[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
00 HE FISHERY MA AGEMENT ANALYSI.S --------------- - ----- SH 328 .07 1979 OREGON COASTAL ZONE FISHERY MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS Property of CSC Library PREPARED BY Montagne-Blerly Associates, Inc. Waterway & Natural Resource Consultants FOR Department of Land Conservation and Development AUGUST 1979 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 This report was prepared with financial assistance from the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. LIBRARY 0REG0N LCDC SALEM,OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wculd like to thank the individuals and agencies that have contributed their time and expertise to provide information and evaluations of developing fishery policy. Enthusiastic cooperation was provided by industry, state and federal agencies, regional commissions and ports. We would like to acknowledge their contributions and assistance. Any in- accuracies or misinterpretations in policy are the authors. A complete list of contacts is provided in Appendix C. Special thanks is given to Mr. Neal Coenen of the Department of Land Conservation and Development who guided the progress of this effort. Photo Credits: Fish Resources Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishing Industr Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishery Economics Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishery Management National Marine Fisheries Service Future Fishery Development The Daily Astorian TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 FISH RESOURCES 4 THE FISHING INDUSTRY 11 Salmon 15 Tuna 16 Shrimp 18 Dungeness Crab 20 Groundfish 22 Aquaculture 28 Salmon Culture 28 Oyster Culture 29 Recreational Fisheries 31 Seafood Processing Industry 32 Processing Methods 34 Salmon 34 Shrimp 35 Crab 35 Processing Capacity 36 Fishery Infrastructure 39 FISHERY ECONOMICS 42 Fishing Industry Economics 42 Landed Values of Fisheries Products 45 Salmon 48 PAGE Tuna 48 Shrimp 51 Crab 51 Groundfish 51 Fishermen and Fishing Income 54 Capital Investments for Fishermen 57 Fish Processors 58 Expansion Options 59 FISHERY MANAGEMENT 61 State of Oregon 63 Economic Sector 63 Resource Sector 65 Environmental Sector 67 Land Use Sector 68 Regulatory Sector 70 Federal Government 70 Executive Sector 72 Economic Sector 72 Resource Sector 73 Environmental Sector 74 Reg*atory Sector 75 Special Commissions and Groups 75 Pacific Fisheries Management Council 75 Fisheries Development Foundation 78 Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission 79 Indian Tribes 79 Policy Analysis 79 PAGE State of Oregon 81 Federal Government 82 Special Commissions and Interest Group s .85 Legal and Legislative Influences 86 Planning and Coordination Needs 87 FUTURE FISHERY DEVELOPMENT 90 Onshore Effects of Fishery Development 90 Salmon 92 Shrimp 92 Crab 94 Groundfish 94 Pacific Hake 95 Scenarios of Future Coastal Fishery Development 96 The Hake Fishery 97 The Troll Fishery 99 The Trawl Fishery 101 Salmon Aquaculture 102 The Recreational Fishery 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY 107 APPENDIX A - HISTORICAL LANDINGS APPENDIX B - LCDC GOAL 19 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Commercially Important Marine Fishes and Shellfish of Oregon 7 2 Major Fish and Shellfish Landings at Oregon's Coastal Ports 1969 - 1976 13 3 Annual Shrimp Landings at Oregon Ports 1969 - 1978 in Thousands of Pounds 19 4 Present Production and Capacity of Fish Production Plants (million pounds) 39 5 Demographic and General Statistics of Oregon Is Seafood Industry, 19 76 43 6 Valuation for Different Fish Products 46 7 Average Price/Pound 1960 - 1976 for Landings in Oregon 46 8 Commercial Fishermen Other than Gill Netters -- 1972 54 9 Gross 1972 Returns for Commercial Fishermen Other than Gill Netters 56 10 State Agencies with Direct and Indirect Impact on Offshore 200 Mile Fishery and Onshore Impacts 64 11 Federal Agencies with Direct and Indirect Impact on Offshore 200 Mile Fishery and Onshore Impacts 71 12 Special Commissions or Groups with Direct a-dIndirect Impact on Offshore 200 Mile Fishery and Onshore Impacts- 76 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1 Coastal Fisheries Harvest Zones 5 2 Relative Volumes of Fish Landings for 1972 for 1972 - 1976 12 3 Quantity of Commercial Fishery Landings at Selected Oregon Ports (1976 - 1978) 14 4 Annual Landings of Coho and Chinook Salmon ( 1969 - 1976) 17 5 Oregon Crab Landings (1950 - 1977) 21 6 U. S. and Foreign Rockfish Catches of Oregon, California and Washington .(1967 - 1977) 23 7 Foreign and U. S. Hake Catches for Washington, Oregon and California (1967 - 1977) 25 8 Midwater Trawling Equipment 27 9 Locations of Approved Salmon Ranching Release Sites 30 10 Generalized Fish Processing Procedures 37 11 Relative Production of Fish Processing Facilities 38 12 Fisheries Infrastructure 41 13 Value of Commercial Fishery Landings at Selected Oregon Ports (1976 - 1978) 44 14 Total Landings and Ex-Vessel Values of Fisheries Products (1969 - 1976) 47 No. Title Page 15 Total Salmon Landings and Average Ex-Vessel Prices (1969 - 1976) 49 16 Total Landings and Estimated Price per Pound for Tuna (1969 - 1976) 50 17 Total Shrimp Landings and Average Ex-Vessel Prices (1969 -@- 1978) 52 18 Total Crab Landings and Average Ex-Vessel Prices (1969 - 1979) 53 19 Total Groundfish Landings and Average Ex-Vessel Prices (1969 - 1979) 55 20 Governmental Influences on Fisheries Development 62 21 Oregon Fisheries Management Zone 66 22 International Offshore Claims 84 23 Factors Influencing Processing Capacity -.91 24 Physical Impact of Various Fisheries Developments 93 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and has several objectives. The main objective is to make people more aware of the fishing industry@ its role in coastal development, and policies, institutions and other factors which influence fishery development. With the advent of the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA), a new era in fishing and fisheries management has begun. American fishermen have been.granted access and priority to vast fish resources off the Pacific coast. How the industry responds to this and how this response affects Oregon coastal co mmunities is influenced by many dif- ferent things. The fish resources are limited and there is a mandate in the FCMA to harvest them as efficiently as possible without hurting the resource or en- vironment. Markets must be developed for products and processing plants must be capable of processing the increased volumes of fish, often new species. There must be adequate space, resources and services designated for the orderly development of these industries. Industry needs may include moorage, water, electricity, waste treatment and disposal, transportation systems, and other supporting industries. A political climate conducive to economic growth is as important to the industry as an adequate infrastructure. Government does not necessarily need to directly stimulate development. By removing unnecessary impedi- ments, whether they are policies, laws or economic barriers, and providing predictability, government can help the fishing industry take care of itself. Government can also assure effective coastal zone development by communi- cating to local planners and decision-makers what reasonable requirements for fishing industry expansion might be. This study provides an overview of the fishing industry and the manage- ment considerations necessary for the expansion of the industry. The report is divided into five sections, each dealing with a particular aspect of fisheries development. The fish resources are discussed in the first chapter. Fish resources are divided into four major geographic zones: nearshore, offshore, estuaries, and the Columbia River. This division is based on the different types of fish, fisheries and management jurisdiction in each area. The second chapter discusses the seafood industry including both the harvesting and processing sectors. The. support facilities required for the fishing industry are described. Historical landings of various fish species provide a general characterization of the industry and its development prior to the establishment of the 200 mile Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ). While future developments can not be predicted on the basis of past trends, the information is useful in revealing the functioning of the industry. The third chapter describes various aspects of fisheries economics. Characteristics of fishing employment and fishing income are reviewed. The value of fish products to ind ividual ports is. discussed as well as the value added by processing and local multipliers. The types of investments that would be necessary to expand fishing and processing capacities are discussed. The fourth chapter deals with management regulations and policies and how they interact to influence fishery development. Existing legislative and judicial policy, is analyzed and the trend of recent policy directions is identified. The fifth chapter is comprised of a series of scenarios or possible futures which describe potential outcomes of fisheries developments. The onshore impacts are described in general terms and the magnitudes of some of these demands are discussed. With this information a planner can deter- mine if resources are available for locally proposed developments. The type 2- of facilities and services that must be provided to prevent economic or en- vironmental problems can be determined with adequate knowledge about the fishing industry in Oregon.' 3 17 16 A 'm A: Y@ -77711W Amiga, Mal -00 FISH RESOURCES The U. S. fishery can be divided into categories based on, a combination of fish resources, harvesters and gear, location and management jurisdic- tion. The major zones are offshore, nearshore and estuary (Figure 1). Although it is an estuary, the lower Columbia River is distinct and is a major category in Oregon and treated as such. The four categories are described as follows: 1) Offshore - the continental shelf from three miles off the coast to the 200 mile limit managed by the Fisheries Management Council and fished by larger vessels. 2) Nearshore - the coastal zone within the three mile territorial sea fished by small vessels. 3) Estuarine - the areas within the influence of fresh water used for sport fishing, aquaculture and certain commercial fishing. 4) Columbia River - the estuarine area with its unique fishery and fishery management concerns. In each of these zones certain fisheries occur and there is considerable overlap in terms of both species harvested and agency jurisdiction.. The near- shore and estuarine zones were traditionally managed exclusively by the states, and have been fished by recreational and commercial interests for many years. These areas are of primary importance to recreational fishermen. Since estuaries are protected from storms and heavy wave action, small boats can be used there more frequently. Shore and jetty fishing and other activities are popular in this area also because there is access to both the shore and water. In the nearshore area, public access to the shore generates consid- erable utilization by recreational interests for clamming, swimming, sight- Figure 1 Coastal Fisheries Harvest, Zones Mi. OFFSHORE NEARSHORE 0 Mill gi Salmon 9nR Groundf ish un Hake PWOR1,11 als"11111-1-10 Clam . ....... NW@ 310c ggg Crab Shrimp 9 Bill . . . . . . . . . . . ESTUARY gt Salmon 92W H P@ g K nR 00@ Tuna. 1:@Wguww. I Groundfish Hake 9 COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AOUACULTURE seeing and fishing - Preservation of the qualities of these areas is of great importance to the general public. The estuaries are extremely important to the fish and wildlife resources of Oregon as well. These protected areas provide safe nursery grounds for many fish and shellfish, and are of primary importa nce to anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead. Some commercial fishing occurs in this area, and oyster culture is restricted to the estuary. In general, however, more commercial fishing activity takes place in the nearshore area, especially f6r crab, shrimp and salmon, although these are abundant offshore also. With the passage of the FCMA in 1976, the offshore area came under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Management Councils. Because fish resources are managed as stocks which often transcend traditional boundaries, the Management Councils I jurisdiction oftep overlaps that of the states 1. This is most notably true of the salmon fishery which transcends state and even national boundaries. The offshore area is utilized primarily by commercial fishermen and includes the crab, shrimp, troll and trawl fisheries Many different species are harvested and processed by the Oregon fishing industry (Table 1 These vary in their economic value in terms of both quantity and price, and certain species require more processing than others. Salmon migrate great distances in both fresh water and, saltwater, and are the most highly migratory of the species managed by American agencies. A large portion of the salmon caught in Oregon waters originates in the Columbia River. Tuna are not under U.S. management, although they occur in great numbers within the U. S. Fishery Conservation Zone. Tuna migrate widely across the Pacific Ocean and are under the jurisdiction of an international commission. Crab and shrimp occur in all three zones, although they are utilized primarily in the nearshore and offshore zones except by recreational fisher- men who con centrate on the estuaries. These shellfish are prone to cyclical 6 Table 1. Commercially Important Marine Fishes and Shellfish of Oregon Salmon Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawy-tscfia Chum Salmon 0. keta Coho Salmon j. Tisutch Pink Salmon -gorbuscha Tuna Albacore Thunnus alalunga Skipjack tuna Euthynnus pelamis Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares Shellfish Dungeness crab Cancer magiste Gaper clam Tresus capax Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas Pacific shrimp Pandalus. jordani Razor clam Siliqua patula Roundfish Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific whiting (hake) Merluccius productus Sablefish Anoplopom fimbria 7 Table I. (Cont'd) Rockfish Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Blue rockfish S. mystinus; Bocaccio S. paucispinis Canary rockfish S. pinnige Chilipepper S. goodei Cowcod levis Darkblotched rockfish 'crameri Longspine thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis Olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides Pacific Ocean perch (POP) S. alutus Redstripe rockfish S. proriger Rougheye rockfish '9. aleutianus Sharpchin rockfish. '9. -zacentrus Shorthelly rockfish S. jordani Shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus Silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis Splitnose rockfish S. diploproa Stripetail rockfish S. saxicola Vermilion rockfish i@. 