- GRAYLAND LL o 00 co z 200- An loo - , F~~~~~~~~~ . , : 40 1950 1960 1970 * ~ ~~~~T I 00 -v I:Ie .~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~ . I ~~I i1.~ .1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 37 73 TABLE 18 C0~~V~~IAL CLkll NKRtI3T Willapa Harbor District Pounds Year Razor --rdshell 1935 1,028,261 1936 1,280,47h 1937 42L,708 1938 1,265,OO 1939 1,Th5,661 194-0 1,577,114~ 1941 3L0,659 1942 221,374 19143 4 6,285 194 4 213,435 19h4 931,000 19h6 1,125,549 19h7 649,779 19h8 518,731 19h9 217,396 1,h71 1950 67,9Q5 1951 4 7,539 1952 205,520 1953 60,267 323,788 1954 11,961 186,17L 195 5 24,666 216,698 1956 92,9h7 195,6h3 1957 79,8l4 237,581 1958 5 8,003 218,856 1959 17,693 170,687 1960 190 82,127. 1961 36 32,659 1962. 2L,651 1963 58,925 1964 21,473 1965 47,583 1966 57,259 1967 6h7 54,9-' 1968 32,037 1969 21,711 1970. 148 10,239 1971 126 1,1, 1972 21,557 1973 27,062 1974 12,177 Data frori 16'F Reports 74 TABLE 19 R!2R`A-.AIJAL RAZOR CLOI DIG;I1NG Long Deach Grayland All Beaches Year V o. Clams NoDirs oCls . Dig~-ers Total * 1~~~~~~~~~9146 14.8 1314,000 1.0 28,000 250,000 1I147 6.0 i67oco 1.3 35,000 250,000O 19148 2.3 79,2719 1.1 38,800 250,000 19149 2.0 83,610 1.3 61,558 250,000 1950 1.8 83,000 1.2 60,000 250,000G 1951 422,000 1952 250,000 1953 1468,oo0 19514 522,181 1955 '1956 1459,000 1957 5146,000 1958 175,000 5.1 244~,300 6814,000 1959 14.5 197,000 2.1 162,000 525,000 1960 2.0 119,000 0.9 135,000 490,00.0 1961 2.25 157,000 1.3 100,000 5314,000 1962 2.9 183,000 2.9 172,1000 683,000 1963 3.14 192,.000 3.8 213,000 750,000 196.14 2.1 120,000 3.6 2083,000 6141,000 1965 2.0 127,000 2.14 1514,.000 5 83,000 1966 3.3 185,000 2.3 159,000 682,000 1967 ls.i 215,000 2.14 173,000 750,000 * ~~~~~ ~~~~1963 2.6 159,000 1.2 120,000 6314,000 1969 1.5 100,9000 1.3 100,-000 5514,000 1970 1.37 120,000O 0.85 87,000 622,000 Data fron '%D.7 q'ports I~vib--,r of' Clams express'ed in millions Nunber of dig:~rs expra3ssod in "dinner trips" 7 5 CRAB FISHERY The Dungeness Crab is a major fishery resource in Washington. Although it is primarily harvested in the ocean, Willapa Bay is a significant harvest area as well as serving as a nursery for these crabs. Currently there are three crab processors at Willapa Bay ports. Crabs move about considerably so that it is likely that the catches landed at the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are all derived from the same population. Free swimming crab larvae are hatched early in the year and have developed to juveniles by June. In the course of their growth crabs discard their old shell through moulting as they increase in size since the shell does not grow. Harvested crabs are from three to four years old. The 1905 legislative session closed the season on crabs from July through September each year and set the minimum size to be kept at six inches. The Fisheries Code produced by the 1915 legislature made it unlawful to keep females and increased the minimum size to 6 1/2 inches. The minimum size was reduced by the 1927 legislature to 6 1/4 inches and the beginning of the season was set back to June. The Department of Fisheries, by director order in 1942, re- versed the season for crabs so that it was open from June through September rather than closed as before and closed October through December. Presently the season is usually open from January through A September 15. There are no regulation limiting the amount of gear in the fishery or the number of crabs taken. The total catch of crab landed in Southwestern Washington has varied in a cyclic manner with peaks about every 10 years. Until 1940 about 70 percent of the crab landings were made in Willapa Bay ports. Crab harvest records do not segregate bay crabs from ocean caught crabs. After 1940 the proportion of the crab catch landed at Willapa Bay ports was reduced considerably with increasing land- ings at Grays Harbor. After 1950 landing in Washington Columbia River Ports increased, those in Willapa Bay were reduced' further and Grays Harbor remained at about the same level. Currently 20- 25 percent of the catch is landed at Willapa Bay ports, about the same amount at Washington Columbia River ports and 50-60 percent is landed at Grays Harbor. Figure 38 illustrates the total catch for Southwestern Washington ports from 1935-1974. Figure 39 indicates the proportion of the catch landed at Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and Washington Columbia River ports. Crab licenses have followed similar trends as those o-f harvest and are shown in figure40. There is presently no economic system for the artificial en- hancment of the crab fishery by means of hatcheries etc. Protect- tion of females and early developmental stages of-the young provides the available areas of improvement and maintenance of the resource. This requires protection of nursery areas, Willapa Bay being one of these. 76 WILLAPA BAY CRAB LANDINGS TOTAL S.W.COAST---------- WILLAPA BAY AND OCEAN--- ~ I 16-. It it cn I4- a s z 72 7 Ir "12- 4 . I B I t IC-~~~~~~~~~~~� gIi rl g 'I , O~~~~~~~~~* Ii i i It ml A( I I I 5 ~~~13 19015 9017 FIGUR 38 I S~~~: I 77 CRAB LANDINGS S.W.WASH. PROPORTION BY AREA 80- WILLAPA BAY GRAYS HARBOR- ~t70 COLUMBIA RIVER 60~~~~~, l..l, I" I JiII I 60 - I, , ,,It a' Iv ' ,ji! !I!, "i :, '"fl I i I I II 54 ~~~0 -~~~ I 30 - 0/0 ~~~~~I 40- I . SI� 20-:o .. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~0" : . -. . I.- 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 39 78 CRAB LICENSES S.W.WASH. 250- TOTAL.-.. 250 - WILLAPA BAY COLUMBIA RIVER ....... 200- I 50 - I ! I ! 920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 40 79 J 9~~~~~~~~~~r%,If\ 1920 ~ A93 I9015 9017 5~~~~FGR 0-/A4/':'',",; 79~~~~ TABLE 20 CRAB L.3DIIl IS IN POUNDS Year Colusmbia R. Willapa Bay Grays Harbor Total 1935 684,842 312,166 997,008 1936 865,194 451,890 1,317,084 1937 3,428 1,441,352 643,231 2,08 ,011 1938 1,831,716 387,728 2,219,4a4 1939 2,153,496 620,004 2,773,500 1940 3,341,754 1,134,162 4,475,936 1941 207,164 3,968,152 1,293,222 5,468,538 1942 249,304 2,134,818 2,262,696 4,646,818 1943 56,660 1,052,550 2,732,090 3,841,300 1944 83,326 1,529,196 2,622,316 4,234,838 1945 4,838 1,439,204 1,961,978 3,406,020 1946 17,474 2,031,544 3,674,536 5,723,554 1947 38,184 3,822,288 6,599,8do 10,460,352 1945 615,738 4,233,108 9,074,602 13,923,4"8 1949 950,006 3,204,240 7,694,606 11,849,052 1950 399,440 1,375,788 2,469,894 4,245,122 1951 154,970 1,830,528 1,321,496 3,306,994 1952 82,580 1,892,842 1,373,708 3,349,130 1953 78,263 3,035,435 2,700,206 5,813,904 1954 191,177 3,333,543 3,118,840 6,643,560 1955 209,871 2,457,479 3,269,131 5,936,481 1956 329,386 4,082,936 2,832,6842 7,245,164 1957 386,931 3,196,881 7,174,757 10,758,569 1958 691,725 3,300,403 7,473,607 11,465,735 1959 341,602 2,446,493 4,900,608 7,688,703 1960 600,344 2,222,101 3,286,508 6,108,953 1961 346,488 1,912,222 3,211,354 5,470,064 1962 158,633 1,372,678 2,854,597 4,385,908 1963 469,533 2,204,679 2,470,892 5,145,104 1964 187,917 1,406,497 2,004,662 3,599,076 1965 402,292 1,643,301 4,496,120 6,541,713 1966 1,064,182 2,882,102 6,826,676 10,772,960 1967 809,523 3,177,958 4,686,657 8,674,138 1968 1,297,712 2,810,513 4,413,521 8,521,746 1969 1,705,655 4,341,330 11,979,868 18,026,853 1970 2,952,006 4,226,699 9,982,940 17,161,645 1971 2,999,471 2,756,766 6,758,608 12,515,045 1972 1,942,177 2,577,661 6,716,113 11,235,951 1973 485,921 1,312,368 1,636,148 3,434,437 1974 1,145,758 1,256,199 2,363,628 4,765,585 Data froa various WDF Reports 80 TABLE 21 PR:)?0hION OF CR0a CATCH BY AREA Year Columbia R. W-llapa Bay iGrays Harbor 1935 69.0 31.0 1936 66.0 314.0 1937 0.2 69.0 30.8 1938 82.5 17.5 1939 77.7 22.3 19ho 74.7 25.3 1941 3.8 72.6 23.6 19142 5.14 16.o 48.6 1943 1.5 27.4 71.1 19144 2.0 36.1 61.9 1945 0.2 42.3 57.5 1946 0.3 35.5 64.2 1947 0.4 36.5 63.1 1948 4.4 30.4 65.2 1919 8.0 27.0 65.0 1950 9.4 32.4 58.2 1951 4.7 55A. 39.9 1952 2.5 56.5 41.0 1953 1.4 52.2 46.4 19514 2.9 50.2 46.9 1955 3.5 141.14 .1 1956 4.6 56.14 39.0 1957 3.6 29.7 66.7 1958 6.0 28.8 65.2 *) 1959 h.4 31.8 63.8 1960 9.8 36.4 53.8 1961 6.3 35.0 58.7 1962 3.6 31.3 65.1 1963 9.1 h2.9 14.0 1964 5.2 39.1 55.7 1965 6.2 25.1 68.7 1966 9.9 26.8 63.3 1967 9.3 36.6 5h.1 1963 15.2 33.0 51.8 1969 9.5 24.1 66.4 1970 17.2 2h.6 58.2 1971 214.0 22.0 54.0 1972 17.3 22.9 59.8 1973 14.1 35.2 47.6 1974 21h.0 26.4 149.6 C~~~~~~~~~~~~8 TABLE 22 YCar Co1lirmbia 2. Alln Bay Gr.'ys Harbor Total 1915 5 160 38 203 1916 13 I.9 6 150 1917 II 96 13 113 1918 2 56 10 68 1919 5 52 5 62 1920 11 55 15 bi 1921 2 65 11 78 1922 1 51 111 66 1923 4 L0 13 57 1924 3 51 6 60 1925 1 35 5 41 1926 1 54 3 58 1927 61 2 66 1928 1 75 7 83 1929 2 97 32 131 1930 4 110 35 149 1931 3 86 35 124 1932 1 37 17 55 1933 2 18 23 13 1934 1 37 27- 65 1935 1936 56 10 66 1937 37 31 68 1938 43 15 56 1939 19 18 67 1940 116 9 55 2911 113 18 61 1942 54 27 81 1913 32 17 79 1911 52 89 141 1915 68 70 138 1916 90 69 159 1917 5. 60 61 126 19118 8 86 68 162 19115 1 62 L0 103 1950 1 35 35 71 1951 2 28 11 11 1952 5 21 9 35 1953 15 15 16 16 0 1951 5 33 17 55 1955 10 18 11 39 1956 7 30 21 58 1957 16 26 12 54 1958 10 22 12 . 1 1959 13 19 21 53 1960 15 20 19 51 1961 17 14 19 50 1962 16 18 14 18 1963 10 21 22 53 1964 16 20 12 48 1965 18 11 11 43 1966 13 16 6 35 1967 1 4 2o 6 10 1968 13 20 6 39 1969 29 29 30 88 1970 33 36 70 139 1971 39 32 71 1:2 1972 72 86 158 1973 72 79 151 1974 75 79 154 Data frog WDF Reports 1972-7L C Uarmbi R liccnsee JnclAd.d in Willapa Hay or Crays Harbor 40 NUMBERS OF FISHERMEN INVOLVED IN PACIFIC COUNTY FISH AND CRAB LANDINGS By combining the salmon season in the mid summer through fall with the crab season in the winter a commercial fishermen may put together his total yearly income from fishing. His sal- mon season fishing may be by gillnet, troll or charter. He may have a boat which can be used for both salmon and crab or may use two boats, one gillnetter and a larger crab boat, or he may only have a gillnetter and crew for another fisherman on crab. Many of the smaller crab boats are operated by one man. The thirty to forty footers usually have a skipper and one man while the larger boats usually have at least two men and the skipper. Many fishermen fish only salmon by gillnet, troll or charter and have some other type of employment for the remainder of their income. Some of these are oystermen. In a very good year they make their entire income from salmon , however they will be classified here as part time fishermen. A number of sport fishermen buy commercial licenses to cir- cumvent the limits in number of fish. Usually these are troll licenses however some get gillnet licenses and jump into the sea- son if it looks particularly good.- These are recognizeable by the combination of a troll license on too small a boat, etc. These fishermen then do not depend on fishing for any significant portion of their income and will be referred to as casual here. Pacific County Resident Fishermen Using the above criteria and examining the license records f6r Pacific County residents it is indicated that there are 60 full time fishermen, 243 part time fishermen and 49 casuals who live in Pacific County. This methodhowevevshows fishermen who crew for somone else during crab season as part time. Examina- tion of the records indicates that 81 positions are available on crab boats for the part time fishermen so the total full time should be considered to be 141 and the part time 162. A num- ber of fishermen own more fishing boats than they can handle themselves, that is several gillnetters or trollers or charter boats etc. There are 31 such boats, 5 of which supply fulltime 83 0 employment. The remaining 26 would supply only part time em- ployment. The totals then appear to be 146 fishermen who re- cieve all their income from fishing and 188 w,5o recieve less than all their income from fishing. Some of the part time pro- bably should be recognized as full time in that they also fish in other states to fill out their income for instance Alaska or Oregon. TABLE 23 License Combinations held by Pacific County Residents License combinations for boats Crab only 11 Charter only 40 Troll only 129 Gillnet only 127 Troll and Gillnet 16 Troll and Crab 21 Gillnet and Crab 16 Charter and Troll 7 Charter and Crab 3 Gillnet, Crab and Troll 7 Fishermen may have more than one boat, combinations of multiple boat and license combinations are as follows: 2 Troll 3 3 Troll 0 2 Charter 3 3 Charter 1 2 Gillnet 6 3 Gillnet . 2 1 Gillnet, 1 Troll 2 1 Troll, 1 Crab 0 1 Gillnet, 1 Crab 11 2 Gillnet, 1 Crab 2 1 Charter, 1 Crab 1 2 Troll, 2 Crab 1 Licenses may be held for more than one district. Examples of such combinations amoung Pacific County Fishermen are as follows: Troll 2 Districts 2 Troll 3 Districts 0 Gillnet 2 Districts 5 Gillnet 3 Districts 2 Crab 2 Districts 0 84 TABLE 24 1975 Commercial Fishing Licenses Held by Pacific County Residents Grays Harbor Willapa Bay Distict 2 District 3 Totals License Pac. Co. Total Pac. Co. Total Pac. Co. Issu Gillnet 11 295(4) 156 407(38) 167(24) 702 Troll 67 1148(6) 105 497(21) 172(10) 1645 Crab 7 87(8) 51 72(71) 58(36) 159 Dip Bag 0 29 2 51(4) 2(3) 80 Set Line 4 25(16) 5 10(50) 9(26) 35 Charter 1 211(.5) 50 139(36) 51(15) 350 () indicates percent of total held by Pacific County Residents Columbia River licenses are now included in either Grays Harbor (District 2) or Willapa Bay (District 3) licenses. A commercial fisherman who wants to fish out of the Columbia River may do so with either a District 2 or 3 license. Fisher- men who wish to fish in Willapa Bay must have a District 3 li- cense. However this license also allows them to fish in the Columbia River for instance; thirty eight percent of the poten- tial gillnet fishermen in Willapa Bay are residents of Pacific County, twenty four percent of the potential gillnet fishermen in the Columbia River are residents of Pacific County, etc. (see table 24). Non-Pacific County Residents Table 24 indicates that only 32% of the Willapa District licenses were held by Pacific County residents in 1975. This indicates that there is a sizeable number of fishermen who are non-residents of Pacific County but make some portion of their income from Pacific County landings either in Willapa Bay or at Washington Columbia River ports. In addition Table 2 also in- dicates that only 5% of the Grays Harbor district licenses were held by Pacific County resident fishermen. Under the dual area license a Grays Harbor license allows Columbia River fishing priviliges so that there must also be a number of non-resident fishermen making landings at Washington Columbia River ports holding Grays Harbor licenses. An attempt will be made here to estimate the size of the non-resident group deriving part of their income from Pacific County landings. Before the imposition of dual licenses fishermen commonly purchased a combination of Willapa and Columbia River or Grays Harbor and Columbia River licenses since two licenses were re- quired. An estimate of the number following this pratice may be made by comparing 1971 license figures (last year that single area licenses were in effect) and the 1975 figures used above. Comparison of the two periods reveals that the totals of licenses purchased for these Southwest Washington areas dropped between 1971 and 1975 for troll and gillnet licenses, the types of fishing were area switching is the most common. Since this was a period when limited entry considerations were involved few if any fish- ermen did not reneue licenses. The drop then must reflect the number who held licenses for more than one district in 1971 but were not required to in 1975 in order to still retain the same fishing privileges. For instance a fisherman who held a Columbia River and a Willapa license in 1971 needed to purchase only a Willapa District license in 1975. The same would be true for a Grays-Harbor-Columbia River combination. The totals for-Colum- bia River, Willapa and Grays Harbor licenses for 1971 and 1975 are as follows: 86 License 1971 1975 Difference Troll 2056 1645 411 Gillnet 802 702 100 The above table and discussion suggest that 411 of the fishermen who held troll licenses for the Columbia River in 1971 also held a license for Willapa or Grays Harbor. Since 1082 troll licenses were issued for the Columbia River in 1971 it appears that 671 (1082-411) were for fishermen who primarily landed their fish in Washington Columbia River ports. In the same year only 90 troll licenses were issued for the Willapa District and 884 were issued for Grays Harbor. In 1975, since a single area Columbia River'license was not avail- able, 671 'more fishermen were required to buy either a Willapa or Grays Harbor license in order to fish in the Columbia River District. Apparently 407 of these licenses were purchased as Willapa and 264 as Grays Harbor. Year Total Willapa Columbia River Grays Harbor 1971 2056 90 1082 884 (adjusted) 1645 671 1975 1645 497 (671) 1148 Diff. 411 407 264 Previously it was noted that 105 of the 497 Willapa District troll licenses were held by PacificCounty residents (Table 2). This leaves a balance of 392 licenses for non-residents. From the approach applied above it appears that an additional 197 troll licenses (264-67 residents) were probably held by non-residents to be used for Columbia River landings giving a total of 589 troll licenses used by non-resident fishermen for landings in Pacific County ports. It was estimated in examining the Pacific County resident fishermen licenses that 15 of the 172 troll licens- ed were probably casuals and derived little or none of their in- come from fishing. If the same proportion (9%) of the non-Pacific County residents holding troll licenses are casuals then .536 of the total non-residents were Serious fishermen and derived a significant of their income from Pacific County troll landings. 87 If the same process is applied to gillnet licenses the fol- lowing results are obtained: Year Total Willapa Columbia River Grays Harbor 1971 802 210 367 225 Adjusted 702 267 1975 702 407 (267) 295 Difference 100 197 (267) 70 Of the 407 Willapa licenses 156 were held by residents leaving a balance of 251 for non-residents. Of the 70 Grays Harbor li- cense which appear to be primarily Columbia River 11 were held by Pacific County residents leaving a total of 59 non-residents and a total non-residents figure of 310. Casuals were estimated at 20% for residents and if appied to non-residents leaves a bal- ance of 248 non-resident fishermen deriving some part of their income from Pacific County gillnet landings. Crabbers and charter boat operators do not make practice of jumping from one part of the fishery to another and so the non- resident portion is simply the difference in the total and resi- dent fishermen. In the case of crab licenses 21 are non-resident and with charters 89 are non-resident. Estimates of the total non-Pacific County resident fishermen who derive part of their income from Pacific County landings are as follows: Troll 536 Gillnet 248 Crab 21 Charter 89 TOTAL 894 The above analysis and calculations involve several assumptions and manipulations which are subject to error. The purpose was to provide an estimate of the magnitude of non-resident benefit in the commercial fish harvest in Pacific County. The results should not be taken literally but are better expressed as a major factor probably involving 800 or more persons. Gillnet involvement for the non-resident may be only a few days fishing wereas the troll, crab and charter involvement is probably a full season and thus a major portion of the licensee's income. Conversion of the fi- N8 88 gures to full time and part time as was done with the Pacific County resident fishermen is not meaningful however it can be pointed out that the non-resident involvement will include more people than indicated where crew other than the skipper is in- volved, such as in charter and crab, and these crew members may 0 ~~be Pacific County residents. A comparison of non-resident involvement in the Pacific County fishery is illustrated below: Pacific County Resident Non-Resident %Non-Resident Troll 761 172 589 77 Charter 139 s o 89 64 Gillnet 477 167 310 65 Crab 72 51 21 29 * ~~Conclusions It appears that the benefits in the form of income recieved from landings of fish and crab at Pacific County ports are realized * ~~to more non-Pacific County residents than to those fishermen who live here. Only in the case of crab are more than one half those involved locally based fishermen. Although some non-residents have always been involved in the local harvest the increase probably reflects the change of the fishery from a local inshore operation to an offshore troll and charter catch. 89 DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATION OF THE COMMERCIAL FISHERY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The first state legislature created the position of the Fish Commissioner whose duties were to: enforce the laws for the propagation, protection and preservation of food fishes .and oysters; to build, operate and manage hatcheries, exa-0 mine complaints concerning the fishery and prepare an annual report to the Governor on the condition of the fishery in- cluding suggestions as to the needs of further legislation. The commissioner was appointed by the Governor with the ad- vice and consent of the Senate. The legislature determined through session laws the seasons, gear limitations, and other 0 regulatory matters. The 1893 legislature broadened the duties of the Fish Com- missioner to the collection of license fees and granting of licenses. An ex-officio Board of Commissioners was created by the 1895 legislature. The board consisted of the Governor, State Treasurer, and the.Fish Commissioner. The 1897 legislature delegated the power to the Fish Comn- missioner to reserve state lands from public use to preserve the production of Natural Oysters. The 1899 legislature gave the Fish Commissioner the author- ity to close any stream or river to fishing when he determined that the protection of the food fish required it. A thirty (30) day notice of such action was necessary. The State Oyster Commission including the Governor, Commissioner of Public Lands and the Fish Commissioner was created by the 1903 legislature. The commission had the responsibility of management and develop- ment of state oyster reserves. The 1909 legislature acted to protect game fish but did not delegate the enforcement of the resulting laws. The first complete fisheries code was enacted by the 1915 legislature. Authority to close streams and rivers was placed in the commission rather than the commissioner. The director and his enforcement personnel were made peace officers, with the authority to arrest without writ, order or process, viola- tors of the fisheries code. It also provided the commissioner the power to inspect canneries, boats, nets, wheels, traps and all property used in catching, packing, curing, preparing or storing food or shellfish and authorized entry in any property at any time for any such purpose. The power to confiscate and sieze unlawful or unlicensed gear was granted as well as the right to file liens against fishing applicances and property 9~~~~~~~~0 related to inadequate fishways. The Fish Commissioner was granted authority to destroy predators and was made ex-officio state game warden in the 1915 session laws. The 191S session expanded the commissioner's duties to cover game fishes. The Department of Fisheries and Game was created by the Administra- tion Code in the 1921 Legislative Session. The department was * ~~organized into the State Fisheries Board and two division: the Division of Fisheries and the Division of Game and Game Fish. The Fish Commissioner became the Director of Fisheries and Game. The board consisted of three (3) citizens appointed by the Gover- nor. * ~~The fisheries board had the power to investigate habits, supply and economic uses and to classify food fishes and to make, amend and promulgate rules and regulations governing the taking of food fishes, formerly a power excerised by the legis- lature through.session laws. They were also granted the power to develop rules and regulations governing the posession, dis- * ~~posal and sale of food fishes in the State of Washington. These rules and regulations could cover fishing seasons, fishing areas -and gear. Former statutes covering food fishes were repealed and constituted as rules and regulations of the state fisheries board and could be modified or revoked by the board. These regulatory actions of the board. were to be published in an Olympia news-paper. * ~~The Director of the Department of Fisheries and Game was deputized to appoint assistant directors known as the Supervisor of Fisheries and Game through the division of fisheries assumed the powers and duties of the Fish. Commission and Fish Commissioner. The 1923 legislature granted the power to issue permits for the sawing of logs in such waters where no injury to food of game fish would result. A section of the fisheries code made it other- wise unlawful to pass sawdust, shavings, wood pulp or waste into waters of the state. The 1927 legislature extended the authority to the State Fisheries Board to promulgate rules and regulations * ~~concerning the placing of refuse and waste in the State's waters to protect aquatic life. The Directors of Fisheries and Game was granted all the powers and duties of the State Fisheries Board by the 1929 legislature. In response to Initiative Measure No. 62, a separate Depart- ment of Game was created by the 1933 legislature. A Department of Fisheries was created and its chief executive officer to be the Director of Fisheries, a position filled by appointment of the Governor. The Department of Fisheries was organized into the State Fisheries Board and the Director of Fisheries. All powers * ~~and duties previously performed by the Director of Fisheries and Game were transferred to the Director of Fisheries. The 1939 leg- islature extended the director's powers to promulgate rules and regulations to cover 'the use of food or bait, and again extended these powers in 1941 to include shellfish harvesting, quotas, areas and gear not including privately owned or leased oyster beds or * ~~the oysters grown there. The permit granting powers of the Depart- ment of Fisheries to be extended to cover hydraulic works by the 1943 legislature, and further extended enforcement powers to include search without warrant, and sieze food fish or shellfish un- � lawfully caught. At the same session the director was authorized to refuse any license if the party applying had a previous license re- voked. It also included economic welfare of the state as a basis for rules and regulations governing the taking of food and shellfish. The 1945 clegislature extended the economic wel- fare discretionary powers of the Director of Fisheries in the act governing the sale of oysters from state oyster reserves. "To maintain the premanency of local communities and indust- 0 ries, the prospects of fulfillment of contract requirement, and to restrain monopolistic controls endangering competition in the industry, the Director of Fisheries shall have the power to determine the number of bushels which shall be sold to any person, firm or corporation; and when sold at public auction, the right to reject any and all bids". In order to implement this policy, the director was granted the right to promulgate rules and regulations governing the conduct of sales. The power to make and enforce rules and regulations to pre- vent the spread and the suppression of all infection, contagious dangerous and communicable diseases and pests affecting oyster and other shellfish was granted the director by the 1945 legis- alture. The 1947 legislature granted the director of fisheries auth- ority to acquire lands by purchase, lease or condemnation for the use of the department thus giving the power of Eminent Do- main. The same session authorized the director to accept money or real property from other governmental units. The 1951 legis- lature designated fish inspectors as one of the enoforcement groups with authority to control and regulate traffic on the ocean beachs. The 1955 legislature granted the director authority to sell, lease, convey or grant concessions upon any property, real or personal, heretofore, or hereafter acquired for the state and under the control of the department. The 1967 legislature created the Water Pollution Control Commission. The Director of Fisheries was designated as a mem- ber. The 1967 legislature also created the Department of Water Resources--Director of Fisheries member of the advisory council. The 1969 legislature prohibited the Director of Fisheries department from selling spawned out salmon or salmon in spawn- ing condition for human consumption but allowed the director to give them to state institutions or to economically depressed people. Those salmon not fit for human consumption, as found by the Department of Health, could be sold by the director for animal food, fish food or for industrial purposes. The 1971 legislature authorized the director of issue permits for the taking of food fish or shellfish for propagation and cultivation 92 and to sell salmon eggs for use in fish farming. The 1973 legislature required the Director of Fisheries to promulgate rules and regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act rather than simply publishing them in an Olympia newspaper. The 1974 legislature also authorized the director to re- fuse licenses for commercial salmon fishing vessels in order to limit the amount of gear in an area. * ~CURRENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT As reviewed above, the fishery was one of the first com- mercial activities in Washington to be regulated. It has received considerable attention from the legislature in every session since 1889. Acts concerning the fishery occupy