'miniatus Widow rockfish S. entomelas Yellowtail rockfish S. flavidus Flatfish Arrowtooth flounder (turbot) Atheresthes stomias Butter sole Isopsetta isolepis California halibut Paralichthys californicus Dover sole Microstomus pacificus English sole Parophrys vetulus Flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Petrale sole Eopsetta jordani Rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus. Source: PFMC, ODFW 8 abundance and great changes in population size occur from year to year. The shrimp population of Oregon appears to have shifted to the south and is now centered around the central and south coast. The term "groundfish" refers to a large and diverse group of'fishes harvested commercially- and recreationally on the Pacific Coast. It includes roundfish such as Pacific hake (whiting) , Pacific cod, sable fish, lingcod and rockfish. Also included are flatfish such as Dover, English and petrale sole. Pacific hake are a migratory fish. Spawning occurs seaward of the continental shelf off Mexico and southern California. Afterwards the adult fish migrate toward the coast and northward to Washington and British Columbia. Then, the return migration'begins and the schools turn southward. The highest concentrations of hake occur off the central Oregon coast near Coos Bay. Most rockfish are not migratory to any great extent, except that a pre- spawning migration to deep water often occurs. Rockfish are basically schooling fish and form dense, tightly clustered schools. These schools are found in both nearshore and offshore zones and many rockfish inhabit estuarine environments. Flatfish also occur in all three zones, depending on the species concern- ed. Some flatfish, such as English and petrale sole, exhibit seasonal migra- tions north and south, especially in the Oregon-Washington region. Other species such as Dover sole are much more sedentary and do not make these migrations. Fish. harvest increased rapidly in the 1960 Is, mostly due to foreign fleets fishing off the coasts of Oregon, Washington and California. The first Japanese and Russian ships fished predominantly for Pacific hake and Pacific Ocean perch. The intense fishing pressure on perch caused stocks to plum- met in the late 1960 Is, and agreements were made to limit catches of this species. 9 Since 1977 all fish stocks except Pacific hake (whiting) have been harvested exclusively by U - S - fishermen. When U - S - harvesting and pro- cessing capacity increases sufficiently to handle the tremendous quantities of whiting off the Pacific coast, the foreign fishing fleets will be completely excluded from the FCZ. The annual harvest of about 286 million pounds of whiting represents a considerable potential economic benefit to the coastal states and communities. Other expanding groundfish and shrimp fisheries will add to the harvests, and one ultimate result will be a large demand for space in the coastal zone for fishing industry infrastructure -- moorage, processing plants, gear storage, and other backup facilities. F_ 10- THE FISHING INDUSTRY Historical landings have traditionally been used to show trends in the fishing industry. This is no longer possible due to the rapidly changing poli- tical, technological, economic and legal environment surrounding the fishing industry. Landings reflect a combination of effort, stock size, markets, and regulations limiting harvest. At present, effort is increasing, stocks and regulations are being evaluated and markets for some underutilized species are undeveloped. These combine to increase the uncertainty facing the industry. Landings are useful, however, to show a perspective and history of the industry and of ports involved. in the industry. It would be a mistake to predict the future of the industry on this data. The major fishing centers are. Astoria, Charleston/Coos Bay, and Newport, although many other communities are involved (Figure 2). These t centers have processing facilities as well as fishing fleets, but in many cases fish landed at certain ports are shipped elsewhere for processing. Historical landings (provided in Appendix A) indicate that different ports IL rely more on some species of fish and shellfish than others.-For example, troll-caught salmon are more important along the south coast of Oregon, while tuna are more important in Astoria (Table 2). There have been changes in fishing and landing patterns over the years, and the relative importance of various ports to the fishing industry has changed. For instance, from 1972 to 1976 landings at Coos Bay were greater than at Newport. In 1977 (Figure 3) these two ports had nearly identical landings and in 1978 Newport was greater. This reflects increased processing capacity as well as other factors which influence the fishing community. Figure 2. Relative Volumes of Fish Landings for 1972-1976 Asto ria Tillamook Pacif Ic City Depoe Bay Newport Florence Winchester Bay Coos Say & I;harieston Bandon Port Orford Gold Beach Brookings 12 - Table 2. Major Fish and Shellfish Landings at Oregon Is Coastal Ports 1969 1976 POUNDS LANDED (in millions) ASTORIA 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1979 1975 IQ76 Salmon .44 1.02 .96 .49 .31 .48 .40 1.18 Crabs 3.94 3.81 5.15 3.87 .99 1.40 1.09 1.35 Shrimp 2.68 2.61 1.80 2.36 2.78 6.71 5.06 5.70 Tuna 22.16. 23.89 11.29 22.38 19.10' 26.72 16.60 16.17 Groundfish 12.45 11.63 10.52 10.62 9.45 9.91 9.37 12.65 All species - - - r 70 T2 - 9-7 r9 T9 - 7-3 T2-- 6-5 -40-3 3=8 16 NEWPORT Salmon .95 3.16 1.80. 1.29 2.67 2.75 1.35 2.46 Crab 1.27 3.15 3.62 1.26 .33 .91 .53 1.*12 Shrimp 1.48 3.17 3.60 7.33 6.50 4.39 5.02 7.78 Tuna 4.10 2.14 1.06 3.57 2.67 2.34 2.75 .41 Groundfish 2.22 2.16 2.37 2.60 3.53 2.59 4.00 5.15 All species To --0 7 TS. M T27-3 T6=. T9-.76 r3 -.5 4 T-3-, r7-- .7 oo COOS SAY/CHARLESTON almon 1.55 2.48 2.2S 2.05 3.02 3.28 2.23 4.01 Crab 1.58 2.72 1.90 .47 .25 .78 .77 1.43 Shrimp 3.55 4.71 1.52 5.41 8.83 4.83 7.43 6.21 Tuna 2.69 .37 .38 2.53 2.12 3.12 3.56 .51 Groundfish 3.65 2.81 2.69 S.S9 4.04 3.65 4.20 6.32 All species 1349 13.18 @-.$l T6-.Zl T8-.30 TS-.T2- TS-.28 9 BROOKINGS Salmon .66 .96 1.97 .59 .70 .45 .66 Sl Crab 1.21 2.43 1.07- .24 .18 .17 .58 1.58 Shrimp .15 .52 .77 1.69 1.08 .70 .32 .62 Tuna .45 .04 .24 .07 .07 .20 .14 .14 Groundfish 1.33 1.04 1.18 1.11 1.72 1.86 1.05 1.28 All Species T.79- W-.9 9- -3-.3T r.79" M 13 FIG. 3 Quantity of Commercial Fishery Landings at Selected Oregon Ports. (1976-78) so Astoria 40 0 Newport 30 (D a 0 Charleston - Coos Bay 20 0 z Brookings >- 10 77 78 YEAR 14 - Salmon The commercial salmon fishery has two main components on the west coast: the ocean fishery, which is a hook-and-line troll fishery; and the inside (estuarine and river) fishery, which consists of a net fishery utilizing gill nets and purse seines. A third component, which shows a large potential, is salmon aquaculture, but it does not yet contribute significantly to the annual salmon harvest. The troll fishery provides all the salmon catch for most Oregon ports. Chinook and coho salmon are of primary economic importance in Oregon. Most chinook salmon are caught in the ocean troll fishery. These fish general- ly bring a higher price due to the quality of the flesh of salmon caught before IL their bodies begin to metabolize stored fat as they migrate ups'tream. After a certain time in fresh water, the salmon cannot be marketed fresh or frozen and must be canned, yielding a less profitable product. Coho salmon are smaller th a*n chinooks and are caught mostly off the coast in the troll fishery. Many more coho than chinook are caught each year, but due to the difference in size and value, the total landed values are similar.- - The troll fleet concentrates off Coos Bay and Newport, and accounts for nearly half of the total value of coho landings. The majority of the salmon off the Oregon coast move northward as they mature, and salmon caught along the south coast are generally's maller and less mature than those caught farther north and in the Columbia River. Subsequently, they bring a lower market price. The gillnet fishery in the Columbia River accounts for the remaining coho harvest, which in 1976 was roughly 8% of the total landed value. (7 The other three species of salmon (sockeye, pink and chum). are much less economically important . Sockeye and chum are not usually attracted to troll lures or bait and are rarely caught by hook and line. The sockeye popu- lation of the Columbia River system, where most Oregon sockeye salmon originate, has dwindled considerably and has nearly disappeared. Pink 15 - salmon, which are abundant in odd-numbered years, are the smallest of the Oregon salmon and are usually not caught ingillnets. Chum salmon are harvested almost exclusively in gillnets in the Columbia River, and are con- sidered a less valuable fish than the other salmon. Chum are well suited for salmon ranching, however, and may become a much more valuable resource in the future. Salmon landings fluctuate from year to year due to a variety of factors. Coho and chinook are the two most important species economically and have also shown these fluctuations (Figure 4). In 1977 , salmon production dropped drastically due to drought and related factors, and some natural runs have been pushed to near extinction. This reduced production has prompted the management agencies to limit both commercial and recreation harvest so that stocks can rebuild. The severe harvest restrictions are an economic hardship on the troll.and net fisheries and have increased the social and political turmoil which has grown in recent years. The future of the salmon t fisheries, both re'creational and commercial, is full of uncertainties and harvest quotas will be reassessed annually. t The commercial ocean salmon fishery is primarily a troll fishery. This method of fishing involves dragging a number of baits or lures at various depths behind a slow moving boat. The fishery began as a fleet of small crafts fishing one day at a time, and has evolved to larger boats capable of making extended trips. The development of electronic gear such as radar, ship-to-shore radio, LORAN station navigation, direction finders, and echo sounders has made troll fishing more efficient and comfortable. The fishery is characterized by many small boats and some large boats, many of which fish other species different seasons. Tuna The tuna fishery is based on two distinct fishing techniques, depending on the type of tuna harvested. Yellowfin and skipjack tuna are harvested F. with large purse seines off Central and South America and other tropical 16 Fig. 4 Annual Landings of Coho and Chinook Salmon (1969 - 76) cn C, z COMOV 0 LL 10- 0 U) z 0 5- V"%MCHINOOK 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 SOURCE:O.D.FW. YEAR 4 17 - areas. This fishery has been forced to change harvest tactics to reduce catches of porpoises, which are often found with tuna. Traditionally, 17 fishermen have looked for schools of porpoises, which can be seen at a L.