thirty six (36) pages in the Revis-ed Code of Washington. Over three * hundred and fifty regulations are concerned with the commer- cial fishery in the Washington Administrative Code and the Director of Fisheries has issued over twelve hundred orders. Eleven Initiatives to the People have been filed and four In- itiatives to the Legislature have been filed concerning various aspects of the commercial fishery. Early regulation, as describ- * ~~ed above, was almost entirely originated in the legislature. Gradually the administrative office or board administrating the fishery was given the authority by the legislature to regulate more and more aspects of the fishery. In 1921 the authority to promulgate regulations, which became law, was delegated to the administration of the fishery. The 'Department of Fisheries thus now has considerable leg- islative authority, it has its own police force, and can refuse entry to the fishery. It has the power of Eminent Domain. It may use reasons of propagation, preservation or economy to in- voke new laws and it also has the responsibility of determining the basis for such reasons. The Department of Fisheries was not required to adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act of the late 1950's until 1973 and thus often did not appear to be re- sponsive to the reactions of the users of the resource or the public. The director of the department acquired the reputation * ~~of something of a benign dictator. The department is responsible for the management of a highly exposed and sensitive resource in which thievery is a way of life and often poorly disguised. The combination of legislative, and police powers with research respon- sibilities within a single administrative unit may never allow any degree of credibility to develop. The OYSTER INDUSTRY of WILLAPA BAY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Oysterland -1------------- Introduction -1------------ History of Qysterland Legislation -1------- Background and Methods- -----------------3 Ownership Changes--------------------- 5 Development of Ownership Blocks-------------- 8 Useable Land- ----------------------12 Identification and Distribution of Unuseable Oysterlands -17 Pacific Oyster Production- ------------------23 Production Capacity- -------------------24 Production Areas- --------------------27 Oyster Seed- -------------------------31 Japanese Seed- ----------------------31 Natural Seed- ----------------------35 Oyster Reserves- ---------------------38 Hatchery Seed- ----------------------39 Summary- -------------------------39 Markets- ---------------------------41 Products ----------------------41 * ~~Imports- -------------------------41 Production Factors- ---------------------48 FIGURES Page 1. Deeded Oysterland 1895-1915- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 2. Map of Deeded Oysterland - - - - - - - - - - - follows 3 3. Oysterland Ownership Changes 1927-1942 - - - - - - - - 4 4. Development of Ownership Blocks- - - - - - - - - - - 9 5. Diversity of Block Sizes - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 11 6. Map, Distribution of Fattening Land- - - - - - follows 13 7. Map, Distribution of Productive Oysterland - - follows 13 8. Map, Distribution of Nonproductive Oysterland- follows 13 9. Map, Productive Oysterland "B" Area- - - - - - - - - - 18 10. Map, Oysterlands which were apparently never Productive - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - follows 20 11. Pacific Oyster Production 1935-1974- - - - - - 22 12. Proportion of total Washington Harvest from Willapa Bay -.... -~ -... - ---------------24 13. U. S. Oyster Production- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 14. Oyster Production Areas, Map - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28 15. Oyster Production by Areas 1956-1974 - - - - - - - - - 29 16. Pacific Oyster Seed Imports- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 17. Predicted production from Seed Imports compared with - Oyster production- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 18. Map Deep Sea Leases and Oyster Reserves, Willapa Bay - - ---------------------follows 38 19. West Coast Production Canned Oysters and Oyster Stew - 1931-1959- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 20. Washington Production Canned Oysters and Oyster Stew - 1956-1974- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Page 21. Comparison Imports and Washington Production of Oysters 22. Oyster Farm Licenses- ----------------49 TABLES Page 1. County Oysterland Sales to G. T. Mogan -....... 6 2. County and State Oysterland Sales to G. T. Mogan by Area 6 3. Ownership of Subdivision Plots -......... 8 4. Ownership Block Distribution -...........10 5. Distribution of Oysterland Classes by Area - 14 6. Estimated Useable Oysterland - ............16 7. Oysterland Class Changes Areas A and B, 1959-1970 - - 19 8. Washington Oyster Production by Area -.-.......21 9. Willapa Bay Oyster Production by Production Area- - - - 30 10. Seed Shipments to Washington and Pacific Coast 1947-1975 ................33 11. Pacific Oyster Sets, Willapa Bay -...........36 12. Production Pacific Canned Oysters 1931-1944 - - 43 13. Production Pacific Canned Oyster Stew 1952-1959 - - - 43 14. Pacific Canned Oyster and Stew, Washington and Willapa- Bay 1956-1974 -....................45 15. Washington Imports compared with Washington Production- 1966-1974 - 47 16. Washington Oyster Farm Licenses by Area 1947-1974 - - - 50 PREFACE This report has been prepared to provide background in- formation necessary to make decisions in the conservation of the fishery resources of Willapa Bay. A strong histori- cal emphasis is intended in order to supply a perspective S ~~for current concerns about the fishery. The intent is to supply a factual basis for evaluating past and future ac- tions related to the oyster industry in Willapa Bay and to develop goals for these actions. The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the United States Depart- ment of Commerce and appropriated for Section 30S and 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (G-75-025D and G-76-025B and G-77-025B). * ~~Data for this report was acquired from the Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Natural Resources, National Marine Fisheries, Pacific County Acce- ssor and Pacific County Auditor. Some data summaries were taken from the "Pacific Fishermen" now incorporated in the "National Fishermen". All of the maps and graphs with the exception of diking districts and production areas are ori- ginal with this report. Prepared by J. A. Shotwell, Planning Division Department of Public Works, Pacific County OYSTER LANDS INTRODUCTION Land suitable for the cultivation of oysters is as impor- tant to the oysterman as it is to the farmer on the upland. Bottom characteristics, range of salinity, temperature varia- *0 tion, height within the tidal range, and nutrient levels of the water which periodically covers the land, are some of the factors which determine the capability of a given plot of land to produce marketable oyster. All of these factors are sub- ject to changes which are outside the control of the oysterman. Some are changes resulting from variations in natural phenomena 0 while others are due to the activities of man. The right to occupy, use or own tideland varies from one area of the United States to another. In some areas, particu- larly on the east coast, tideland has remained in public owner- ship and access to the resource is available to all. Under 0- such a system the oysterman is not a farmer but simply a harvester of the oysters. He cannot benefit from improvements which he might make to increase the yield or quality of the oysters which grow on those tidelands. In these areas public agencies often seed and control the harvest to maintain the level of production but publicly owned tidelands have seldom matched the production * ~~of deeded and intensively farmed private tidelands. They are completely dependent on the vagrancies of the managing public agency and not on the need to produce a crop at a profit. A variation of the use of public lands is the granting of leases which allows the oysterman to be a farmer rather than * ~~just a gatherer. Inequities and abuses arise in this system due to the terms of such leases either in the renewal requirements or in the rights of abandonment and subleasing. Where tidelands have been sold the deeds provided usually contain restrictive clauses as to the use of the land or the state retains certain rights such as minerals or access across the lands involved. Reversionary and cancellation clauses are also often included. Subtidal lands are almost always retained by the state, and certain areas are exempted from sale within the tidelands. Many of these retained lands are available for * ~~leasing. This is essentially the system that has developed in Washington. HISTORY OF OYSTER LAND LEGISLATION In Washington, prior to statehood, oystermen occupied tide- * ~~lands which they seeded and worked. These lands were referred to as "artificial oyster beds" in contrast to "natural oyster beds" which could not be exclusively held. These natural beds were used as sources of seed. Undoubtably the distinction 0 betwcen these types of beds was a moot question in many cases but it was later used as a basis for prior rights. Its basis in territorial law is not clear. In Willapa Bay these occup- ied artificial beds were designated by names probably reflect- ing the first occupation of the particular plat. Such names as Captian Johnson's Oyster Bed, Wachsmuth's Stackpole Harbor Oyster Bed, Clark's Dcepwater'Bed, Clark's Big Stony Point Bed, etc, reflect this early practice. At statehood the Washington constitution claimed all tidelands as -property of the state. However the first legislative session (1889-90) acted to allow the sale of tidelands and gave oystermen who had planted lands the exclusive right to purchase those occupied lands up to a total of 80 acres. Such rights of purchase were transferable. The 1895 legislative session produced an act which wps designed primarily to meet the needs of oystermen. It provided for the sale of state tidelands to be used exclusively fo~r the planting of oysters and contained a reversionary clause to cancel the deed if the land were not used for the culture of oysters. The price for such lands was placed at $1.25 per acre. The occupant of a given plot of land had the prior right of purchase for a period of six months after the act was passed. A survey was required and could only include the actual lands then occup- ied. A limit of 100 acres per purchase was established. Natural oyster lands or reserved lands could not be purchased under this act. If lands were found to be no longer useable for oyster cul- ture the occupant could file for abandonment and make new purchases. In another act passed in the same 1895 session natural oyster beds could be purchased if they had been continuously planted and cul- 4 tivated as artificcial bedsince 1890. Only 40 acres could be claimed under this act and the reversionary clause included a provision'that the state could take the lands at any time by re- paying the purchase price and the cost of improvements. The 1897 legislature acted to insure the continued public use of natural oyster. beds by requiring the Commissioners of Public Lands to survey and plat natural oyster beds and reserve them from sale or lease. Subsequent legislative sessions; allowed lands below extreme low tide to be leased (1899) , allowed oyster land owners to purchase the reversionary rights held by the state (1919 C& 1925), permitted the sale of lands between existing plats (1919), extended the use of oyster beds for the cultivation of any edible shellfish (1919), and allowed the state land commissioner to sell or lease state oyster land under certain conditions (1929). A new public lands act was produced by the 1927 legislative session. It included many provisions concerning tidelands suitable for oyster culture which existed in previous legislation. It did not contain provisions of the 1895 oyster bed acts. Detached tidelands were no longer handled differently than other state lands. A provision for the sale of small plots of oyster lands between existing plats similar to the one in the 1919 legislation was re- tained. All state lands sold under the 1927 act were deeded with a limiting clause which retained the oil, gas and mineral rights for the state. *f~~~ ~30- t' 25 TOTAL DEEDED AN 25- ,~ ' '"-'PRIVATELY OWNED 20- 15 . z '/ I- ,,- ~~~OUNTY OWNED 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 DEEDED OYSTERLAND 1895-1975 FIGURE 1 The 1935 legislative session repealed the 1895 legislative acts covering the sale of oyster lands but preserved the rights which had been acquired under the original act. BACKGROUND AND METHODS * From 1895 to 1909 nearly fifteen thousand (15,000) acres of land were purchased for the culture of oysters in I'illapa Bay. By 1915 the total had reached sixteen thousand (16,000) acres. The decline of the oyster industry over the next ten years removed the need for additional land and new purchases about equalled cancellation of deeds. At the same time many plots were abandoned and allowed to revert to county ownership through foreclosure on taxes. By 1927 nearly seven thousand (7,000) acres of oysterland, forty three (43) per cent of the deeded land, was held by Pacific County. At this time the Japanese Oyster was introduced in Willapa Bay in an'effort to replace the failing native oyster industry as well as the fail- 0* ures in eastern oyster transplants. Current land ownership patterns and trends then have their beginning in the late twen- ties. The available land for developing what was essentially a new oyster industry consisted of previously deeded land still in privated ownership, oysterland held by Pacific County and potential state tideland still in state ownership. (Figure 1) In Willapa Bay the oysterlands are identified by tax lot number. This number consists of a letter followed by a number. -TRANSACTIONS PLOTS PER TRANSACTION 7-. - 60 -, a, --- PLOTS I 5- 4- 40- , tl I , I I FIGURE '3 The letter refers to the general geographic location of the plot and the number identifies the plot within that area. (See Figure 14). "A" area is the lands adjacent to the mouth of North River west to the mouth of the Cedar River and Toke Point and north of the channel of the WlTillapa River. "B" area includes the tidelands south of the Willapa River channel along the east side of the bay south to the south end of the Bay Center Peninsula (Sandy Point). "C" area begins at the southerly end of the "B" area and extends south along the east side of the Bay and Long Island into the lower reaches of the" Naselle River and Long Island Slough. "D" area extends from Nahcotta south along the west side of the bay and west side of Long Island into South