- distance, and set their nets around these schools, knowing that the. tuna are there also. Helicopters have been used to aid in sighting. Since the capture of porpoises is now strictly limited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, there is increased reliance on tuna schooling around floating seaweed and debris, especially for yellowfin. Most tuna landed in the U.S. are skipjack or yellowfin, but albacore dominates Oregon landings. The albacore fishery is quite distinct from that for other tuna. Albacore are harvested off the Oregon coast by troll fishermen dragging lures or "tuna jigs" which are bounced along the surface. Albacore are generally much smaller than yellowfin but are prized for their white meat. Both tuna captured in the high seas fishery.and albacore captured by trollers are landed in Oregon. Astoria has traditionally been the center for landings and processing, and fish landed at other ports are usually shipped there or to -California. Tuna landings at Oregon ports have fluctuated widely for various known and unknown reasons. Quotas are set by international authority for skipjack and yellowfin, but albacore are free from quotas at present. Shrim For many years Pacific shrimp were not harvested in great numbers because processing was too labor-intensive. Development of automatic shrimp-peeling machines, which now can process up to 600 pounds per hour, opened a vast fishery in Alaska and along the northern Pacific coast. The improved processing capability made it necessary for fishermen to produce larger catches to supply the processors. The first sharp increase in harvesting occurred in 1972 (Table 3 ) when harvests doubled in one year. Harvests remained at about 20 - 25 million Table 3. Annual Shrimp Landings at Oregon Ports 1969 - 1978 in Thousands of Pounds Year Port 1969 197n 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Astoria 2682 2609 1797 2360 2777 6709 5062 5683 11,697 7414 Garibaldi 2195 1262 896 1912 2254 2353 3830 3761 5739 33166 Newport 1483 3172 3602 7333 6501 4386 5124 7702 15,361 20j595 Winchester Bay 33 81 81 813 1131 770 1393 578 1921 1034 Coos say 3552 4711 1522 5410 8826 4834 7035 6256 12.OS6 17,476 Bandon -- -- -- -- -- 24 309 13 -- 9 Port Orford 178 1215 411 1217 1952 494 833 754 1011 629 Gold Beach -- -- -- -- -- 47 13 -- -- ..145 522 76 1686 1076 697 294 640 795 6724 Brookings 6 Total 10,268 13,57Z 9075 20.731 24,517 2Q.314 23,893 25,392 48.580 56.997 Figures represent only the shrimp poundage landed at each port. not the poundage that was processed. i (Sank, was transhipped to other ports.) Source: OOFW till' 19 pounds per year until 1977 when production doubled again to nearly 48.6 million pounds. These increases were due to improved fishing and processing tech- niques, better knowledge of shrimp grounds, and larger shrimp populations. In 1978 production rose to nearly 57 million pounds, mostly due to- increased fishing pressure (ODFW). Due to the cyclical nature of shrimp populations, production will probably not be consistent, and will probably fluctuate near the 1976 level. The first vessels to fish shrimp in Oregon were combination boats which were also used to fish salmon, bottomfish, crab and albacore during different seasons. These boats, generally 40 - 80 feet in length, could be converted to shrimp trawlers and towed a single net. About 1969, larger and more power- ful shrimp boats from the Gulf of Mexico appeared in the shrimp fishery and introduced double-rigging (ODFW) * that is, towing two separate nets side by side, each with its own set of otter doors. This can increase catches by about 60% over the single-rig method. The southern shrimp boats also brought the Gulf of Mexico semi-balloon trawl which made larger catches possible. Recently, the box trawl has been developed which reduces the incidental catch of smelt by allowing them to escape over the net. The shrimp fishery has expanded greatly since 1970. Record annual harvests were recorded four times between 1971 and 1978. During this period, the number of vessels involved in the fishery tripled to 186 in 1978, and the number of double-rigged boats increased from 6 to 118.. This more efficient rigging has helped improve catches as have other gear and technique developments. Dungeness Crab The Pacific coast Dungeness crab population fluctuat es widely, probably in response to natural phenomena. There are as yet no methods to accurately predict crab abundance prior to, the commercial fishing season. Historical landings for Oregon (Figure 5 indicate the lack of consistency from season 20 La. Oregon Crab Landings (1950'-77) 15- CD 10- D 0 LL 0 cn lz 0 5- 50 55 60 65 70 75 SOURCE:PFMC YEAR to season, and this is expected to continue. Due to the increasing number of boats, the landings per boat have dropped considerably, and total landings reflect crab abundance rather than fishing effort. The crab fishery in Oregon has generally not undergone major changes in gear or technology. Often crab vessels, which are generally 25 - 85 feet in length, are combination boats which can be equipped to fish salmon and albacore also. A few larger boats will also trawl foT,groundfish and shrimp or fish for sablefish. Crabs are harvested with traps called "pots" which are baited and placed on the bottom where crabs are known to be abundant. Crab pots are circular, steel-framed traps covered with stainless steel wire mesh, are generally 3 - 3.5 feet in diameter, and weigh 60 - 120 pounds. One recent development in the crab fishery represents a radical departure from traditional methods. Helicopters are now being used by some crabbers to set and retrieve pots within about a mile of the landing site. How much impact this will have on the industry is not known. Groundfish Most U. S. trawl fishermen traditionally targeted on flatfish, Pacific Oce an perch, and other rockfish. Only recently have they moved heavily toward other species. This was partly due to the crash in perch populations due to overfishing in the late 1960 1 s, and partly due to discovery of under- utilized stocks -and new technologies. In some areas the groundfish indus- try had been declining or only slowly expanding and the Oregon trend h*as been an unsteady, slow increase. After the Pacific Ocean perch populations were overharvested so drastically, agreements were made with foreign fishing interests to reduce harvests of this species. Since the Fishery Conservation and Management Act was implemented, foreign catches have been nearly eliminated for all rockfish species (Figure 6) and only Pacific hake is available to foreign trawlers. 22 - Fig. 6 U.S. and Foreign Rockf ish Catches off Washington, Oregon, and California (1967- 77) 40-- FOREIGN 0 x z 20- OR LLJ U.S. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 YEAR. 23 - Pacific hake has not been harvested to any great degree by U - S - fish- ermen. It has been harvested almost exclusively by foreign fishing fleets, especially Russian, Polish and Japanese. Catches of Pacific hake off 'Oregon have been enormous (Figure 7 ) and this represents a large potential harvest for the U - S - fishermen. Methods of stock assessment are still developing and have often been quite inaccurate. Many traditional groundfish fishing grounds have been mapped extensively, and this information is available from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These harvest areas for flatfish and many round fish species will continue to be fished extensively, and new fishing grounds are being discovered and fished with the aid of improved technology, gear and harvest methods. It should be possible to assess various fish stocks with a greater degree of accuracy within the next few years. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council is responsible for developing plans and predicting harvest levels, and stock assessments will be made annually. Groundfish harvests by U - S - fishermen will continue to increase until the total allowable catch (TAC) can be harvested and processed by U. S. industry. Many gear and harvest technique developments have occurred in the groundfish industry in the last decade, and technology is continuing to expand the fishery. Traditionally, bottomfish have been harvested primarily with otter trawl gear dragged along the bottom. This bottom trawl involves a bag net that is pulled behind a trawl vessel which is generally from 31 - 85 feet long or larger - The net is held open by a pair of "doors" or "otter boards", attached so that pulling them ahead pulls them outward, away from each other, spreading the mouth of the net. loats hol up the top while lead weights hold down the bottom In the mid- 1960 Is, large foreign trawlers began to fish just off the Oregon coast. Catcher/processor boats, especially Russian, began to take huge quantities of Pacific hake, a species not utilized by the American 24 Fig. 7 Foreign and U.S. Hake Catches 9 for Washing on, Oregon, and California 1967 - 77 250 200 A FOREIGN 0 0 150 x z 100 EE Lu so U.S. 68 @9 ;0 ;1 ;2 73 7@ ;5 76 77 YEAR \ v 25 - industry. By processing the fish immediately, they could eliminate the problem of flesh breakdown that has prevented domestic utilization of hake. Several technological advances made it possible to harvest these fish more efficiently: 1. Mid-water trawl - American hshermen have used bottom trawls that capture fish near the ocean floor for many years. This method can be used'for harvesting flatfish, Pacific cod and some rockfish, but it is not effective for fish species that school off the bottom or mid-water. Mid-water trawling utilizes a much larger net and doors than does bottom trawling, and applies several technological advancements to put the net into the fish, a procedure described as "aim trawling". The fish are first located in the water column and then the net is "aimed" at this target with a high degree of accuracy. To accomplish this, several technological developments were necessary. First, accurate m eans of locating schools of fish had to be developed. Sophisticated echo-sounders and sonar solved this problem. Next, it was necessary to locate the net in relation to the fish. Netsounders were develo ed for this purpose so that a net can be accurately pulled p through the fish (Figure 8). 2. Improved sonar has made it easier to locate fish, whether near the bottom or mid-water. In most cases, it is possible to estimate the size of the school as well as where it is located. It is often possible to tell the * species and even whether most of the fish are juveniles or adults. It is also possible to avoid rocks and reefs more effectively. 3. Strong winches and blocks have made it possible to rapidly raise and lower the trawl. Speed is necessary to raise the net to avoid rocks and also to get the net into the boat quickly 26 Figure 8. Midwater Trawling Equip'ment SONAR ECHO-SOUNDER NET SOUNDER 27 - to maintain product quality. This also increases fishing time by decreasing time lost in raising and lowering the net. 4. Track plotters make it possible to return to a particular place after a tow. Thus, a school of fish can be relocated much more quickly and easily. 5. Fish processing equipment has been developed to fill et and skin fish much more quickly than by hand and much of this equipment can be used onboard. The development of processing ships and barges is also increasing the harvest potential of quickly-det eriorating fish such as hake and other fish in isolated areas. Quality fillets of some species must still be cut or trimmed by hand, however. AQUACULTURE Aquaculture is raising plants or animals in controlled or semi- controlled aquatic enrionment s. By-controlling certain factors that affect growth and survival, man can often produce more food than a natural en- vironment- can. Two major types of aquaculture are practiced in Oregon: oyster culture, and salmon culture. Salmon Culture Salmon have been produced in hatcheries since about 1880, but only recently has salmon culture become a significant private enterprise also. Many developments in hatchery technique, nutrition and disease control were necessary to improve survival to a profitable level. The release of salmon smolts into saltwater and later harvest of returning adults has been successfully accomplished in many areas. The three species of salmon used are coho, chinook and chum, although pink and sockeye will probably 28 be used- in the future also. The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife has grante d 13 permits for salmon ranching (Figure 9) and has authorized the release of 180 million fish from these sites. This could potentially more than double the hatchery salmon production in Oregon. Releases in the first seven years have been far less than this as the private hatchery industry has developed slowly thus far. To date (May 1979) only 22 million fish have been released, but 16% of the coho available off the Oregon coast in 1979 were released by one company (ODF&W). In 1978, approximately 2.6 billion juvenile salmon were raised artifically and released into the North Pacific Ocean. Eighty percent of these were released from hatcheries in Japan and Russia, and the remainder came from Canada, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Oyster Culture Oyster culture dates back several hundred years, and produces the vast majority of domestically produced oysters today. Little natural repro- duction occurs in Oregon, however, and oyster seed generally comes from three sources: 1) natural setting areas such as Dabob Bay, Washington; 2) Japan; and 3) recently from oyster hatcheries. Oyster spat are collected on old oyster shell and then placed in a suitable bay environment. They may be placed directly on the bottom, on racks, or suspended from rafts. Oyster landings in Oregon have dropped drastically over the last ten years due to a variety of factors, many related to water quality. Increasing siltation caused by logging practices and natural erosion have reduced the productivity of many oyster- grounds - Various waterborn contaminants also affect produc- tion and can force closure of areas for health reasons. There is limited space for expansion of the industry, and the future may lie in new techniques or facilities such as land-based culture tanks. However, in.some areas efforts are being made by several growers to increase local production and 29 Figure 9. Locations of Approved Salmon Ranching Release Sites aA AL .5141 30 to introduce new varieties. Domestic oysters are usually marketed as' fresh oysters in the shell or are shucked and packed in jars. RECREATIONAL FISHERIES* Coastal recreational fisheries in Oregon have traditionally been for salmon, especially coho and chinook. The increase in recreational demand has been phenomenal and recreational fishing is an important economic factor in many coastal communities. The ocean charter industry is based on this recreational demand, although an increase in one does not necessarily indicate an increase in the other. The charter industry has characteristics of both commercial and recrea- tional fishing. The charter industry generated only about 2% of the total $243 million generated by Oregon fisheries in 1975 (Fraser, 1978). Gross earn- ings during the 1975 charter fishing season were estimated at approximately $2 million (Christianson, 1978), and from this figure the total economic impact was estimated at $5.9 million in 1975 dollars (Giles, et al., 1976). While recreational boating and fishing have increased in recent years, the number of charter boats have declined from 250 in 1974 to 227 in 1978 (Fraser, 1978). Several ports have shown a corresponding decrease in charter boat operations. For example, Newport had 20 charter boats working in 1978 compared to 32 in 1976. In Winchester Bay there were 29 boats opera- ting a few years ago, while in 1978 only 13 boats were fishing. Astoria and Hammond have more charter boats than in the past. This is due in part to an influx of boats from Warrenton and other areas. The decline in Oregon's charter boat industry can be attributed to several factors. The rapid growth of the private recreational fleet is often seen as a primary cause in the decline. Inflation is also important. The *This information is based primarily on a draft report. prepared for the Economic Development Commission relating to the fisheries and seafood processing industries. 