Bay. "E" area is the tidelands from Leadbetter Point south to Nahcotta along the west side of the bay. These area designations will be used in the following discussion and tabular material. The following analysis of oysterlands is largely based on a study of ownership patterns. A search was made of the available tax records in the office of the Pacific County Assessor (Art Wood) and the deed and transaction records :in the office of the Pacific County Auditor (Robert M. Johnson). Their cooperation is very much appreciated. An effort was made to find all the transactions in the form of deeds and contracts which could provide useful data. Abstracts of ownership changes and the dates were prepared for each of the more than 1200 plots of oysterland in Willapa Bay. These abstracts were filed according to Tax Lot number and area. 4 ~~~- ~~~Dl 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L no,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A ~~~J 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s __ ____ ____ ) '~)/ - C E A - IV~ .9 a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~DEEDED OYSTERLAND treat g's~~~~. SHADED PLOTS DEEDED BEFORE 1930 FIGURE 2 A cross index was prepared for state deed application numbers and a file was developed of transactions organized by deed book numbers and pages. This later file was a primary base for the construction of abstracts and provided the source information for recognizing block trasactions referred to in the following study. Not all transactions and deeds were found. Those miss- ing items are noted in the appropriate files which were developed. The abstract file now contains between 4,000 and 5,000 entries. The application of these data to particular aspects of the study is further described in the appropriate places in the course of the analysis. OWNERSHIP CHANGES Prior to the late 1920's land suitable for the cultivation of oysters was largely handled between oystermen. The occupant requirements for the acquisitions of state tidelands, the failing oyster industry, and the limitations of the use of the land for shellfish culture only, had not attracted speculators. With the introduction of the Japanese oyster the prospects for oysterland speculation increased. The action of the 1927 legislature which allowed state tidelands to be sold under the same conditions as any other state lands, the large amount of county owned oysterland, the apparent phenomenal growth of the introduced Japenense oyster, the possibility of its natural reproduction in the area and the probability that this oyster could be farmed by more mechanical means created a very attractive environment for speculation in land. It also created an oyster industry that could handle large areas of land rather than one limited to the small plots which could be worked by hand. Those who recognized the opportunities early determined the land ownership patterns in the industry for many years to come. Figure 3 illustrates the number of transactions involving oyster- land for the period 1927 through 1942. It also indicates the number of plots which changed ownership during the same fifteen year period. FIgure 3 uses the same date but presents it as aver- age number of plots which changed ownership per transaction. It is shown that the number of plots per transaction was high in 1927 and dropped to a level in '1931 which changed very little afterwards. The period 1927 to 1931 represents the time in which large blocks of county oysterland were acquired in a few transactions whereas the later period reflects the sale of these plots and the acquisi- tion of state tidelands which were typically small, often single plot ownership changes. These transactions also include the trans- fer of ownership of deeded oysterlands which had not been allowed to go for taxes in the early 1920's. The prime source of oyster- land for these sales however was the county owned oysterland. It was land which had been previously used for the culture of native and eastern oysters and was available in large blocks and was cheap. Gerald T. Mogan acquired nearly six thousand (6,000) acres of county oyster land, in 12 transactions involving 138 plots, between 1927 and 1935 for an average cost of $0.38 per acre. During the same period Mogan acquired an additional nineteen hundred (1900) TABLE 1 COUNTY OYSTERLAND SALES TO G. T. MOGAN DATE NO PLOTS ACREAGE PRICE PER ACRE' 3/23/27 30 1944.44 165.00 0.08 7/7/27 24 780.94 144.00 0.18 12/29/27 24 393.51 196.45 0.50 3/5/28 10 569.91 582.41 1.02 5/9/28 8 180.37 44.35 0.25 10/20/28 3 249.56 105.00 0.42 11/8/28 4 50.33 75.84 1.51 3/30/29 1 29.23 5.00 0.17 10/15/29 I 18 696.32 258.12 0.38 j 9/2/32 7 164.76 47.50 0.29 3/25/35 f 5 426.97 420.00 0.98 3/25/35 4 377.13 188.50 0.50 TOTALS 138 5863.48 2232.17 0.38 acres of state tideland for a total of nearly eight thousand (8,000) acres. Table 1 includes the county land sales and Table 2 summarizes the distribution by area (A,B,C,D, OR E) of. both the state and county lands acquired by Mogan. He had acquired 35% of the deeded land in the bay by 1935. TABLE 2 COUNTY AND STATE OYSTERLANDS Acquired by G. T. Mogan AREA COUNTY STATE ' TOTAL A 895.28 702.57 1,597.85 B 1,565.59 346.39 1,911.98 C 2,269.53 732.33 3,001.86 D 812.25 0.00 812.25 E 320.83 63.86 384.69 7,708.63 6 * Oystermen purchased some of the county lands but with excep- tion of Espy, who bought a little over 500 acres, and the Ilwaco Oyster Company which purchased a similar amount, their purchases were less than one hundred acres. Mogan acquired the bulk of the available land. He was not the only land dealer during this early period of the Japanese Oyster Industry in Willapa Bay. A number * of others including: Fireside Realty, Noton Company, Bruer Brothers, Ernest Steffen, etc., dealt in land acquired in the same way as was Mogans or with land purchased from Mogan. None of them had the in- fluence on land ownership pattern that Mogan did because of his ex- tensive holdings but they operated in much the same way. ()* Mogan retained three thousand five hundred (3,500) acres of land in three large blocks. One of these blocks was set up as Willapa Oyster Farms, Inc., one as Bay Point Oyster Farms, and the other was unnamed but later (1953) became the land of Union Fishermans Coop. Each of these blocks was over one thousand acres. Over one thousand acres were sold to individuals in the same plots that they were acquired. Thirteen hundred acres were sold to oystermen also in their original plot boundaries. Eight hundred and fifty acres eventually went back to the county for taxes. One thousand acres were set up in small blocks called oyster gardens and subdivided into small tracts (2 to 10 acres in size). This Subdivisions of * oysterland will be discussed in more detail later. Mogan formed the Willapa Development Company to sell lots in the oyster gardens. Mogan's largest "garden" was the Nemah Pacific 315 acres. This was formed into Nemah Pacific Oyster Inc. and apparently disposed of by Mogan since he does not appear as an officer in that corpora- tion in 1933. The Willapoint Oyster Company was apparently set up * by Mogan as a processing plant for oysters harvested from the large blocks of retained lands, but no lands were deeded to this company. Oysterland was subdivided in much the same way as other land is. Single plots were divided into a number of small tracts or several adjacent pieces were combined and then divided into a large number * of tracts. The total number of tracts varied from three to two hundred twenty four for a subdivision. Many of the subdivisions were given names such as, Willapa Oyster Gardens, Seagold, Willabay, Hawks Point, Sandy Point, Nema Pacific, but more often referred to simply by the tax lot number of the original piece or pieces of ground. Recorded subdivisions used tract numbers or letters for * the tracts created but few subdivisions were recorded so that the new tract created was usually given a new tax lot number. Eighty subdivisions of oysterland have been made in Willapa Bay. Nearly six thousand acres of tideland were subdivided into eight hundred tracts. The tracts were equally divided between land deeded be- fore 1929 and after. Of the original purchasers of these tracts oystermen accounted for only about 15% of the tracts. The remainder were sold to in- dividuals in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wis- consin, Minnesota and Iowa, et. The original cost of the lands to the subdividers was less than $2.00 per acre and often less * than $1.00 per acre. Sale prices, where they are available, indi- cate that the tracts were sold at from $250 to $500 per acre. Not many tracts were actually put into oyster production, and many of them have changed hands six to eight times and some as many as ten. Thirty five percent of them have been abandoned and taken for taxes 7 at some time since they were split out of the original parcel. Forty six percent of them are now owned by oystermen. (See Table 3). DEVELOPMENT OF OWNERSHIP BLOCKS In 1927 only 9350 acres of oysterland remained in private O ownership of the 16,200 acres which had been deeded by the state. The remainder was in Pacific County ownership as noted before. Three thousand two hundred (3,200) acres of this was held by the larger oyster companies of that time. The remainder was in parcels of less than 200 acres. An unknown amount of potential oysterland existed in the states tidelands. New ventures in the industry or expansion of old ones were dependent on purchase of county land, new deeds in the state tidelands or purchase of previously existing oysterland still in private ownership, for land on which to farm. Two major blocks of land ownership were established at this time other than that put together by Mogan. Ilwaco Oyster Company was formed by acquiring 500 acres of county land from the county and sources other than Mogan and an additional 100 acres of county land from Mogan. Several years later 300 acres more were acquired through the purchase of subdivision tracts to produce a block of land of 900 acres. Espy Inc. which had disposed of its earlier holdings, developed a new block of land ownership by the acquisition of 520 acres of county land from the county and much later (1944) added 430 acres of state tidelands to form a block of 950 acres. Smaller blocks were put together by Stony Point Oyster Company and Pedersen Oyster Farms through the acquisition of county land directly and some new state tidelands. By 1935 the available county land was thus tied up and much of the potential state tideland had been TABLE 3 OWNERSHIP OF SUBDIVISION PLOTS TOTAL NUMBER OF NUMBER OWNED % ACREAGE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL BY COUNTY COMMERCIAL COUNTY AREA SUBDIVIDED PLOTS OWNERS (now or in past) A 334.32 47 29 18 62 38 B 1968.14 479 128 186 27 39 C 1093.70 109 72 54 66 50 D 660.37 19 15 1 79 5 E 1794.96 147 128 22 87 15 TOTALS 5851.49 801 372 281 46 35 0~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1~lt I I I I I .1 I I I I P I -----v- - ) I _____ LONG 1&LAND OVSIER CO. COAST OYSTER CO. *IICK ANT(mlctL PACIFIC BAY POINT OYSTER FARMS Y COA ST OYSFR00 * I Ij S WILLAPA OYSTER FARIAS iCOAST OYSTER CO. 8F.0111SEN TOjE PO1NT T OYSTER GO. WLLAcA OYSTER CO. I COAST OYSTER C o . H..ESPY INC. Cr ROGERS COAST E sL----\v ~~~COAST E ~ W.6 J-L, WIEGARDT 0r p TORE PHT OYSTERi CO. LCOST OYSTER CIO. SIWACO ~ - ED-AROS CC OYSTERHART COAST NEW W.ASHINGTON S S TER P v YciLLA OE BA COAST C- nFS lYT F$d OGRIFFN INC. C CO. cF s VTN EAGLE f OAT YSERCOE J~ UC-------- ED TYLER INC.,jC--T-~- nlI ri~ nr VV - ErO Cj'q'Tq v R~~~EISCHMAN BENNETT p NRTERNHEKE v rl v OYSTER C o. i v ---~~ OISTER CO. sl v ----~~~-rs~a HOR-O-T-E( P~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~..o -,WA O ALAABY COST E ICYYR ALS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IC. s~~~z~~~AIIFRSFN ~N~f DEVELOPMENT OF OWNERSHiP BLOCKS ___ GR~~ILFNIC IKSTONY ON OYSTER FARM v~ ~ ULOYOSf WILLAPA BAY OYST1ERLANDS ED TLECH RRL CS --ILS� PY I F- P PREC1927 OWNERSHIP PI JOHNSON MCGOd OYstER CO. YSE PACIIC COUNTY LAND S STATE DEED DEVELOPMENTIV VARIOUS SMALL OWNERSHIP S FIGURE 4 deeded. Land was then only available through Mogan, other subdividers, owners of subdivision tracts or individual owners of pre-1927 oysterland still in private hands. Between 1935 and 1945 a number of new small oyster companies were formed with ownerships of 200-500 acres of land and the previously existing companies increased their holdings both primarily by the acquisition of individual plots from subdivi- sions and new state deeds. The amount of county land increased during this period as absentee owners lost interest and the poor character of some of the newly deeds state land became apparent. Two companies acquired holdings exceeding 2000 acres by the com- bination of some previously existing large blocks, and the combin- ation of a number of small individual tracts and small ownerships. By 1955 most of the small companies formed between 1935 and 1945 had doubled their holding in land through the acquisition of subdivision tracts. The large companies grew through the absorbtion of several smaller companies holdings. Two of these had holdings (blocks developed by Mogan) of over 1000 acres. In the next twenty years the large companies grew more in their land holdings by the same means. The smaller companies increased their holdings very little. (See Figure 4 and Table 4). TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF OYSTERLANDS - OWNERSHIP PATTERNS OWNERSHIP BLOCKS 1927 1935 1945 1955 1975 2000 Acres + 0 0 6100 7725 11350 1000 + 1150 4850 2350 3750 1600 500 + 1450 3350 2500 3850 4005 200 + 600 850 2910 1950 1415 County 6900 1000 2800 1600 1300 Small Owner- 5900 12950 9090 7125 6330 ships TOTAL 16000 23000 25750 26000 26000 Forty six percent of the land was owned by two companies in 1975. Lease agreements on other blocks of land provided them with con- trol of over 50% of the available land. (See Figure 5). The pattern of oysterland ownership from 1927 on was one of larger holdings. All farms increased in size in response to the capital requirements of more mechanized operations. It appears that 300-500 acres, depending on the quality of the land, is necessary to carry on a full operation of see-catching through processing. Smaller operations are unable to support an opening house and operations of 200 acres or less generally cannot support major items of equipment, such as dredges, docks, trucks and hoists unless they have been previously amortized. 10 8000 - 1600 -o ALL DEEDED i PRODUCTIVE OYSTERLANDS OYSTERLANDS 6000 1200 - I . I w I cc 4000-' 800- , . t 2 000 400- OWNERSHIP BLOCKS ARRANGED IN DECREASING ORDER DIVERSITY OF BLOCK SIZE FIGURE 5 11� Tt: will be developed later that not all the land in the owner- 0 shi J hilocks outlined above is suitable for the culture of oysters. Thty do not then provide a basis for estimates of productive poten- tiJali of any of the blocks developed. Figure 5 indicates the diver- si fy of land block ownership when only the productive land is con- sidcered. A similar dominance is present but the total acreages involved are considerable less. USEABL},E LAND Oysterland like upland farmland varies in its ability to pro- dutc a marketable oyster. Some lands catch seed more frequently. than others, some provide conditions for good growth but the oy,;ters do not fatten there and others provide the fattened market- able oyster. Lands of these varying qualities are not necessarily mutuall'y exclusive, that is some lands will meet all-thlree require- meuts. More commonly, however, each of these various characteristics arc typical of rather broad areas. For this reason oysters are transplanted one or more times as they grow, from seed ground or racks to growing ground to fattening ground. Fattening ground will ordinarily provide both good growth and fattening requirements but it is at a premium so that it is not practical to commit good fat- tening ground to growing when areas which will not fatten or take an extended period to fatten an oyster are more available. A grower should then have a balance of these varying types of ground in his ownership in order to produce at the highest level. A grower with 200 acres of ground well balanced in these characteris- tics may be able to produce more gallonage than another grower with twice that amount but without balance. Since oysters derive their food from filtering water passing over the bed the varying 0 characteristics referred to must reflect something of the local currents and the way then distribute nutrients, fresh water and ocean water in the bay. It also reflects the relative elevation of the bed in the tidal area, a factor of time in the water. Changes in the features which control current, nutrient generation, eleva- tion of the beds and their texture effect the value of tidelands 0 for the culture of shellfish. Texture of the beds is another im- portant factor which may change due to exterior activities and also effect the usefulness of oysterlands. The biologic and hydrologic factors referred to above are not easily measured and judged for any given plot of oysterland. 0 The suitability of lands for the cultivation of oysters can only be determined within rather broad limits when only measureable physical characteristics of the ground and overlying .waters are employed. The oysters themselves still supply the best indicator of the growing characteristics of a given plot. The oyster lands claimed and deeded between 1895 and 1927 were those which had been previously used for the culture of oysters and had proven their value for this purpose. They would be ex- pected to be the best of the available lands. The plots claimed were not contiguous with one another although they were grouped together within limited areas. High spots in the tidelands, sloughs, soft ground, ground on which oysters could not be held against the current, etc. were often left unclaimed so that ad- jacent plots did not always have common boundary lines. As ~~~~~~12~ 12 -~~~~~~~e to D'7o 4' CN. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;$ VON~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 L' ' w i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~1 0 :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i I,-.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- OYSTER FATTENING LANE) PLOTS CONTAINING CLASS I OR 2 OYSTERLAND FIGURE 6 0 J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~0 I 0~~~00 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~41 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T aw/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I FIGURE 8 NON- PRODUCTIVE OYSTERLAND PLOTS WITH 50% OR MORE CLASS 5 LAND described earlier nearly half of this ground was allowed to go for taxes prior to 1927, however the reason was not always a reflection of the character of the ground but a function of the condition of the industry. County owned land acquired after 1927 was thus thils preferred ground. State deeds land after 1927 are lands peripheral to the original culture areas or the sloughs and other spaces between the earlier claims. It would be expected then that this would be for the most part poorer land. Limitations to this approach are the facts that the characteristics of the land are not static and that the ground requirements for the Japanese oyster are probably somewhat different than those for the Native oyster which formed the basis for the original choice of land in the bay (See Figure 2). The county assessor appraises oysterlands for tax purposes. Lands are classed on five numbered categories, on through five. The assignment of lands to a class has been done by oystermen working with the assessor. A given plot may include several classes oysterland. The classes are based on the ability of the land to produce oysters. The first and second classes include those lands which will produce a marketable oyster in a reasonable length of time. Classes three and four are lands which take an extended period to produce a marketable oyster but may produce good growth over shorter periods of time. Class five is the poorest land which has little or no value for oyster culture. County land is not appraised so that oysterland in county ownership at the time of appraisal does not appear in the figures for acreage. Presumably it can all be considered as the equivalent of class five land. Table 5 summarizes the distribution of oysterland of Willapa Bay within the various classes. Ten percent of the total deeded oysterland is found in Class I or II, thirty percent of the land is found in Class III or IV and sixty percent of the land is in the poorest class (Class V). The distribution of the various classes of land within different areas of the Bay is dispropor- tionate. Ninety percent of the Class I and II land is in two areas, "B" and "E". The figures also indicate that more than one half the deeded oysterland in the bay is of little or no value for the cultivation of oysters. The total useable land, Classes I through IV, is 10,076 acres using the classification system described above. This total re- presents a varying proportion of the total deeded lands in each of the areas of the bay. Figures 6, 7 and 8 illustrate the distribution of the differ- ent types of oysterlands in Willapa Bay. Figure 6 indicates plots which have within their boundaries Class I or Class II land, fattening ground. Figure 7 shows the distribution of plots which contain Class I through Class IV land. Figure 8 illustrates the non-productive lands which include plots which have fifty percent or more Class V land or which are in county ownership. Since a plot of land may include several classes of land there will be some overlap. The purpose is to illustrate the distribution of the best, poorest, and productive (useable) oysterlands. 13 TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF CLASSES OF OYSTERLAND Class Class Class Class Percent Area i & II III & IV I - IV V Total I - IV A 55 183 238 3659 3897 7 B 915 1008 1923 3741 5664 34 C 171 3802 3973 3400 7373 54 D 58 2112 2170 2590 4760 46 E 1291 481 1772 2094 3866 46 Totals 2490 7586 10076 15484 25560 Percent 10 30 40 60 Other means of estimating useable oysterland in Willapa Bay may be used. Tidelands which do not provide the combination of conditions which produce oysters are not likely to be retain- ed by the oysterman. The practice has been to simply let the beds go for taxes. Examination of tax foreclosures should pro- vide some insight into the distribution of useable oysterland within the tidelands of Willapa Bay. Two factors limit the value of such an approach. The larger land holders have never allowed land to go for taxes, irespective of its oyster culture value and a number of absentee owners of subdivision tracts have main- tained their ownership even though the land has long since proved to be of no value for the culture of oysters. Allowance for these two factors can be introduced and some estimate of the amount of useable oyster ground estimated. In applying the approach outlined above, the lands held by large owners which have not allowed land to go for taxes and thus represent a significant block of land not responsive to the approach to be applied were eliminated from considera- tion. Their retention in the figures would mask the results. These large holdings comprise major portions of areas "A",1 I"D" and "E" and thus do not leave a large enough sample in these areas to apply the technique there. Table 6 lists the acreages removed from consideration in areas "IB" and "C" segre- gated into Old (land deeded before 1929) and New (land deeded after 1929) and the proportion these acreages are to the total of the area deeded. The land rush sales did not drop back to norman level until about 1940 (See Figure 3). It is felt that only after this date was the value of land for oyster culture the major factor in whether it was retained or allowed to go for taxes. The abstracts which had been prepared for each plot of oysterland were then examined (except for those indicated above) to ident- ify those which had at some time since 1940 been in county owner- ship. Data for old oyster ground (pre 1929) was kept separate from that of new ground ( post 1929). The totals for each area, segregated for old and new land were then computed. This figure was then converted to a percentage of the acreage considered, maintaining the segregation of areas of old and new land. At 14 OYSTER LAND CLASSIFICATION CLASS I Oyster production or growing land is used in producing marketable oysters. Generally located where there is good circulation of water and plenty of feed available. This is the very best land in the bay. The seed and marginal land will be generally located between the production land and shore line. CLASS II Oyster production land or growing land has the same general characteristic as class one. The biggest difference being in the amount of food available, which limits the production of marketable oysters. CLASS III Oyster seed land is used for the catching, holding, or development of oysters. Generally speaking the area is located between production land and marginal land. The available food supply and the amount of time, it is not covered by water generally, determines how good it is. CLASS IV Oyster seed land is used for the same purpose as class three, however, it generally won't support very much of a seed crop as it is very closely related to the marginal land. It has a very poor supply of food. CLASS V Oyster marginal land is located between the shore line and the seed area, however, it may be found any place in the seed or production area. It is of little value other than as for protection for the other class beds. from Eberhardt report to State Tax Commission 15 TABLE 6 ESTIMATED USEABLE OYSTERLAND OLD OYSTERI.AND AREA TOTAL ACA ACAGE HLD IN SAMIPI E COUNTY OWNI:iSlllPS SAM.I.E % _LOI . ACR EA GE __ _LAL t;fOb. - ALi!$_i\CK; AI:rl:R 1940 _BLANCE USEAIII B 3140.7 13S6.3 1754.4 160.6 15.93.8 91% * 5193.7 2951.6 _222.1 290.0 152.1 87 NEW O' SlTERLAND B 2786.8 464.4 2322.4 1591.1 731.3 31% C 2310.9 281.8 2029.1 733.6 1295.5 64% ESTIIL&TED USEABLE LAND AREA TOTAL ACREAGE SAMPLE % TOTAL USEABLE TOTAL FOR AREA B OLD 3140.7 91% 2858.0 B NEW 2986.8 31% 863.9 3721.9 C OLD 5193.7 87% 4518.5 C NEW 2310.9 64% 1479.0 5997.5 this point the acreages of the blocks of land previously eli- minated were added back into the totals and the percentage arrived at for the sample was applied to the totals for each area. This then provided an estimate of the total land held in low enough esteem to be abandoned. The totals indicate that a much smaller percentage of old land has been abandoned at some time in the past than new. It also indicates that about 28% more land has been retained private ownership than is included in the total of Class I-IV land. Extrapolated to include all the oysterland it would indi- cate about 13, 370 acres of useable land. Another method for determining the amount of useable oyster- land is to examine airphotos and measure. the areas which are in use. Of the available airphotos only those of the "B" area for 1974 are suitable for this purpose due to the tide level at the time the photos were made. In analyzing the photos, it was real- ized that useable land is not in continuous use so that.general areas of use were deliniated to allow for this rather than to mciarnsre just those portions of plots in use in the summer of 1974. TI.,, Photos used were at a scale of 1" = 1000'. By this method 23.- acres were condisered to be in use in the "B" area. This r, -:sents 39% of the deeded land in the "B" area. Using the Cl:,s of land figures of the assessor it was determined above tha;t 34% of the deeded land of the "B" area was included in Class I through IV. The photo results are drawn on the map, Figure 9 16 which illustrated higher class land distribution in the "B" area. They agree rather closely. It appears that the Class designations may provide arceisonable estimate of the uscable deeded oysterland in the bay, about 10,000 acres. It should be noted that the estimate reached here assumes the culture methods employed today, that is, bed culture. It is unlikely that there is any significant area of tide- lands suitable for the culture of oysters in Willapa Bay, out- side the reserves, which has not already been recognized and deeded, or leased. The reserves contain a little less than 10,000 acres however much of this is subtidal land. Since it has not been intensively farmed it is difficult to estimate useable tideland within the reserves. It probably totals less than 2000 acres. It therefore appears that the available land resource for the bottom culture of shellfish in Willapa Bay is limited to about 12,000 acres. IDENTIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF UNUSEABLE OYSTERLANDS The estimates made above indicate that over 15,000 acres of deeded oysterland in Willapa Bay are marginal for growing oysters. Because of the speculative nature of the dealings in oysterland in the 1930's the question arises as to how much of this acreage was ever suitable for oyster culture. SMore impor- tantly, it is desireable to identify areas which were once pro- ductive and have subsequently become unuseable and to determine what the nature of the change has been that brought about the apparent failure and when these changes occurred. Examination of ownership records indicates which deeded oysterlands were probably never suitable for oyster culture. These lands may simply have been a poor choice of land or may have been acquired for speculation through subdivision with no concern for its ability to support oyster growth. County fore- clousure occurs at a minimum of seven years after the owner ceases to pay taxes. Foreclosure seven years after the deed date on a plot of oyster land indicates that the land was found to be of little value for culture and abandoned or that subdivisions of it were not saleable. Frequent changes of ownership, numerous plots, if subdivided, in county ownership at some time and the lack of ownership by oystermen implies that the plots of a sub- division were probably never oysterland. They are all currently classed as marginal class V land. Using the above criteria the ownership histories of each plot of land in Willapa Bay were examined. The following table lists the acreages by area which were probably never suitable for oyster- land: AREA NEVER OYSTERLAND A 941. B 1180 C 686 D 74 E 1078 TOTAL 3959 17 /, / L :V ny Point flag -Z///, Plots with Class I-1Z Land <XZA A \ so Encloses Land inUse I FIGURE 9 (see text) FIGURE 9 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C! E CV -a *~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ k I I cc NONPRDUC/ OYSTERLANDS>'~<< 4~ PA C/F/C NON-~~NVERPRODUCTI'VE' FIGURE 1O TABLE 7 OYSTERLAND CLASS CHANGES AREAS A AND B 1959-1970 Area & Year Classes of Oysterland I II Total III IV Total I + II I - IV East "A" 1959 63 159 222 20 78 320 East "A" 1970 20 0 20 33 10 63 Difference -43 -159 -202 +13 -68 -257 West "A" 1959 330 226 556 162 104 822 West "A" 1970 0 35 35 131 9 175 Difference -330 -191 -521 -31 -95 -647 East "B" 1959 226 170 396 223 138 757 East "B" 1970 215 45 260 165 128 553 Difference -11 -125 -136 -58 -10 -204 Central "B" 1959 817 408 1225 566 448 2239 Central "B" 1970 447 208 655 475 226 1356 Difference -370 -200 -570 -91 -222 -883 South "B" 1959 5 24 29 0 55 84 South "B" 1970 0 0 0 0 15 15 Difference -5 -24 -29 0 -40 -69 Total "A" Area Differences -373 -350 -723 -18 -163 -904 Total "B" Area Differences -386 -349 -735 -149 -272 -1156 Area designations follow production areas used in production section. 