31 most recent and possibly most severe impact on the industry is the shortage of fuel along the coast. This affects the industry in two major ways. First, it has decreased the fuel available for boats and this may produce mixed results. If fuel is not available for private boats there may be increased reliance on the charter industry for offshore fishing. The shortage of fuel could be severe enough to reduce the number of charter boats, however, and the industry would see an even more rapid decline. The second, more indirect effect of fuel shortages is that fewer people will travel to the coast. This will primarily impact charter services more distant from Portland and other population centers. Coastal recreational fishing, although traditionally based on salmon, is shifting toward less heavily impacted fish resources - Increased interest in rockfish, flatfish and perch is the immediate result of this. If the trend seen in California recreational fishing spreads to Oregon, this shift to non- traditional species will increase, especially if restrictions on salmon har- vests are tightened. Charter services specializing in bottomfish have already appeared on the Oregon and Washington coasts Private boating has undergone a phenomenal expansion in the past decades. There was a 352% increase in the number of registrations for private boats between 1960 and 1977, bringing the total to nearly 120,000. Similar increases in jetty fishing, surf fishing and clammirig have also occurred. The economic impact of this increased activity is substantial and was estimated at $126.5 million in 1975 (Fraser, 1978). This is based on estimated direct expenditures of $55 million to $82.5 million and consideration of the impact of these expenditures on local and statewide economies. SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY Seafood processing is in itself a major industry in Oregon. Coastal processing plants which handle fresh or frozen fish employ 2500 - 3000 71 32 - workers annually and contribute significantly to both local and state economies. Approximately 64 plants in Oregon process seafoods (OSU, 1978), including retail outlets which do some processing (primary or secondary) and canneries. Fresh and frozen products are processed at about 30 plants which are located mostly in Astoria, Newport and Coos Bay. The processing industry in Oregon consists of a relatively few large firms which may have their home office in Seattle, Astoria, California, or elsewhere. These firms may have 1 - 3 large plants and a number of smaller plants, and generally fall in three major categories: 1) salmon-only buyers; 2) multiple product processing plants; and 3) multiple product buying and selling stations (OSU, 1978). The third category is common only in Puget Sound, although several large firms have buying/shipping stations in Oregon ports. Fish and shellfish are shipped from there by refrigerator trucks to processing plants elsewhere. This system has become especially important to the shrimp fishery because most processing macbines are located in Astoria but the shrim p grounds have shifted to the south coast of Oregon. Multipie product plants are the most common of the large processors. These companies usually process groundfish, crab, shrimp and possibly albacore (OSU, 1978). Often these firms will concentrate on a particular product such as crab or shrimp and process others to a lesser extent. Diversity is the usual approach and enables processors to be less dependent on a particular market. In the future, large "hake only" plants may emerge, but this depends on a combination of developments including economic, environmental and political factors. Salmon-only buyers are often individuals who buy a wholesale license one year and buy a quantity of salmon only during that season. The next year the buyer may or may not be involved in buying salmon. Several firms buy salmon for canning or smoking,'but most Oregon salmon is sold fresh or frozen and canning is less important than in the past. 33 A processing plant or buying station must have dock space and unload- ing facilities. The types and numbers of hoists vary from plant to plant, as do dock space and draft. Various plants use their facilities to provide services to the fishermen who supply them. Services which can be provided include showers, transportation, repairs, and space for fishermen to work on boats and gear - Fuel, ice, "and bait are provided by some plants also, depending on what facilities are present. Appendix 2 lists several of the major processors and their facilities and services. Processing methods_ Several processing methods are available to the fish processing industry. Primary processing. refers to converting raw fish to the product which will be marketed. An example of this would be frozen fish fillets or whole cooked crab. Some products undergo further, or secondary, pro- cessing. In this case the original product was merely for convenience in shipping or holding and can often undergo a variety of transformations. An example of this is frozen fish blocks which can be cut into portions and breaded or battered. Secondary processing increases the number of differ- ent final products available from the same basic resource. Salmon The demand for salmon has increased dramatically in the past few years, in large part due to foreign purchasers. The devaluation of the U. S. dollar has reduced the real cost to Japanese buyers who have begun pur- chasing vast amounts of fresh and frozen salmon. To be considered prime quality, these fish must be hand processed carefully to avoid marring the appearance. The head is left intact and only the entralls removed. If the inside of the body cavity is marred, the value of the product may be reduced. This prevents the use of mechanical gutting machines and slows down pro- cessing. Because more salmon is being frozen, demands for freezing and cold storage have increased. Freezing isa slower method than canning, also, so production can be lower than in the past 34 Net-caught salmon in Oregon are generally lower in value than troll ght salmon, due to both flesh quality and marks from the nets on the skin. Net-caught salmon ate caught in quantities and are cleaned onshore. cau Troll-caught salmon are processed on board -- that is, the entrails are removed and the fish placed on ice. Shrimp About 1970 improved mechanical shrimp peelers were introduced to the processing industry, and since that time no hand-picking takes place. Manual labor is still required for pre-picking. This mechanization made it possible to utilize the small Pacific shrimp, a process which had previously been too labor intensive. Since each peeling machine can process up to 600 pounds per hour, larger harvests are required to make the machines profit- able. These machines use 60 - 100 gallons of water per minute, a demand which can strain both supply and purification systems, especially when several machines operate simultaneously. The general shrimp processing procedures (OSU, 1978) is illustrated below: unload from trawler separate pre-pick package 471 de-ice peel brine seal (:Z;), '(@' lc@@ temporary storage cook dewater Crab Three species of crab are processed in Oregon. Dungeness crabs, which are caught locally, are the most important and undergo primary processing. King crab and snow crab are -caught in Alaska, frozen, and 35 shipped to Oregon for further processing. These two species are much less important to the Oregon processing industry. Most Dungeness crabs are cooked and marketed whole for the fresh frozen trade. Crabs having broken or missing legs or claws are cooked, cleaned and canned or frozen. A new crab processing system would reduce labor costs, improve product quality and increase processing efficiency. Gro undfish Various groundfish species can be processed into different types of products. This is determined by both market demands and quality of the fish. The final product may be individually quick frozen (IQF) fillets, blocks, or portions (Figure 10). Pacific hake (whiting), which is not yet processed by U - S - industry in significant quantities, will be marketed primarily as frozen blocks for secondary processing There has been a trend in many areas toward replacing hand fillet lines with filleting machines. This has been in response to both increasin g labor costs and increasing volumes of fish. Newer machines can fillet up to about 65 fish per minute, depending on the size of the fish, and most machines can be used onboard larger fishing vessels and processing ships. Machine processing is' the only way to process large quantities of some fish quickly enough to maintain product quality. Processing Capacity A series of interviews with processing firms was conducted to deter- mine present productior; (Figure 11) and potential processing capabilities Most processors feel that they are operating at about half capacity and that they could double their production with existing facilities (Table 4 ). The companies did not distinguish how much of their production was for each type of fish, so it is impossible to determine the potential expansion for ground- fish, tuna, etc. At present, considerable elasticity is built into the industry and production can be increased or decreased as markets and supply of fish 36 W.12, w-jw w W.- w- - W- w,_ IM" MR -tm-lp rw 'r-mP r-mm -up Figure 10. Generalized Fish Processing Procedures HEAD FROZEN & GUTTER 8I.OCKS ............. CO) CO) w 0 0 CE Cr 0- TEUP , L HAND FREEZER STORAGE FILLET WASTE @ 81@ UNLOADING . . . . . . . . . . . . EE CO t I"E T FILLaE Shading Indicates an End Product UINCED FISH @JMD -4@@ LLET Figure 11 Relative Production of Fish Processing Facilities Astoria Hammond Warrenton Seaside Garibaldi Bay City Tillamook Pacif Ic City Depoe Bay Newport Winchester Say Coos Say Charleston Bandon Port Orford Gold Beach Brookings 38 - fluctuate, at least where more traditional species are concerned. Most processors feel salmon processing potential is unlimited, due to past pro- duction levels and present price of salmon. Few firms indicated that Pacific hake are processed at present facilities. Table 4. Present production and capacity of fish production plants (million pounds) Bottomfish Shrim Crab All Species pre/pot* pre/pot pre/pot pre/pot Astoria 8.75 18.5 2. 4.2 1.25 2.25 75. 190. Hammond - - 17. 26. Seaside - - - - .6 2. .87 3. Garibaldi .2 .32 1.75 3. .68 1.3 2.92 7.94 Newport 7.2 12.3 7.75 11.5 2.33 4.3 20. 30. Charleston/ 3.5 9.5 6. 6.5 1.8 2.5 20. 30. Coos Bay Brookings 1.25 4. 1.25 4. *present/potential FISHERY INFRASTRUCTURE Neither the fishing industry nor the processing industry is independent of the other. They are intertwined extensively and together make up the main element of the fishing industry. But they are both dependent on other industries to provide certain goods and services without which they could not function properly. Those supporting industries, called the "fisheries infrastructure", are essential to the operation of the fishing industry. The infrastructure can be divided into two major segments: those that exist primarily or exclusively for the fishing industry; and those that exist 39 for a variety of industries and are utilized by fishermen or fish processors. Each of these categories is composed of industries that provide either goods or services (Figure 12). Goods required by fishermen include boats, nets, F. cables and ropes, electronic gear, machine parts, fuel, ice, and food. L Processors need fillet knives, processing machines, tin cans and plastic bags, boxes, salt, aprons, gloves, boots, etc. These lists are not exhaustive, but are provided only to give an idea of the wide range of equipment involved in these industries. A variety of services are also needed (Figure 12). T hese range from tax and legal consultation to construction, transportation, repair, utilities , and cold storage. Any of these in short supply can reduce productiVity or efficiency. -40 - Figure 12. Fisheries Infrastructure' Transportation Labor Construction Ilk I Consultants Water & Electricity Storage MaterAwals Machinery Supplies V Packaging M t r is a e ia 41 Zv A4 6t if @1, 14 4N -iwwg* -7i 't Ol Alm low vok FISHERY ECONOMICS Oregon's coastal'area is highly dependent upon scenic and natural resources, with agriculture, fishing and fish processing, forest products and tourism being the major economic sectors-. While the fishing industry is only a small part of Oregon's total economy, it plays a crucial role in many coastal and Columbia River communities (Rompa, et al., 1979). Analysis of the fishing industry is difficult, however, since there are no reliable estimates of the number of fishermen or consistent statistics on fishing activities other than landings (ICCDC, 1974). Many fishermen are part time and/or self-employed and thus do not show up in the Department of Revenue "Covered Employment" statistics. Fishing is often seasonal and' is sometimes partially supported by employment in other economic sectors. FISHING INDUSTRY ECONOMICS The fishing industry in Oregon is concentrated on the coast and there- fo re is especially vital to the economy of this region. Of the 8647 commercial fishermen and processing plant employees in'Oregon in 1976 (Table 5 )J 77% were residents of coastal counties. The 1976 landed value of seafood in Oregon was approximately $40 million (ODFW figures) , with processing adding about $60 million in value (OSU, 1979). Since 1976 the fishing fleet has expanded considerably, especially the shrimp fleet, and the processing sector has enlarged its processing capabilities correspondingly. Shipbuilding and other supporting industries have also grown. Along the Oregon coast, Clatsop County leads in both volume and value of landings. This is partially due to the large number of tuna landed and processed in Astoria (Rompa, et al., 1979). Other counties with a strong fishing industry are Lincoln and Coos. Newport and Charleston landed values are nearly equal (Figure 13), but substantially less than Astoria Is. 42- Table 5. Demographic and General Statistics of Oregon Is Seafood Industry, 1976 County Value of1andings Employees M Commercial Fishino Ports Licensed Commercial Boats to the fisher (a) Normal Peak License Holders (6) 'Jo.