19 The location of these lands is illustrated in Figure 10. Of the oysterlands in Willapa Bay which are marginal Class V land, nearly four thousand acres were probably never used or suitable for the cultivation of oysters. If we eliminate these lands from further consideration it appears that about one half of the remainind deeded oysterlands in Willapa Bay are presently productive and the other half are non-productive. These categories each represent between ten and eleven thousand acres. Undoubtedly most of these non-productive beds which are now Class V lands were once useful oyster ground. The deeded oysterlands were classified in 1959 for all areas. These class- ifications were reviewed in 1970 and significant class changes were required in areas "A" and "B" in the northern portion of Willapa Bay. A comparison of available productive oyster beds is thus possible on the basis of these two classifications for the Northern part of the bay. Table 7 contains these compari- sons. They indicate that there was nine hundred and four acres less of productive oysterland in the "A" area in 1970 than in 1959 and eleven hundred fifty six acres less in the "B" area. The majority of the lost productive ground in both areas was in fattening land. This loss represents 79% of the available productive oysterland in the "A" area between 1959 and 1970 and 38% loss in the "B" area. A major problem to the oyster industry in Willapa Bay is the loss of productivity of a large portion of deeded tidelands. The primary physical changes in oyster beds have been those brought about by the deposition of large amounts of sediment. The result has been that the level of beds was elevated too high to support good growth, or the texture of the beds has been changed so that oysters could not be grown there. Other changes are also evident. Some areas have become overwhelmed by burrowing organisms which alter the texture of the surface and again may reflect a secondary effect of sedimentation. Still other areas do not receive the nutrients at a level previously available suggesting hydrologic changes or productivity changes in the bay. An attempt to relate these changes to other factors will be made later in this study. 20 SHIN YL~~~ QYS 7>2L B)UCTION 13Y A.'], INT NIJl , i 0' F, G LLU0U .%fast ~ Jrays 'd4illa a Wa,~.in--ton Year Sound '-farbor B31ay 1oa 1935 18.6,70 6,0087,5 662,526 19316 105,80 6,~ oo 605,~920 75h,94.9 1937 72(,080 5,J50 804.,21.7 911,b)487 138 102,1171 10,0 88520 8738 1939 135,109 10,150 802,217 97),,,42 * ~~~~~~ ~~~198.0 127~,428 4 .2 'I0 934.,366 1,1.3,19:5 1941 3-6 r', 3 37 19,500 1~,131,8.05~ 1,3 1,7 52 198.2 118.8,308 9~,500 1,021,051 1,052 198. 95,8497 8,250 673,74.9 7 (9 6,650 198.8. 1690,920 16,800 74.0,617 98.4,36 19h5 21A,3 1,0 815,017 10881 1940 260,720 19,8400 1.,234,182 1,5 33, 6 47 198. 229,661 IC,80 98629 1,230,778.4 1.98.8 286,.1150 38,o00 799~)j29 1,101,1533 198.9 261,356-- 82,600 528,6 89.7. 1950 229j,1V7 83,100 8.97,238 825)1669 * ~~~~~ ~~~~1951 227,571 58,068 582,491- 8 c30 , 42 7 1952 268,258 50,1171 712,251 1,088., '7 I953 2 75, 752 67, 8'78 7529,983 1,1101., c),9 1958. 808,167 9278. 683,)j 31 11368 1955 382,936 119,633 6448,598 1,1I8.,7L2 1956 384,8481 12,526 702~,81L 1,2123,322 * ~~~~~ ~~~1957 380,383 97,600 660,38-7 1,18LI,12 0 1958 396,589 7068 62,7. 1,0~ 1959 8.61,310 1-13,1810 574, 3015 I, c I) 1960 4 .2), ~06 97,652 528,920 1,050,80 1961 339,590 76,0558,8 9Q)31 1962 397,387 72036 550,197 110 * ~~~~~ ~~~1963 39)i,387 62,8.4. 8.87,362 9 8.8,82 1968. 8.19,223 67,777 11.52,~830 94.8,20 1965 8.16 ,813 84,778. 3906,396 9011,78") 1966 297,131 70,557 8.0,6-11 773,74.3 1967 314,575 72696 38.6,149 773,330 1968 287.,011 584,08.84 367,991 735,023 * ~~~~~ ~~~~19169 252,227 8,1.8, (- 9 35h,373 6;5 7)3 1970 302,708. 110,905 8.00, 36 0 750,02? 1971 302,p2.L7 4 881800,68 78359 1972 3,27 68.,054 8.15,678 838,769 1973 2 82,08.1 ~ 39,933 328,1 8.,.. 1978. 182~,126 29,83 28. 5,35 8.~59.,29 6 Data from WDF~ Reports 21- 1.6- PACIFIC OYSTER PRODUCTION 1.4 - I ) I r 1.2- 1t : II\ * I a I I I -r ~~~~I I 0 - .8- 1 Ii a I ' LL ~~~~I' I I \~~~~~~~~I. .1 ~~~~I, o 1 I,~ r' '~-' V ~ ..-WILLAPA BAY .2-~~~~~~~~1 I '- PUGET SOUND 'I I --GRAYS HARBOR 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 11 22 PACIFIC OYSTER PRODUCTION Pacific oyster production increased rapidly after the intro- duction of the new oyster into Willapa Bay. By the beginning of World War II it had reached a peak of 1,130,000 gallons per year (1941). During the war production dropped to a low of 674,000 gallons (1943) but again increased to a new high in 1946 of 1,234,000 gallons. Production fell off rapidly in the next several years to a low of 497,000 gallons in 1950. For the next three years production increased gradually to 753,000 gallons. After 1953 production steadily declined to a level of about 400,000 gallons in 1965 and varied slightly about this level until 1972. Production dropped rapidly to a new low of 245,000 gallons in 1974. Total pacific oyster production for the state closely paral- leled that of Willapa Bay until about 1969. A small three year increase in the state total after 1969 did not develop in the Willapa Bay production. Production in Puget Sound has had a somewhat different history than that of Willapa Bay. Although the same dips in production occured there as in Willapa Bay they were proportionately much smaller. The production in Pu- get Sound generally increased after 1937 until it reached a plateau in 1954. It maintained this level, about 400,000 gal- lons per year, until 1965 then dropped off to its present low level. (See Figure 11). In 1935 Willapa Bay produced 75% of the pacific oysters in Washington. By 1937 this proportion had increased 90%. As Puget Sound pacific oyster production increased and Willapa Bay production decreased the proportion of state production from Willapa Bay dropped to 50% by 1960. It has varied about a level of a little over 50% since then. (See Figure 12 and Table 8). U.S. production of all species of oysters reached a high in the late 1800's of nearly 200 million pounds. With the encroach- ment of cities into oyster growing areas of the East and the accompanying pollution, there was a loss of production from many areas. U.S. production drastically dropped to a level of about 80 million pounds about the time pacific oysters were first harvested in Washington. This new product soon accounted for ten to fifteen percent of the national production. Even though Washington production has decreased the proportion that it makes up of the total U.S. production has remained at about the same level, due to more recent losses of production from disease in eastern oysters. (See Figure 13). Pacific oysters are intensively farmed on deeded tidelands. Production figures then are essentially harvest results and sales. Since it takes several years to grow a marketable oyster and oysters will live for many years it is possible for the oyster grower to withold his product from the market if he feels this is 23 100- 75- % 50- 25- 1930 1 1950 1970 % WASHINGTON HARVEST FROM WILLAPA BAY FIGURE 12 practical. Conversely he may find attractive market conditions but is not able to supply the oysters he could sell. His deci- sions on whether to obtain seed for future crops and the amount will depend on the cost of the seed, the cost of producing mar- ketable oysters 'form that seed and his estimate of the market conditions when the oysters are ready to harvest several years later. The availability of land for the crop is another consi- deration. His considerations and decisions are thus similar to those of the upland farmer. Production figures only indirectly reflect the ability of the bay to produce oysters. To the oysterman this ability appears as a cost factor. This is reflected in a statement in the Washing- ton Department of Fisheries annual bullentin for 1944 "Many areas of Willapa Bay which once produced marketable oysters in 12 or 18 months now require four years to five the same yeild. The cost of oystering in these areas has been correspondingly increased. Other areas fail to produce an oyster of suitable fatness." PRODUCTION CAPACITY Production oyster land is segregated into fattenirlg and growing lands. Growing lands are those which provide early development and growth. Fattening lands are those which provide the finish- ing off to a marketable oyster. Oysters are transferred from growing lands to fattening lands shen they have reached.a suitable size. Although transplants are largely of the same age class there is a wide variation in size of individuals present. Currently three to four years is required on the growing ground and one or two seasons required on the fattening ground. Three to four times as much growing ground as fattening is thus required in order to make the fullest use of the available ground. It is also evident that the maximum potential production from the ba]y is directly dependent on the amount of fattening ground available and the 200 - I 160- a a.-' o~~18 I~ \ ~ s I 120- 3 0 VI) Z o 8o- -30 'J 0 \ - 20 z 0 ~~~40- ,--. - 10 IIE I I 1880 1920 [960 U.S. OYSTER PRODUCTION 1880 - 1970 FIGURE 13 time required for fattening. From the beginning of oyster culture in Willapa Bay it was recoginzed that the fattening grounds were largely limited to the northern part of the bay (Areas A, B and E) and that the grounds in the southern part of the Bay (Areas C and D) included primarily growing grounds. Growing grounds are also present in areas A, B and E of the northern portion of the bay. Growers usually have a combination of land in the southern portion of the bay (Areas C and D) from which they transfer oysters to lands in the A, B and E areas which they use for fattening. Since growing grounds are also present in the A, B and-E areas the combination of types of land may be held entirely in one of these northerly areas and transfers are made over relatively short distances or sometimes not at all. This later practice is only possible for smaller operators. .~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Z Loss of fattening and growing characteristics of land thus reduces the potential productive capacity of the bay. It was determined earlier in this report that only about one half of the original oyster lands in Willapa Bay are nowproductive. It was also noted that major losses of productive land have occured in the "A" and "B" areas since 1959. Factors which control the productivity of oysterland are texture of the 25 ground, presence of pest or predators, height of the land in the intertidal zone and the availability of nutrients. Changes in these interrelated factors are reflected in the ability of the oysterland to grow oysters. Texture of the ground, that is the coarseness of the parti- cles which make up the ground and the compaction of these par- ticles, reflects currents and sediment load carried by the currents. Deposition of fine sediment may bury oysters and either alter their shape or smother them. Coarse but loose texture ground, when subjected to currents, tends to draw oysters down into the sediment. Changes which bring about � these results reduce the value of the ground for the culture of oysters. Major deposition of sediment on a bed may raise its elevation significantly. 5ince oysters only feed when they are immersed in water their relative position in the intertidal area directly effects their growth rate. Elevation of a bed thus reduces the productive capacity of the bed and often has � made beds completely unproductive. Even though there may be no physical change in an oyster bed its productive capacity may be reduced by changes in the avail- ability of food. This effect may be a localized occurrence resulting from current changes or may be a broad effect due 0 to changes in the capacity of the bay to generate food. The food of oysters consists of microscopic plants and detrital organic material. The microscopic plants are dependent on inorganic nutrients most of which are generated in the break- down of plant and animal tissue. Some, such as silicate, ori- ginate from the freshwater drainage off the land. Digestion of dead plant and animal tissue occurs in the mud flats, marshes and ocean, primarily by bacteria. The microscopic plants have a generation time of from one to two days under ideal conditions of nutrient and light. They must then be in the estuary system several days in order to multiply and provide an adequate food source. The generation of useable food in the bay is thus a function of a number of complexly related factors, including fresh water inflow, frequency of exchange of the bay waters with those of the ocean, and characteristics of the shoreline and bottom of the bay including shallow vegetated areas. Even though an area may meet all the requirements of oyster growth the development of pest, predators or mortalities from less direct vectors may make it useless as oyster culture ground. In Willapa Bay dense populations of ghost shrimp and large worms have removed some oyster ground from production. Native and introduced predators such as drills and crabs reduce the pro- ductivity of oysters. In some areas mortality of adult oysters has been a significant factor in the reduction of harvest. All of the factors discussed above effecting the productivity of the land have combined to provide a productiion capacity today of about half that available in the early history of the pacific oyster industry in Willapa Bay. Production figures suggest that the early level was about 850,000 gallons and that of the last ten years about 450,000 gallons. 26 PRODUCTION ARIAS Production has been reported by sub-areas in the bay since 1956. These production areas have been derived by dividing the exisiting areas into two or three sub-areas as shown in Figure 14. Records of production from each of those areas with any significant production since 1956 are presented gra- phically in Figure 15 and Table 9. During this period each of the production areas of "E", Stackpole and Oysterville, have produced about 100,000 gallons per year with a major drop in production after 1971. In the Stony Point area of "B" production dropped over 200,000 gallons between 1956 and 1963 where it stayed at a level of about 60,000 gallons until 1967 when it began to increase again reaching just under 150,000 gallons by 1972. In the next two years it dropped down to a level of about 50,000 gallons. At the same time the Bruce- port area produced an average of a little over 50,000 gallons per year. To the north in the Tokeland area of "A", production increased form 80,000 gallons in 1956 to 125,000 gallons in 1962-63 but in 1964 it dropped to a level of about 50,000 gallons and has remained there. Some production was realized from what are essentially growing areas. The south Nemah area of "C" produced at a level of 40,000 gallons until 1964, after that time production has been insignificant. A small variable production was realized out of the West Long Island area of "D". The production drops in the 1970's apparently reflect market practices and do not represent production capacity changes. They will be discussed in a later section. The estimated 450,000 gallons production capacity for Willapa Bay appears to be distributed as follows: "A" area 50,000 "B" area 200,000 "E" area 200,000 27 27 *< ; � r' kIK .ii, .I) 104 7'� ' 1�� A><; ~~~; ~~y WEEST "A" ES ! ' i .1 I: ~ �. i �~-( >91 I. - - - - - - '~~ EAST "E3" 41 e. Dur q�* 't 7r-\'t \ CENTRAL"O" " . - ~~~NORTH m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lid SOUTH I-N. 7 - ..L CENTRAL lEA \EST"O I _ 4,I\'P r.~~~~45" Z1W1 ? ~~~~~r -<OYSTER PRODUCTION -~ ADAPTED FROM WDF MAP FIGURE 13 2 8 300 - OYSTER PRODUCTION BY AREA 250- WILLAPA BAY 200- 1956-1974 150- BRUCEPORT Z l00'STONY POINT EAST "B" CENTRAL"B' 150- * 0~~~~~~5 100- SOUTH NEMAH CENTRAL "C" TOKELAND 50- WEST A o ~------, - I ~ 200- STACKPO'LE OYSTERVILLE 15s- 1NORTH"E" SOUTH "E" 100- 50- 1950 1960 1970 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 15 29 TA3L~ 9 Pacific Oyster Production Willapa Bay By Production Areas North Bruce- Stony Goose North South West Lonjg Stack- Oyster- Year River Tokeland port point Point Nemah. Nemah Island pole ville 1956. 3972 605L4 32026 266943 4563 10102 51622 265h0 82910 I113130 U4 1957 19110 90979 L6062 209915 3L557 35526 110.596 I136L-2 Co) 1958 9L5h1 L5L573 191028 L2L22 6815 118534 12 2L6 1959 13L37 96031 L9193 136789 7803 29006 11808 129719 99820 1960 101859 22369 1L7759 124L1 3L772 20100 88815 Il0275 1961 7032 107421 63435 134631 65124 17857 70524 107492 1962 11378 125022 91292 107635 4 86 52140 1285 84924 76035 1963 L12 1220L3 76161 59047 27192 5571 91676 1OL97 151 1525 6 2561 62129 70323 1185 411516 20568 11I736 70257 i3L81 10522 25287 59285 L4S 4 381 3070 20379 1CL682 13I',6 1966 8717 5661I 53807 57381 29258 111507 83307 1947 613 11,172 61229 62013 916 8831 91303 77'1.1 1948 31640 L256 105935 2537 127010 79505 196,9 58273 55180 67747 2561 160-1 79752 86258 1970 50538 59761 90001 637 5231 119381 73c31 1971 56L69 63969 103129 6,12 $'587 678 77300 1972 51669 813990 139817 1729 3370 50099 871, 1973 LoL62 57844 53891 15251 35117 1214115 1971 16717 34059 19373 4 157 3568 5 16639 90807 Unpublished data from Statistical Division WOF OYSTER SEED JAPANESE SEED The introduction of the Japanese oyster (Pacific) in the late 1920's proved to be successful and the entire produc- tion of oysters from WlVillapa Bay presently is from this in- troduced species. Each year large amounts of seed are im- ported from Japan to continue the production. Not all seed of the Pacific oyster comes from Japan. Some areas in Wash- ington and Canada frequently provide the conditions during the summer for the propagation of Pacific oysters. In Wash- ington the major areas in Which natural spawning and setting of Pacific oysters is often successful are Willapa Bay and Quilcene and Dabob Bays of Hoods Canal in the sound. Seed from Japan is shipped in cases containing 15-20,000 spat usually on oyster shell. The spat are natural set from the previous year in Japan. Figure 16 illustrates the vary- ing amounts shipped Washington for use in Washington since 1947. Figure 16 also includes case amounts for Willapa Bay for the years those numbers were available. (1947-59) It is clear that the bulk of the imported seed used in Washing- ton is planted in Willapa Bay. As was the case earlier with the transplanting of Eastern oysters in Willapa Bay, the in- troduction of seed from Japan brought other organisms in ad- dition to the oysters. These included the oyster drill, Jap- anese little neck clam, red crab and others. Some of these organism are predators on the oyster. Thus the legislature, in 1951, acted to give the Director of the Department of Fisheries the authority to promulgate regulations governing the importation of seed and the responsibility to require in- spection of seed for disease, infestations and pests. Later the legislature (1967) required that the importer pay for the actual cost of inspection excluding the inspectors base salary. When the trends in the volume of Japanese seed imports are compared to trends inoyster production there appears to be a general coorelation. If the Japanese seed case is assumed to produce 20 gallons of oysters and a growth period of four years is required a comparison may be made in the same terms. Figure 17 illustrates these comparisons and suggest a rather close relationship for the state production as a whole. Data on Willapa Bay seed imports are not complete enough to make similar comparisons over a long enough period to be signifi- cant. Evnironmental changes in the bays and estuaries of Japan have reduced the capacity of many areas there to produce seed or have degraded the quality of the seed produced. With the rise in the standard of living in Japan the cost of seed 31 16$ - 1 7 I It lI' II I I V,~~~~~~~I o1 I I I 1 i ct.0 - ii I�5 c I' I v 0 It~~ ~ ~ ~~ 15 .8-~~~~~I F, * I C. .8 L.. a Il I 0 I i \~~~~~~II B i u,~~~~~ I. , z I c o I Cl) -J 1 I .4-r -20 0- 'I~~\ WASHINGTONM SEED IM~PORTS .2--0 - WILLAPA BAY SEED IMPORTS WA'INSHINGTON OYJSTER PRODUCTION 1930 5940 1950 1960 1970 PACIFIC OYSTER SEED IMPORTS FIGURE 16 32 TA.BLE 10 Annual seed oyster shipments to the state of Washinqton and the Pacific coast. State nf Washington discharge/ rliyaqi Prefecture Pacific Seed Broken/ Kunamoto Coast year Broken Unbroken unbroken Prefecture Other-/ Total total 1947 13,240 27,242 20 40,502 56,619 1948 8,951 18,308 80 30 27,369 32,869 1949 22,968 17,031 1,000 27 41,026 46,036 1950 22,578 13,715 548 20 36,861 46,726 1951 23,806 12,710 150 2 36,668 51,901 1952 53,881 14,422 600 61 68,964 83,290 1953 52,731 10,370 682 32 63,815 70,113 1954 55,159 9,269 250 1 64,679 65,528 1955 41,378 4,924 334 44 46,680 54,216 1956 63,221 10,246 507 85q 74,059 100,634 1957 39,102 9,296 133 332- 48,863 60,063 1958 37,893 8,737 1,202 30 47,862 61,119 1959 18,870 13,600 15,875 606 33W 48,984 61,444 1960 17,101 2,224 15,779 1,200 36,304 44,291 1961 14,643.5 4,337 7,494 1,004 27,478.5 37,128.5 1962 13,450 4,597 13,610 1,141 1 32,799 41,499 1963 15,409 6,643.5 18,598.5 1,740 1 42,392 53,416 1964 12,148 2,522 13,975 1,890 30,535 41,160 1965 4,000 2,139.5 18,905 2,238 27,282.5 37,128.5 1966 5,740 1,000 6,186 1,995 14,922 16,102 1967 5,803 3,192.5 24,780 454 34,229.5 43,557.5 1968 3,500 1,000 21,915 1,670 28,085 38,415 1969 4,000 1,125 27,375 1,100 33,600 44,707 1970 5,250 500 15,321 1,142 22,213 26,079 1971 5,300 1,405 18,423 261, 97- 25,486 30,337 1972 375 6,247 699 2 7,321 7,321 973 7,085 1,260 8,346 8,346 1974 1,455 10,431 52D 6 12,406 12,406 1975 7,816 100-/ 7,866 10,856 _/ Including trans-shipments to Oregon, California, and British Columbia. V Experimental boxes and samples of new types of cultch. 3/ Includes clam seed (197 cases), adult Kumamoto (31 cases), experinental (12 cases), and Suminoe (92 cases). 4/ Hiroshima. 5/ Kumamoto seed packed in Miyaqi Prefecture. / 100 plastic cases, equivalent of 50 standard cases. From >,D)? Report 33 1.4 - 1.2- * | I 1950 19 60 1970 1.0ASED I MPORTS 34 .8- Ii I I' .2 - ACTUAL PRODUCTION - 1950 1960 1970 PREDICTED OYSTER PRODUCTION BASED ON SEED IMPORTS 20GAL./CASE -- 4YR. GROWTH FIGURE 16 34 production has increased. In the late 1960's France suffered a major loss in its oyster industry through disease. Pacific oysters were introduced there in large amounts to fill the gap and in some areas to replace their native oyster. Large a- mounts of seed were transported from Japan to France by air to provide the new crop. The price of seed increased in the early 1970's and shipments to Washington were greatly reduced. The experience of growers is that seed from Japan has the best returns and requires the least attention on the beds. However, the price is now over three times what it was twenty years ago. The ability of Japan to produce large amounts of -seed beyond its own needs may continue to decline with further degredation of the enviornment there. Japanese imports of canned and frozen oysters compete with those produced in Washington so that heavy dependence on Japan for seed results in their potential control of both costs of production and market price for the grower in Washington. In an economically depressed area, such as Pacific County, the pay- ment of from one fourth to one half million dollars out of the area for seed reduces the economic value of the oyster industry to the county. M any aspects of the practice of purchasing seed from Japan indicate that a substitute for Japanese seed is desireable. However, none so far developed has completely removed the dependence on this source. NATURAL SEED Soon after the pacific oyster was introduced into Willapa Bay it was discovered that under the proper conditions spawn- ing took place and the resulting swimming larvae could com- plete their development and set to produce a "natural set". Growers use various techniques for catching this set. Oyster shell from the processing plants is broadcast in areas which, from experience, have proved to be good seed catching locations. The areas may be in channels such as that of the lower Naselle River in Chetlo Harbor where leases are acquired for this pur- pose. Some growers prepare shell piles on growing beds to catch seed. More commonly the oyster shell is punched and strung on wires and laid on racks low in the intertidal zone. When a set is successful the racks are emptied the following year and the shell holding the young oysters is scattered on growing beds. In the case of channel catches the shiell must be dredged and transferred to growing beds. The costs in this system are primarily in labor and equipment time. If a catch is not successful in the year and shell is put out, the resulting fouling of the shell by growth of algae and at- taching animals makes it useless for the seed catching the next year. The costs incurred in preparing and placing the shell then becomes a loss when there is not a satisfactory set. This loss is compounded by the need to supply seed from some other source to replace that which was expected throught natu- ral set. Growers have worked around these disadvantages by catching several years supply of seed and holding seed in growing areas for extended periods. There are limitations to 35 PACIFIC OYSTER SET'LIN, Willapa Bay Year Set Year Set 19306 1 xcellent T955 e 1:lnt 1937 Commercial 1957 Excellent 1938 Good 1958 f ood 1939 Good 1959 C omme rc ial 1910 Good 1960 Non Conmercial 19hl1 Excellent 1961 Non Commnrcial 19h2 Good 1962 Nion Commercial 1943 Non Comm;lercial 1963 lNon Comiercial 194h Non Commercial 1964 Commercial 1945 Non Commercial 1965 Commercial 19h6 Non CorLmercial 1966 Non Commercial 1947 Excellent 1967 Commercial 1948 Tood 1968 Commlerci al 19h9 Non Commercial 1969 Non Co'mmercial 1950 Good 1970 Non Commercial 1951 Corrmercial 1971 Excellent 1952 Non Conmercial 1972 Non Commuercial 1953 Commercial 1973 Non Commerclal 195 4 Good-spotty 197h Non Comnercial 1955 Non Co:mulercial 1975 Non Commercial From ;'DF Reports 1936-1970 Excellent= 50 or more spat per shell Good = 25-50 spat per shell Cornmercial= 3-25 spat per shell 36 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ Lii * Q 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tz~~ W~~~~~~~ i Imply[~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~6 C0WA pA C/F/C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FIGURE 1 8 this practice. When the frequency of sets becomes low or the set is quite sparce for several years in a row then the natural source of seed is not satisfactory to meet the needs of growers. Heavy natural sets have occured in the bay and seed has con- sequently appeared not only on the oyster shell placed in the water for that purpose but on all the living oysters in the bay, on the dikes, piling, floats, drift, etc. Such sets occured in 1936, 1941, 1947 1956, 1957, and 1971. The interval between these occurences was 5, 6, 9 and 14 years. Lesser sets have become correspondingly less frequent and have become rare since 1960. (See Table 11). Seed catching operations have been established by local growers in other areas, primarily Quilcene and Dabob Bays, were sets are caught more frequently. This involves an additional cost in transportation and acquisition of ground and is conducted with strings of shell or shell held in plastic mesh bags. Some growers suspend their strings or bags from floats which further increases the cost of the seed obtained but produces better re- sults. In the past the risk of no set in these other areas has not been as great as in Willapa Bay but an unsuccessful year results in a greater loss since it is less practical to retain a poor set and transport it than it is in Willapa Bay and hopes of accumulation of poor set over several years is not practical. The Washington Department of Fisheries has established shell- fish laboratories in Willapa Bay and between Dabob and Quilcene Bays to aid oysters growers in the prediction of oyster sets in those areas. Water samples are taken periodically to