(c) Values (e) (millions of $s) (millions of $s) Clatsop County $10.7 1,254 1,592 710 1 399 $22.0 Coos County 8.9 396 615 759 3 408 25.3 Curry County 4.2 50 140 485 3 261 14.6 Douglas County 1.4 60 145 314 1 164 5.6 Lane County 0.2 .2 5 483 1 248 7.4 Lincoln County 7.0 218 262 676 3 356 21.4 Tillamook County 3.4 85 146 319 3 172 6.6 SUBTOTAL COASTAL COUNTIES 111,8 2,061 2,101 3,746 15 2,0111 1102*1 OTHER OREGON COUNTIES $4.7 186 191 1,805 a 939 $28.2 STATE TOTAL $40.5 2,251 3,1196 51551 23 2,947 $131.1 Source: (a) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (b) lbid: @obtained from commercial license application addresses.) M Ibid obtained from commercial license applications.) d Oregon State Employment Service (includes processing plant employees only.) (e) OSU Extension (Data obtained through computerized regression analysis of.commercial license information and Marine Advisory Program Marine Data Sheets.) Table taken from Rompa, et. al.. 1979 43 Fig. 13 Value of Commercial Fishery Landings at Selected Oregon Ports 1976 - 78 20 /0 Astoria Newport 10 10 0 -------- ---- Charleston - Coos Bay U- 0 Cn z 0 Brookings 76 77 78 YEAR 44 - Other port communities have markedly less contribution to the total fish- ing industry in Oregon, yet may have substantial contributions to the loc-al economy. Two economic concepts to be considered in determining the value of fisheries products to the local economy are "value added" and "multipliers". Fishermen are paid a landed value for their fish, and processing increases the value of the product. Overall, the value added by processing is about 1. 5 times the landed value. Thus, the $40 million total landed value of seafood- in 1976 had about $60 million added value due to processing and marketing, bringing the total value to $100 million (Rompa, et al., 1979). The second concept, "income multipliers", is a measure of how income from an industry impacts the local economy. Of the money paid to the fisherman, some will remain in the local community being spent locally on food, housing, etc. Income spent stimulates the local economy by increasing local demand for goods, and services. The money is also available to be spent again locally, further stimulating the local economy. The higher the multiplier, the greater the economic impact, and income multipliers for the fishing industry range from 1.95 to 3.15, with an average of 2.41. These are relatively high income multipliers and reflect the close local till, economic connections of the fishing industry. LANDED VALUES OF FISHERIES PRODUCTS Fisheries data are collected as landings or the weight of the fish with head and guts intact except for salmon, which trollers gut at sea. Each fish species has a different market value. The market value also varies during the season and with abundance of the catch. The landed value of seafood reflects the species caught, market value at the time of the catch and size of the catch (Table 6 45 - Table 6. Valuation for Different Fish Products Fishery Landed Value Value after Processing Shrimp low high Salmon high very high Groundfish very low low, Each year the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates the value of several- fisheries. These totals are calculated by multiplying the average price per pound paid to fishermen by the number of pounds of each species harvested. The total annual landed value of Oregon fisheries has doubled since 1969 (Figure 14) , although when inflation is taken into consideration, the real value is much less. Most of the increase in total landed value is due to increased average cost of the fish and increased harvest is of secondary importance overall, although the values of certain fish rose dramatically. The average price per pound for all species combined paid to the harvester in Oregon was $.42 in 1976 comparied to $.21 in 1969 (Table 7 ). During the same period, chinook salmon increased nearly four-fold from $.53 to $1.95 (NMFS data). Table 7. Average Price/Pound 1960-76 for Iandings in Oregon Year 1969 1979 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975. 1976 Price/lb. .21 .24 .22 .26 .36 .36 .32 .42 From: ODFW Clatsop County (Port of Astoria) has landed approximately one-third of the dollar value of fish for the last five years. This area is followed by Lincoln County (Port of Newport) and Coos County (Port of Coos Bay), who together comprise an equal value of landings. Other coastal ports comprise aiesser amount of the total landed value to Oregon's commercial fish catch. Clatsop County landings include substantial amounts of tuna that increase the annual landed values 46 Fig. 14 Tota I Landings and Ex -Vessel Values of Fisheries Products (1969-76) loo- so LANDINGS 90-1 40 Cn z a: 0 CL 0 UL in 0 LL 80- 30 0 Cn (n z 0 z 0 :j 70- VALUE 20 69 70 71, 72 73 74 75 76 YEAR 47 - The value of landings in Lincoln County (Port of Newport) and Coos County (Charleston/Coos Bay) together are roughly equal to those of Clatsop County. Since 1977 the total landed values at Newport have slightly surpassed those at Charleston/Coos Bay (Figure 13). Due in part to the price of salmon, landed values in Clatsop County have soared since 1977. Salmon Salmon has traditionally been the mainstay of the Oregon fishing industry. In the past, salmon was a "standard commodity", a cheap source of quality protein. Today, salmon is a luxury item quite distinct from commodity" fish species. Of the five species of salmon, chinook commands the highest price per pound because it is the largest and provides more steaks* or fillets per fish. Recent heavy purchasing by the Japanese has helped to drive the price of fresh and frozen chinook and other salmon up. In 1976 the total landed value of salmon in Oregon was over $19 million, 48% of the total landed value of all seafood. This was an increase of $ 10 million over the 1971-75 average, although the harvest was less than two million pounds above the five-year average. The price of the fish affected the total landed fishery value more than the number of pounds harvested (Figure 15). Tuna Tuna has become one of the most highly regarded seafood products in the United States and is the second most valuable fishery in Oregon. Albacore is the most prized of.the tuna species and usually comprises the major part of Oregon Is landings. Only albacore can be marketed as white meat" tuna. Landings of tuna from 1969 to 1976 have fluctuated considerably (Figure 16) averaging about 24.5 million pounds annually. The landed value per pound rose steadily until 1974 and then dropped during 1975. The total landed value of tuna averaged about $7. 5 million from 1969-76, and. represented an average of 28% of the annual landed value of all seafoods. 48 - Fig. 15 Total Salmon Landings and Average Ex-Vessel Prices (1969-76) 20 POUNDS wa: -j -j-j 15 1.50 co z in M z 0 D (L 0 a. 10 1.00 cc w LL CL 0 co a z 5 .50 0o, PRICE w 0 V) x CO F- w x w 69 70 ;1 ;2 ;3 ;4 ;5 76 YEAR 49 Fig. 16 Total Landings and Estimated 1-7 Price per Pound for Tuna (1969-76) 40 -J_j LLO Cl) 30 POUNDS --.50 0 z z M I1 0 0 0. CL cc U- 20 AO w 0 a. w C0 Q z cc 0 a. 10 .310w W Cn w > PRICE I x w 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 YEAR 50 - Shrimp The shrimp industry has expanded greatly during the past decade, especially since 1976. The record landings of 48 million pounds and nearly 58 million pounds for 1977 and 1978 respectively, have made shrimp one of the most valuable fisheries. Because shrimp are prone to cyclic population changes, a consistent harvest rate cannot be maintained. However, the demand for shrimp and shrimp products continues to increase (Figure 18) and the price to the fisherman has generally kept pace. During the first half of 1979, the ex-vessel price was holding at $.35 per pound, 25% above the previous record prices of $.28 in late 1978. Prior to 1977, shrimp generally accounted for about 13% of the total ex-vessel value in Oregon, but the combination- of greatly increased harvest and fishinTprice led to an annual ex-vessel value of over $15 million in 1978, five times the average value from 1969-76. Shrimp has a high added value due to processing, also. Crab The Dungeness crab harvest is subject to great fluctuations which have made it difficult to establish stable markets. The ex-vessel price of crab has fluctuated from month to month in many cases. Figure 19 shows only the average price per year and does not show variations during the year. During the first half of 1979, the price varied between $.89 and $1.00 per pound (NMFS). From 1969-76 , the total annual ex-vessel value of crab averaged about $3,300,000, roughly 12% of.the total seafood value of the period. In 1976, Curry County accounted for 43% of the $5 million ex-vessel value, a substantial, increase over past harvests. Groundfish in many ways, groundfish is the backbone and future of the Oregon fishing industry. The groundfish fishery has been the most consistent 51 Fig. 17 Total Shrimp Landings and Average' Ex-Vessel Prices 1969-78) 60 INDICATES PROJECTED TREND "@cj W2 50 -.50 <_j -J_j POUNDS U-0 Zo Ct) z 40 -AO C' z M 0 0 0 u- a: 0 w a. 30 -.30 w z 0 cc (L ui 20 -.20 ui PRICE x ui 10 -.10 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77- 78 79 YEAR 52 - Fig. 18 Total Crab Landings and Average Ex-Vessel Prices. (1969-79) p POUNDS 12 10 W, LLO z co z z M 0 0 (L LL 6 cc w 0 IL ui L) z 0 CL 4 Lu co Cn w loe 2 -.50 PRICE 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 7'9 4- 53 although of relatively low value. It has the highest potential harvest volume of all Oregon fisheries I more than three times that of all other fisheries combined (PFMC) - Marketing and processing problems have slowed develop- ment of fisheries for some species (e.g. hake) and will continue to do so in the immediate future. Because of the low price per pound (less than 10 for hake as opposed to more than $3.00 for some salmon), there has been little incentive to expand production. The groundfish industry has grown slowly to the present time with a total landed value of about $4.3 million in 1976. The average price to the fisherman for groundfish has more than doubled since 1969 (Figure 19), rising from $.08 in 1969 to $.16 in 1976. Most species in early 1979 wer6 bringing $.20 per pound to trawl fishermen and the 1978 total catch was listed as more than 34 million pounds (ODFW). FISHERMEN AND FISHING INCOME Estimates of the number of commercial fishermen on the Oregon coast vary widely. A recent study indicated that there were some 1600 to 2700 fishermen in 1972 (Liao and Stevens, 1975). A majority of the fishermen were specialized salmon fishermen (Table 8). _Table -8. Commercial Fishermen Other Than Gill Netters - 1972** ---------- Type of Fishermen Estimated Population Specialized Salmon 1300 to 2200 Crab 35 to 60 Combination Salmon - tuna 120 to 205 .Salmon - tuna/crab 95 to 155 Drag (shrimp and/or so to - 85 bottomfish with crab and/or tuna) TOTAL 1600 to 2705 "From Liao and Stevens. 1975 54 Total Groundf ish Landings and Average E Vessel Prices 1969 -79) x 60 50 LLO za 40 z co 0 0 z (L D 0 a: (L 30 .30 w a. LL w 0 z POUNDS 0 .20 Lu 20 .... .. co C/) ui I PRICE DATA NOT x PRICE AVAILABLE FOR .10 w 10 1977-78 69 70 71 72 73 74 75, 76 77 78 79 55 - There is a high turnover in the salmon troll fishing group. Changes in salmon abundance, catch regulations and the opening of new markets for bottomfish have changed the distribution of fishermen since the i972 statistics were gathered. Commercial fishing is composed of both full-time fishermen who derive their total income from fishing and part-time fishermen who derive a part of their income from other sources. Salmon fishermen are often part-time fishermen while combination fishermen (salmonAuna/draggers) are more likely to be full-time fishermen and from fishing families (Liao and Stevens, 1975). Commercial fishing requires a substantial investment in equipment with boat and gear as the major capital investment. Fuel, ice, bait and repairs are annual operation and maintenance expenses. The 1972 data (Liao and Stevens, 1975) indicate that salmon fishermen have substantially less invested in boat and gear than combination fishermen. Drag fishermen (shrimp or bottomfish) have the greatest investment in boat and gear. Gross returns vary greatly between the type of fishing (Table 9 Table 9. Gross 1972 Returns for Commercial Fishermen Other Than Gi.11 Netters Gross Return.. of Fishermen Gross Return Per Day Salmon $ 6,590 $ 87 Crab 22,438 217 Salmon - tuna 31,848 114 Salmon - tuna - crab 359679. 141 Drag 80,593 273 Salmon fishing generally does not provide a profitable full-time income but drag and combination fishing have a greater profit opportunity. 