determine the presence of and stage of development of oyster larve. The concentration of larvae and their progress towards setting stage provides a basis for estimating when a set may occur and whether it will be of a high enough concentration to merit the introduction of shell strings into the bay. Since clean shell appears to make the best catch it is important not to immerse the shell prematurely since it soon becomes fouled and reduces its efficiency in catching seed. Spawning is directly related to temperature and food. When the temperature begins to raise the oyster is induced to develop eggs or sperm and when these products are completely developed a critical temperature is necessary to result in spawning of eggs for fertilization which occures outside the oyster. Food must be abailable in high enough concentration to allow good develop- ment of an adequate number of eggs. Spawning by a few oysters may induce wide spread spawning in adjacent oysters. Attempts to induce spawning have involved crushing large numbers of oysters in spawning condition and dumping them in the bay in hopes of inducing spawning. In Willapa Bay spawnings have often occurred but the larvae have'not reached setting size or simply no longer appear in samples. The swimming oyster larvae actively take food and maintain themselves in the water column as they develop. They 37 are much more sensitive to water quality than are the adult oysters and are highly susceptable to predation by any larger filter feeding organism including their parents. They are easily carried by currents and will not survive extended expo- sure to the air. Food particles must be very small in order that they may injest it and the food must be suspended in the water column. The temperature of the water must remain at a relatively high level in order for them to complete their dev- elopment in three weeks or less. There are many factors which alone or together may be responsible for unsuccessful develop- ment of oyster larvae. In recent years loss of the larvae be- fore completion of their development or low levels of spawning have often provided little in the way of oyster seed for the grower. With a good set numerous spat attach to each shell. As they growtneybecome crowded and tend to grow out away from the shell forming clusters. Growers break up these clusters in order to prevent smothering and to get better growth. Break- ing also makes processing (opening) simpler and thus improves the yield. Breaking is usually the most expensive operation to the grower after seed is planted and before the marketable oyster is harvested. Some growers combine breaking and trans- planting to reduce handling costs. Natural oyster seed is caught on shell derived from oysters grown in Willapa Bay. This shell is large and relatively thick contrasting with the thin smaller oyster shell on which the imported Japanese seed is caught. The larger and thicker local shell is more diffi- cult to break and thus the cost of this operation is higher with natural caught seed than with imported Japanese seed. OYSTER RESERVES Natural oyster beds were reserved from sale or lease by the 1897 legislature. The purpose of the reserves was to conserve the supply of oysters. Licenses were required to remove oysters from these beds and management controls were outlined. The 1903 legislature established a state oyster commission whose responsi- bility was to manage the oyster reserves. Their duty was to sur- vey the existing reserves, control the removal of oysters from the reserves by closures and licenses and to reseed. The oyster reserve lands were reserved from sale or lease forever in the same act. Five oyster reserves were established in Willapa Bay including 9850 acres. They are the Willapa, Bay Center, Nemali, Long Island and Long l< end Slough reserves. Figure 18 illustrates their lo- cations. 'i- native oyster industry in Willapa Bay had declined by the 192( and much of the deeded land had been foreclosed for taxes. Th( i929 legislature authorized the commissioners of public lands to se!.' or lease tidelands in the reserves in the same manner as second cel.ass tidelands with the concurrence of the Director of Fisheries and Game. These early legislative acts were directed toward reserves for the native oyster. With the introduction of the Japanese (Pacific) oyster the natural bed status of the reserves was altered but the use was similar. By 1947 the legislature declared a policy of 38 improvement toward productivity of the reserves and stated the basic purpose of the reserves was to provide a seed supply for owners of oysterlands. Later (1969) the policy was modified by the legislature to allow those other than owners of oyster- lands to purchase seed from the reserves and authorized the director to allow harvest of oysters from the reserves for per- sonal use. Seed from the oyster reserves consists of oysters of various ages which have been caught from natural set on loose shell dumped on the ground for that purpose. HATCHERY SEED In the 1940's it became clear that oyster larvae were extremely sensitive to certain metalic ions which were found in most metal tanks, plumbing materials and pumps available at that time. When these were removed from laboratory systems, which is now easily done by substituting plastics for metal parts, it became possible to routinely rear oyster larvae through development to their metamorphisis as oysters. This allowed investigators to identify foods, usually single celled algae, which were acceptable to the larvae and provided good growth. At about the same time algologists were involved in developing systems which would allow the growth of large volumes of single celled algae to examine its possible use as a human food supplement. They were in turn using a theoretical base of knowledge developed by bacteriologists. The combination of these various technologies supplied the potential for the large scale rearing of oyster larvae under controlled conditions to pro- duce seed. Commercially oriented oyster seed hatcheries appeared in Japan, England and on the East Coast of the United State in the 19SO's. Privately owned commercial oyster seed hatcheries now exist in many oyster growing areas, including Willapa Bay and Puget Sound in Washington. Presumably the hatchery has the advantage of production at any time of year, selection of parentage for the improvement of oyster characteristics, the ability to vary the type of setting material (cultch) to find the most practical for both seed producer and grower, control of density of the set and reduction of transporta- tion costs. In contrast the hatchery requires a large capital outlay, some technical staff, considerable attention and is highly susceptible to water quality changes. At present hatcheries haye not been able to produce a significant portion of the seed required. This has been due to operational problems apparently from pollution and to an incomplete understanding of the requirements of oyster larvae. SUMMARY Each of the available sources of seed has advantages and dis- advantages. None of the sources can be relied upon as a sole source either because of price or availability in any given year. As a result most growers now obtain their seed from a combination 39 of sources in order to insure a supply. However, when the price of seed from one source is so high the grower cannot anticipate a profit in using it and at the same time other cheaper sources cannot supply his needs, the grower is in an untenable situation. Since 1960 this condition has frequently'been the case for many growers. The price and availability of seed is as important a factor in production as is growing and fattening oysterland. 4~~~~~~~~0 MARKETS PRODUCTS Pacific oysters were marketed as fresh opened or canned for the first twenty years of their production on the West Coast. -In the early 1950's canned oyster stew was introduced. Figure 19 illustrates west coast production of canned oysters and can- ned oyster stew from 1931 through 1959. The available produc- tion statistics for Washington and Willapa Bay combine canned oyster production and canned oyster stew production and are il- lustrated in Figure 20. Since oyster stew contains less than 15% oysters it is not possible to directly compare these pro- duction figures to total gallonage produced in Willapa Bay. The trend has been a downward one for the period the records are available. The larger producers in Willapa Bay are vertically integrated * ~~operations. They handle the oyster from set catch to market. They are all canners but market some fresh oysters. They also buy shellstock and opened oysters from smaller producers. Two of the companies are absentee owned and one of these is foreign owned. Since the larger producers control over one half the pro- ductive potential of the bay their production and marketing * ~~strategies signifcnl effect the oyster production statistics for the bay as a whole. An estimated 80% of the oysters harvested in Willapa. Bay are opened locally. 0 ~~IMPORTS Imports have long been a major element in the marketing of processed oysters. Imports to Washington are from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Canada. Imports 'From other areas of the United State compete with markets of Washington producers in * ~~these areas. Figure 21 compares imports with the production of oysters in Washington. (See Table 16). As the figures show imports to Washington exceed the local production in 1974. This is a result of a change in the char- acter of the importers. After 1971 the large oyster producers * ~~imported canned and frozen oysters, primarily from Korea. These imports were marketed and processed in lieu of producing their own crops. As a result the local production dropped drastically and a new peak appeared in the volume of imports. Over the last several years more oysters have been imported to Willapa Bay than have been harvested here. This has greatly reduced the economic value of the oyster industr~y to Pacific County. 41 250 - I II I ' , I ,WEST COAST PRODUCTION 200- I J CANNED OYSTERS - CANNED OYSTER STEW---- l) I 1931-1959 am F19 O :n I o I |. 930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 19 42 TABLEi 12 PACIFIC CANINED O'STTRS Year Cases Year Cases 1931 7,930 1945 3,184 1932 12,223 1946 89,050 1933 32,315 1947 57,205 1934 68,323 1948 83,489 1935 88,062 1949 113,989 1936 118,853 1950 120,742 1937 110,872 1951 132,140 1938 111,348 1952 112,415 1939 112,549 -1953 114,687 1940 148,870 1954 100,687 1941 178,445 1955 124,497 1942 72,315 1956 109,559 1943 583 1957 128,493 1944 none 1958 131,266 1959 106,881 TABLE 13 PACIFIC CANNED OYSTER STEW Year Cases Year Cases 1952-53 78,536 1955-56 182,]179 1953-54 134,111 1956-57 273,288 1954-55 170,058 1957-58 268,907 1958-59 216,683 Cases of 48 cans Data from Pacific Fisherman 1960 43 250- WASHINGTON PRODUCTION CANNED OYSTERS AND ' CANNED OYSTER STEW 200- I ' I, XI 1i 1956-1974 ~ II I C) Ii II I STATE TOTAL---- a I I, z I, * I I, WILLAPA BAY :. I * I, II o.11 1 5 1940 1950 1960 7II IIr o IA 5 00- 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIGURE 20 44 TABLE 14 PACIFIC COVINND OYST3RS AND :1YST -R ST.-M Year Willapa, Bay Total Washington 1956 133,776 253,501 1957 113,926 190,lhh 1958 110,309 186,050 1959 126,960 202,774 1960 h,4126 155,398 1961 70,082 155.,161 1962 89,524 177,697 1963 83,hh5 198,096 1964 82,4oS 167,782 1965 87,201 176.,784 1966 51,864 103,065 1967 102,723 219,391 0. �1968 80,828 165,849 1969 52,147 141,658 1970 66,747 206,270 1971 1972 1973 56,156 109,073 -974 48,899 150,850 48 pound cases Data fromn WAF S~~~~~~~~~~~ 7- AI he , 'OYSTER IMPORTS I I, TO 6- , . WASHINGTON � - IMPORTS - Ao l\ l WASHINGTON PRODUCTION---- 4- I, _I z. 2- I I 1965 1970 1975 FIGURE 21 46 TABLE 15 Oyster Imports to Washington , in pounds compared with Washington Production (Imports from Ca ada,West Germany,Korea Hong Kong, and Japan) Year Calmed Value Freshor Frozen Value Total Value Total Pounds Washin-ton 1966 956,713 $236,873 824,607 $329,554 $566,L27 1,181,320 6,722,750 1967 1,696,907 $461,961 3,099,420 $775,673 $1,237,634 4,796,327 6,4$90,403 1968 1,561,174 $438,335- 2,343,151 .550,201 $988,536 3,904,325 6,414,810 1969 1,290,048 $380,573 772,883 $359,168 $739,741 2,063,131 5,708,373 1970 799,560 $259,521 1,542,650 $704,109 9963,540 2,342,510 6,506,09) 1971 200,826 $100,879 786,062 $464,722 $565,601 986, Lb8 6,793,751 1972 2,597,097$1,424,871 1,343,676 $1,093,963 $2,518,834 3,940,773 7,272,127 1973 3,456,606$1,683,543 1,661,761 $1,345,246 $3,028,789 5,118,367 5,622,036 1974 2,453,066$1,253,208 2,162,215 $1,685,381 $2,938,589 4,615,281 3,982,096 Import data from National Marine Fisheries Service Wai ington Production Data from Washington Department of Fisheries PRODUCTION FACTORS Production figures show the same long term trends as does available area of productive oysterland, volume of imported- oyster seed and individual product types (See Figures 8, 16 anTO) . It was also shown earlier that when producers become importers production figures are effected. This practice as well as the practice of holding crops from market for a better price can only be a short term effort since if the oysters are still being farmed they will eventually have to be harvest- .ed. If oysters are not farmed then the importer becomes a broker and is no longer an element in the production of oysters except as a foreign comeptitor, and the grower who witholds and does not farm essentially is no longer in business. In either event the effect is short term and cannot account for long term trends. (See Figure 11, 1971-74). Long Term trends in production are a reflection of changes in potential productivity. Reduction in available productive land, increase in growing time required and lower frequency of natural sets are all attributable to environmental changes and reflected as increases in cost. If costs increase dispro- portionately to market values then production goes down. So that market trends in volume basically reflect potential pro- ductivity changes if a demand for the product remains. 48~~~~~~~~ TOTAL WASHINGTON--- WILLAPA BAY- PUGET SOUND---- GRAYS HARBOR .-.--- 200- ,% 150- Ii? i I* ., . , ' I'" y /'"-% I'J IOD- �I I! I I - I ,.... 1950 1960 1970 OYSTER FARM LICENSES FIGURE 22 49 TABLE 16 OYSTER FAIM LIC.,NSE:S Year Grays Hiarbor Puget Sound Willapa Bay State Tobal 1947 1 59 10 70 1918 3 69 31 103 1949 8 133 26 167 1950 8 146 27 181 1951 5 79 24 108 1952 4 82 39 125 1953 7 116 45 168 195 4 6 139 35 180 1955 6 96 25 127 1956 5 89 24 118 1957 5 81 19 105 1958 2 84 21 107 1959 5 84 23 112 1960 6 98 22 126 1961 6 92 27 125 1962 6 89 25 120 1963 7 78 23 108 1964 6 75 18 99 1965 5 63 16 84 1966 6 65 17 88 1967 5 65 17 87 1968 6 64 18 88 1969 5 67 17 89 1970 5 80 16 101 1971 5 146 18 169 1972 6 157 16 179 1973 6 168 15 189 1974 6 177 15 198 Data from TDF Annual Reports j ()~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~