56 - CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FOR FISHERMEN With expanding fisheries, fishermen are expanding harvest capabilities by increasing both the number and size of boats. Many fishermen are switching to more profitable or less crowded fisheries, generally away from salmon. Depending upon the similarities in harvest techniques, these changes can require considerable gear modifications and equipment investment. New vessels must be built when it is not possible or economical to convert ex- isting vessels. A fisherman can alter his harvest capability by: 1) purchas- ing a new vessel; 2) modifying the existing vessel; or, 3) entering into joint venture agreements with foreign fishing fleets. Many vessels in the Oregon trawl fleet have been brought from the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in the shrimp fishery which had an increase of ore than 100 boats from 1976 to 1978. Converting between shrimp trawling an d groundfish bottom trawling is a relatively simple operation, as is con- Verting from salmon trolling to long-line fishing for black cod. To have a new vessel built, the main considerations are cost and availability. An 85 foot vessel, costing well over $1. million, may not have a market for all the fish it is capable of harvesting. The vessel may be too efficient for the present industry and be forced to operate less efficiently or frequently. The most effective technique for harvesting many species of groundfish is midwater trawling. The conversion to midwater trawling from a bottom trawling operation is neither simple nor practical in many cases - Midwater trawling requires much more horsepower to pull the larger net, and adequate winch power can be gained only by installing engines specifically designed for the winches. All deck equipment must be much stronger and it is often impossible to make the necessary changes. Thus, new and larger boats will be required to harvest most of the midwater fish resources. Existing vessels can be modified for pair trawling instead, i.e. , two vessels to pull a single net. This technique has several economic drawbacks 57 - and requires close synchronization of the vessels, but is considered by some economists to be the most practical approach for owners of existing vessels. Joint ventures are legal enterprises wherein U. S. fishermen catch Pacific hake and sell them directly to foreign processing ships. At present, they are beneficial to the fishermen involved because they provide a market for fish that are not marketed by U - S - processors. When U - S - processing capacity increases and can handle all the harvestable fish, joint venture will be discontinued as required by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. There has been considerable controversy over the merits of joint ventures. Because they can sell large quantities of hake without returning to shore, fishermen can maximize their profits. Without joint ventures, they could not harvest Pacific hake in large quantities and a larger portion of the resource would be allocated to foreign fishermen, due to the lack of markets in the U. S. The argument against joint ventures is also an economic one. Foreign processing vessels can process fish more cheaply with government-subsidized labor, and are free from the environmental restrictions that shore-based processors must confront. Because they can market hake at a-lower price, joint ventures are effectively preverAing U. S. processors from entering the market. There is also a strong anti-foreign (Communist) sentiment among certain segments of the fishing industry.* At present, joint ventures are allowed off the Oregon and Washington coasts, and will continue until economic or political pressures eliminate them. Fish Processors The Ore on seafood processing industry has undergone considerable 9 change since the days of the early salmon canneries. The industry in Oregon 58 is characterized by a few relatively larde firms (16 companies have 52 plant locations) and several smaller firms. Seafood processing capacity is greatest in Clatsop County, with Coos and Lincoln counties as second and third (ODED) - The ability to market products directly affects the harvest levels of many species. Traditionally, processors have shown great flexi- bility in the capacity to process large quantities to supply market demands. The large firms are generally able to process several products while the small firms often specialize. Labor is a problem to processing firms in several respects. The most consistent problem is the lack of trained help during peak production periods when up to 1000 additional employees are needed (Oregon State Employment Service data) - Due to generally low wages and the seasonality of work, fish processing is not attractive to many workers. Because skilled help is often unavailable, production levels are often lower than desired. There is a'growing trend towards mechanization in response to labor costs, and an extremely high volume fishery such as hake wouldrequire heavy reliance on more rapid mechanical processing In general, a small operation can be more efficient using hand labor and provide quality fillets. A large operation depends more heavily on total output and thus mechanical filleting becomes more practical. Processing machinery for fish and shrimp require large quantities of raw material to pay for the high initial cost of the machinery. Expansion Options Processing firms have two options for expanding their processing capacities: enlarge existing plants, or build new ones. New plants require large capital outlay for land, construction and machinery, and face competing demands for undeveloped shore space. Environmental regulations can add to construction cost and timing - A moderately large facility would probably cost over $5 million (Pete Harris, 1979). The investment would generate 59 considerable income if a high volume product flow could be maintained. Expanding an existing plant which has adequate resources for expansion is generally a more profitable option, however. Fewer environmental re- strictions are encountered and initial investment is much lower. In general , enlarging existing facilities means increasing processing diversity, but if markets develop for Pacific hake, a few plants may be built to handle this as a single product. 6o - 4e Rd Ron -V4 7m _77 '464 It IV CI wo @?.4 mc 4 I@-777 FISHERY, MANAGEM'ENT The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA) took effect on March 11 19 77, and did much more than merely extend the U. S fishing zone to 200 miles.' The FCMA was the first major step:taken toward developing a national fisheries policy and has affected the fishing industry by providing greater economic opportunities. The various state, federal and regional agencies involved in fisheries and other resources have been given greater responsibilities to ensure the orderly development and utilization of the aquatic resources. In the short time since the FCMA was implemented, many changes in regulations, policies eind perspectives have occurred, but changes will continue as the act affects more people. State and federal agencies and special commissions or groups such as the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) were interviewed to identify existing policies related to fisheries and fisheries development. A wide variety of agencies with direct and indirect controls that influence fisheries development have the responsibilities of environmental protection, resource management, economic development and land use regulation (Figure 20). The realm of influence of these sectors ranges from direct resource management such as the State Department Is powers to regulate catches by foreign fleets, to economic stimulation through funding of community development programs. Agencies were grouped into major areas of influence within state and federal jurisdictions, and no agency-by-agency description of specific legal authorities and regulations is presented. Instead, a broader descrip- tion of the types of influences and postures of the various sectors is pro vided, along with a brief summary of general responsibilities. Where an individual agency has more direct influence or differs from others within a 61 Figure 20. Governmental Influences on Fisheries Development FEDERAL 9@>eez-um Vs MrS Q LAMCIEVY of 6S. FIA A4ZZ--S-rATr-- A46RE-ME."r till PsHaWY cop a 12M-41 L@AMO=Y MZ M Idle= L- O-P-P-Pl. LAN t:;, uelts MNVI eNTrAL- . 0. E-:. STATE IL particular sector, a more detail ed description is provided. This general approach was necessary because individual agencies, especially at the federal level, may influence fisheries in a variety of ways, from environ- mental protection to economic support. STATE OF OREGON The State of Oregon has management authority to three miles off the coast and generally maintains exclusive control of the resources within this nearshore zone. Onshore development is of direct importance to the state and is addressed by several agencies. Most agencies deal with broader issues than fisheries and have a statewide perspective. Their influences on fisheries development, both nearshore and onshore, may be direct or indirect (Table 10), and range from direct management of fish stocks to aid fcrinfr astructure development. Economic Sector The State of Oregon does not have a specific policy oriented to fisheries development at this time. Rather, the state supports fishery development in a broad sense. This encouragement of fisheries develo pment is seen through a variety of funding opportunities from the "Port Revolving Fund" by the Department of Economic Development through assistance grants from EDA and HUD for fisheries -related projects. In the past, funds for shoreside facilities such as processing plants, etc., were emphasized. Today, the emphasis is on broader fishery development including marketing and aqua- culture as well as shoreside facilities. The economic sector is interested in improving the state Is economic export flow by assisting with the develop- ment of under-utilized species, an area which would provide a real opportunity for increasing the export markets. A nonprofit organization, the Fisheries Development Foundation, has been formed to provide substantial funding opportunities from the economic 63 PRJ PR PR PR M Table 10. State Agencies with Direct and Indirect Impact on Offshore 200 Mile Fishery and Onshore Impacts Direct/ Sector Agency Indirect Major Responsibility Influencing Onshore Impacts Economic Department of D 1) Promotes business and industry development Economic Development 2) Provides funding sources 3) Participates in land use planning @Resource Department of Fish D 1) Management and allocations of fish stocks and Wildlife 2) Vote and voice on various councils including PFMC 3) Participation in land use planning, local and state 4) Environmental protection and habitat manage- ment Environmental Department of Environ- I 1) Public health and water quality mental Quality 2) NPDES permits and projects Department of Fish 3) Water quality certification and Wildlife 4) Fish, wildlife and aquatic land protection Division of State Lands Land Use Department of Land D 1) Statewide planning goals and guidelines Conservation and 2) Federal consistency under the coastal zone Development management program 3) Advice and assistance to local governments and state agencies Regulatory Division of State Lands I 1) Circulation of fill and removal permits for waterway alterations 2) Leasing of publicly owned beds and banks of navigable waters sector. The state can work with this organization. Of major concern to the economic sector is public awareness and understanding of the economic needs of fisheries development. The public must have a realistic picture of what is required to harvest, market and process the resource and to plan for and achieve orderly development of current stocks.and under- utilized fish stocks. Resource Sector Most resource management agencies have responsibilities relating to management of individual stocks, and also to protect the env ironmental qualities that promote continued supply of these stocks. Federal resource agencies may have responsibilities for fishery management and development as well, but no such dichotomy exists at the state level. State resource management agencies have no responsibilities for active promotion of com- mercial utilization of fisheries resources, facilities or development. State fish management is viewed as a stewardship responsibility with goals of protection and enhancement of the resource. Thus, research and emphasis are directed to biological and environmental matters rather than harvest technology, marketing or industrial development. The FCMA has changed the scale of responsibility of the resource management agencies, especially since the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has become active. In some respects responsibilities have been diluted and in other respects increased. The ability to unilaterally establish catch and season limits for fish landed in Oregon ports is now more limited. Nearshore fisheries, including some potentially under-utilized species and aquaculture, are still exclusively within the perview of the state resource agencies. Geographically, the direct juris- diction of the state ends at the three mile limit (Figure 21 in practical terms, state influence has been extended regionally through the Management Council. This tie is further evidenced in enforce-' 6s - igure 21. Oregon Fisheries Management Zone 200 3. mi. Mi. - -------- - . . . . . .. . . . .. State anaged ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 200 Miles aries@@ rs <@:@RS;I@vue 66 ment agreements between the state and federal governments. A special agreement exists between the Oregon State Police and the federal government providing for cross -deputizing of law enforcement officers to facilitate enforcement throughout the fisheries zone. This represents a significant policy step for the state Is law enforcement and resource management agencies. The general policy of the state resource agencies is to protect and regulate the use of fishery resources at its current level and to anticipate future needs and potential uses. Strong fishery and habitat protection poli- cies exist, and no policy changes are anticipated which will give more favorable consideration to fisheries development projects than to other projects. Distinct habitat protection guidelines have been established for the coastal zone which will be applied to all proposed development. On an interstate and regional level, resource agencies participate in the Columbia River Fisheries Council. to facilitate better habitat and passage control through inputs on power dam regulations, water withdrawal, irriga- tion and other problems to fishlife. Cooperation with the Pacific Marine Fisher- ies Commission helps coordinate activiti*es with adjacent states in fisheries matters of mutual,concern. The state also has a voting position on the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and thus direct input into regional management plans. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's overall responsibilities cover recreational and commercial fisheries and nonconsumptive uses such as marine gardens and preserves. The primary tools for implementing fishery management. policies are the setting of fishing seasons and harvest allocations, and through a comment role on state and federal permit applica- tions. Environmental Sector The environmental sector is composed of a number of agencies in addition to the Department of Environmental Quality. The environmental 67 branch of the Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies contribute to the environmental sector. General policies from this entire group are considered within this section. The environmental sector Is policies relate to public health, fish and wildlife habitat, and broad environmental matters. Portions of the regula- tions and policies apply to fisheries development. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) functions under an umbrella of both state and federal authority relative to water quality control. The federal Clean Water Act mandates that the state conduct its program to meet federal specifications. The Department does not now have special waste management policies for the fishing industry, but the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has set The state agencies up guidelines for the control of fish processing wastes. act in accordance with these guidelines. The DEQ issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for fish processing wastes, pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The general posture of the agencies is that the policies currently used to certify projects and comment through the Corps of Engineers Section 10 and 404 processes, Division of State Lands Fill and Removal permits, and land use plans, will not be modified for developments related to fisheries. The Department of Environmental Quality does, howeveri, have the flexibility to allow certain innovative methods of disposing of waste within the limits of the law. The key note from the agencies canvassed in this sector was that an informed working relationship with the newly developing fisheries interests needs to be developed, and prudent advice will be provided to assist with development of desirable uses. Land Use Sector Cities and counties have the primary responsibility for developing comprehensive land use plans which are reviewed and acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) as being in 68 compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals. The State of Oregon has a coastal management program approved by the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management. Oregon's Coastal Management Program consists of the Statewide Planning Goals, acknowledged plans and selected state statutes. The Department of Land Conservation and Development is the designated agency for coastal zone management in the state of Oregon. The most direct link between land use planning and the offshore fisheries zone is LCDC ' s Goal 19, Ocean Resources (Appendix B ). This goal establishes a general policy of favoring the long term benefits of renewable resources over nonrenewable resources, such as oil or gas. The goal is principally directed toward state and federal agencies since local governments have not traditionally had direct juris- diction over ocean resources. The goal requires state and federal agencies to develop sufficient inventory information to manage resources and to consider the long term impacts of proposed actions on resources and uses of the continental shelf and nearshore ocean. An indirect but critical link to fisheries development also exists with the other goals and local government responsibilities to develop land use plans. The other Statewide Planning Goals address estuary and shoreland management, urban development, public facilities and services, etc. Local governments, therefore, have a key role in managing the onshore aspects of developments which may occur in the offshore zone. Because local plans must also be fully coordinated with special districts, ports also have an important role in mana ging onshore developments. The Department of Land Conservation and Development plays a role in offshore management actions of federal agencies through the federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Essentially, federal agencies conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone are required to conduct or support those activities in a manner ILI which is, to the maximum extent. practicable, consistent with approved state management programs. 69 - IL Regulatory Sector Most of the regulatory sector Is impact on fishery development is through the permit authority relat ing to proposals for modifications to bed and banks of waterways. The greatest direct regulatory functions within the state system, outside of the land use sector, are the state Fill and Removal Law, the state leasing of public submerged and submersible lands, and to a lesser degree, the Department of Fish and Wildlife Is leasing of oyster lands and licensing of aquaculture facilities - General policies of the regulatory agencies are that existing policies and regula- tions will be applied to fishery development the same as other projects. However, public and political support for fisheries projects will influence the decision making process. The agencies will closely scrutinize permits for the devefopment of aquaculture facilities until the Department of Fish and Wildlife policy regarding the expansion and development of new aqua- culture facilities has been solidified. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The federal government has a broader opportunity to influence development and associated impacts of offshore fisheries than does the state. The perspective of federal agencies encompasses regional and national developments and often extends into the international arena. Fishery development, especially with regard to under-utilized species, is being stressed by many agencies and a national fisheries policy has been developed. There are also continuing efforts to devel op priorities and reduce inconsistencies at the federal level, and much of the current activity and emphasis is focused on this. The general responsib ilities of each sector are listed in Table 11. 70 - Am- P-M, Fml@ rm,, C@T, r@'F 70 MJ 7!NF r=-, 7M =I Table 11. Federal Agencies with Direct and Indirect Impact on Offshore 200 Mile Fishery and Onshore Impacts Direct/ Sector Agency Indirect Major Responsibility Influencing Onshore Impacts Executive State Department D 1) Regulates foreign catch allocations Commerce Department 2) Influence balanc'e of trade and treaties 3) Approval and implementation of fishery management plans Economic Department of Housing 1 1) Funding of community development and and Urban Development planning Economic Development 2) Business loans Administration 3) Special studies 'Resource National Marine D 1) Fishery development (gear and marketing) Fistieries Service 2) Fisheries Management Council participation 3) Stock assessment and research 4) Endangered species protection and research 5) Preliminary fishery management plans Environmental Environmental Protection D 1) Public health and marketing standards Agency 2) Water quality and waste disposal Fish and Wildlife Service 3) Fish and wildlife environmental and habitat Food and Drug Administra- protection tion 4) Long range land use planning impact 5) Permit issuance and review 6) Product name change Regulatory Corps of Engineers 1 1) Issue 404 and Section 10 permits Coast Guard 2) Harbor maintenance and development 3) Law enforcement Executive Sector The executive sector includes the President, Commerce Department (at the cabinet level) , and the State Department in this study. At the present time there is little direct federal assistance available forfishery development. Inflationary pressures are forcing a more conservative approach to direict economic aid, but other mechanisms are available to aid the industry. A pro-development posture directly affects thepolicies of other federal agencies, in this case especially the Commerce and State Departments. The State Department has a major role as an interface between the U. S. government and other nations in negotiating and implementing inter- national fishery agreements and treaties. The State Department represents U. S. fishermen operating in foreign waters when incidents occur. They also represent U. S. interests when foreign fishermen violate U. S. regu- lations. Under the terms of the FCMA, the Commerce Department approves and implements fishery management plans and the State Department is responsible for catch allocations for foreign countries. A representative from the State Department also advises the PFMC on international develop- ments affecting U. S. fisheries. Economic Sector Within &.e federal system economic development and funding responsi- bilities are shared by a variety of agencies such as HUD and EDA, as well as thegranting capacities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (fishing vessel loan guaranties, capital construction funds, etc. ). Fisheries develop- ment is viewed as a priority, but federal funding sources make only little direct contribution for construction and shoreside facilities. Marketing and development studies are the main thrust at the present time, along with encouragement through technical and other assistance. ILI' 72 - Resource Sector The federal resource agencies have two primary responsibilities. The first relates to environmental and habitat protection, and the second is devoted to resource development. Two major vehicles of these are the Endangered Species Act and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA). Resource development includes such activities as hatchery pro- duction of salmon and enhancement of aquatic habitat, and must be dis- tinguished from fishery development which relates to harvest and utilization of the resources. Fish management at the federal level is the responsibility of the Commerce Department, which implements management plans drawn up by the PFMC , and the State Department through allocations to foreign fleets. On an interim basis, preliminary management plans are the responsi- bility of NMFS, which acts as a management agency only until final plans are established by the PFMC. The specific policies relating to onshore development and offshore fisheries in the environmental management role continue to be those as outlined in the December 1, 1975, Federal Register, commonly called the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. This is the framework in which the environmental protection sector comments on Corps of Engineers Section 10 and 404 permit applications as well as potential federal public works projects. The position of these agencies is very similar to the State of Oregon's environ- mental protection sector in that environmental protection must be considered in development plans. There is a commitment from federal resource agencies to particpate in the planning process to implement management goals and circumvent short term losses. For this reason, there is a general policy encouraging the federal agencies to participate in planning projects, 11 particularly those relating to regional and statewide efforts. In the industry development and resource utilization role, the National Marine Fisheries Service is the primary resource agency involved. The 73 Department of Agriculture has some limited authority affecting aquaculture. Policy related to resource utilization has been historically to develop gear7 marketing and processing technology. The primary policy direction has been to provide data and assistance through funding programs, vessel con- struction, marketing programs and gear research. Certain functions of the NMFS fisheries development program have been transferred to the newly developed Fishery Development Foundation. Within the resource sector there. is an attempt to develop a coordination system between the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA , Department of Commerce, and OCZM. There is a concern that with the current pressures for rapid development, confusion could be created between the fisheries development, environmental protection and planning responsibilities within the Department of Commerce. There is an additional concern that the general public and potential developers may believe that simply because a facility is connected with fisheries it is automatically acceptable. Environmental Sector The'environmental sector is composed of the EPA and the environmental sections of the resource agencies. Themain federal agency for environmental protection has public health and protection of fisheries habitat and in-water fisheries environment r esponsibilities. Water quality protection and effluent discharge control are dealt with directly under the Clean Water Act. The regulations controlling fish processing call for a minimum of fine screening with effluent discharge allowed into the waterway. Solids collected in the screening process must go into either by-product utilization or approved land disposal sites. There is some indication more stringent effluent treatment may be required in the near future for new plants. There are no new regulations or policies being developed exclusively to meet fisheries development needs. The specific guidelines addressing fish waste disposal have been in existence for a number of years. There are also special guidelines controlling aquaculture discharges. 74 - Regulatory Sector The major agencies exerting direct regulatory authority are the Corps of Engineers (through Section 10 and 404 permits) and the Bureau of Land Management (through OCS leasing for offshore oil and gas) - The Bureau of Land Management does not have any direct relationship to the offshore fishery, but would be a factor if offshore oil and gas finds were made. The Fisheries Protective Fund and coordination program is being developed, in part, to pay for gear damage from offshore oil and gas development. Onshore facilities which require alterations to a waterway are reviewed by a host of federal, state and local interests through the Corps permit program. Most onshore developments connected with fishery development will require these permits. SPECIAL COMMISSIONS AND GROUPS The regional character of fisheries development and the stocks in the 200 mile zone extend beyond traditional jurisdictions. The problem is com- pounded by the international character of the fishing area and.the migratory nature of many of the stocks. In response to this, a number of special groups and commissions have been created (Table 12). Some, such as the PFMC, deal with the broad management issues while others address specific prob- lems such as Indian treaty rights or industry development and marketing. In addition, there are @ numerous local and national fishing organizations, both commercial and recreational, that exert considerable political pressure on management agencies and legislatures. Pacific Fisheries Management Council The FCMA established eight regional councils to devise management plans for fisheries in the fishery conservation zone. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has management responsibility for the fish resources in the zone from the Canadian border to Mexico. The Council is 75 - i@' FE-M '70@p LIM; I-M. rdlF Table 12. Special Commissions or Groups with Direct and Indirect Impact on Offshore 200 Mile Fishery and Onshore Impacts Direct/ Agency Indirect Major Responsibility Influencing Onshore Impacts Pacific Fisheries Management D 1) Prepares management plans for major fisheries Council within the Fishery Conservation Zone off Washington, Oregon and California Fisheries Development D 1) Funding special fish development programs Foundation for industry Pacific Marine Fisheries 1 1) Stock assessments Commission 2) Coastwide data network 3) Coordination of regional fishery concerns Indian Tribes and Organizations D 1) Aquaculture 2) Salmon stock allocations litigation 3) Regulation of harvest on reservations comprised of 13 voting members who represent resource agencies, industry and recreational interests, and 5nonvoting members. Nonvoting members include the director of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, the regional director of the U - S - Fish and Wildlife Service and representa- tives of the Governor Is office, the U - S - State Department and the Coast Guard. The Council is responsible for the management of all marine and anadromous species in the extended fishery zone, with the exception of tuna. The PFMC provides management plans, including draft regulations and allocations to the U. S. Commerce and State Departments for adoption and implementation. Plans are designed to meet the requirements of the FCMA and its National Standards by achieving the following objectives (PFMC, 1978): 1. Promote conservation while providing for the optimum yield from the California, Oregon and Washington fish resources in terms of: providing the greatest overall benefit to the nation with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities; avoiding irreversible or long-term -adverse effects on fishery resources and the marine environment; and ensuring availability of a multiplicity of options with respect to the future uses of these resources. 2. Promote, where possible, efficient use of the fishery resources', but not solely for economic purposes. 3. Promote fair and equitable allocation of identified available resources in a manner such that no particular group acquires an excessive share of the privileges. 4. Base the plan on the best scientific information available. 77 - 5. Wherever p racticable, adopt management measures which promote efficiency and avoid disruption of existing social and economic structures where fish- eries are operated in reasonable conformance with the Act and have evolved over a period of years as reflected in community characteristics, processing capability, fleet size, and distribution. The plans are prepared by special plan development teams with input from advisory panels including private citizens, representatives from industry and other special interest groups. The Council has identi- fied several fisheries which require fishery management plans, including: 1) salmon; 2) groundfish; 3) pink shrimp; 4) Dungeness crab; 5) anchovy; 6) jack mackerel; 7) billfish; and, 8) Pacific herring. The Council deals only with management of the fish resources and has no direct role in fisheries development. However, by setting appro- priate quotas, PFMC encourages the development of under-utilized species. Consideration is given to the economic impacts and onshore facility develop- ment needs, but at this time there is no direct involvement or coordination with state coastal zone management programs. Fisheries Development Foundation The Fisheries Development Foundation is a cooperative effort between government and industry to promote fisheries development. The Foundation will act as a funding source for special studies relating to fishery develop- ment , and an initial project regarding solid waste disposal has been funded. Federal monies (e.g. Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) funds) can be distributed directly through the Foundation as well as through governmental agencies. Projects which would aid particular individuals will be strictly avoided, and emphasis will be on under-utilized species and applied research. 78 Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (PMFC) is an interstate agency whose goal is to promote the wise management, develo pment and utilization of marine, shellfish and anadromous fish resources. The PMFC has no direct management role but acts as an advisory group in fisheries- related matters to member states and the Management Council. The Commission acts as a major data and analysis source, with resource assess- ment as an important function along with development of a coastwide data network. The PMFC works to coordinate state viewpoints on fisheries matters and acts as an intermediary between state and federal agencies and the PFMC. The PMFC has no di rect planning or regulatory role, but provides a mechanism for federal sharing in the funding of regional fishery projects. Indian Tribes Indian treaty rights are of paramount importance to fishery management, particularly. for salmon management in the Columbia River. Input into' salmon management comes from the Columbia River tribes through the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission and other groups - The Indians have been guaranteed.a percentage of the annual salmon harvests by court decree, and they regulate the harvest on tribal lands. Many tribes aid in resource development through hatchery production of salmon and steelhead. Con- siderable pressure is exerted by these groups on management agencies both through cooperation and judicial action. POLICY ANALYSIS The FMCA mandates that U. S. fishermen and processors be given the first opportunity to utilize the offshore fish resources, but does not provide direction for the accommodation of onshore impacts related to fishery development. Thus, the industry is encouraged to develop but must be aware 79 of environmental protection re gulations , marketing problems and land use regulations. These regulations allow for orderly development under the Act. At the present time state and federal agencies with fisheries management and development responsibilities are undergoing changes to accommodate fishery development within existing regu lations. Legal, legislative and man- agement processes will develop through the years. Fishery management prob- lems are further complicated by international implications of the 200 mile zone and the lack of domestic market for the currently under-utilized species. The changing legal, political and socio-economic factors related to these fisheries will be major determinants of onshore facility needs and impacts. Analysis of the current policy trends may give some indication of the direc- tion fisheries development and subsequent onshore impacts are taking. The onshore impact that will be experienced on the Oregon coast will be an indirect reflection of the currently-developing fisheries management and allocation policies. "Policies" in this discussion is use'l in the broad sense to include the plans, goals and administrative procedures or processes of the various agencies, co mmissions and regulatory bodies. There is a contrast between the traditional upland or land-based policy development and those from the ocean-based resources. Land-based policy and planning have traditionally been functionally oriented, i.e., energy, food, transpor- J tation, etc. Current development of ocean programs is organized by resource bases, i.e., water, land, people, oceans, etc. Four characteristics set ocean activities and resources apart from land-based concerns (Department of Commerce, 1978): 1. Ocean resources are common property, wholly within the public domain. 2. Ocean activities interact and impact one another in more direct ways than comparable land-based activities. IL 80 - 3. Technology needed for developing ocean resources is significantly different than that associated with similar land-based resource development. 4. Oceans constitute an area where U. S. interests abut against other national interests and thus international problems enter into the decision process. The specific type of developments that may occur along Oregon Is coast will depend upon international trade agreements, potential legal actions by user groups and solution of marketing problems. State of Oregon The State of Oregon wilf continue to pursue fishery policies that pro- tect stocks in state waters and increasingly have a coordination role in offshore fishery development. The same environmental constraints and habitat protection requirements currently required for all permits in Oregon will be applied to fisheries-related projects. Resource management agencies are oriented toward research in stock size, user group allocation and fish- eries habitat requirements. There is no agency or organization within state government exclusively charged with fisheries development. Develop- ment of the fisheries industry is supported by the Executive Department and the State Department of Economic Development, along with other forms of industrial development. The resource agencies currently have serious reservations about expanded salmon aquaculture facilities due to the potential for over-saturation of the ocean environment by salmon stocks. Until additional research data is generated, salmon aquaculture development proposals within the st ate will be closely examined and conservatively received. Expansion of other aquaculture opportunities (i.e., shellfish, algae, etc. ) will be limited due to the relatively small habitat area that can accommodate these uses. 81 - Because distinct policies do not promote specific fisheries, alloca- tions will likely be on the conservative side. The impact of the FCMA on fisheries allocations will be to require a regional perspective through the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The conservative development stance suggests that development pressures will come from political and industrial sources. In the state of Oregon, the land use planning agency is becoming aware of the developing fisheries needs and is currently working with state and federal agencies in an effort to p@epare for potential onshore impacts. Land use agencies do not have specific policies th at relate to fisheries development. Rather, fisheries development will impact local comprehensive plans. The primary thrust of the state land use and coastal zone management effort is to provide technical assistance and information to facilitate local planning. A primary coastal land use concern is to ensure that the state and federal agencies and regional commissions have a clear understanding of the social, economic and onshore impacts of fishery management decisions. Federal Government Federal fishery policies will become more diverse as the economic opportunities and environmental impacts of fishery development occur. The environmental sectors of the federal agencies view fisheries develop- ment in the same manner. as the state agencies. Current regulations and requirements for permit and project development will be as stringent as have been applied to other types of developments. Guidelines recently proposed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggest that controls under NEPA and permit review processes may be tightened even more than they are today. Federal resource agencies, do not have direct stock allocations powers, but do have fisheries habitat protection concerns. Federal resource agencies 82- in contrast to the state agencies have some direct fisheries development role which includes funding as well as marketing research. Many of the development responsibilities currently administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service are being transferred to the Fisheries Develop- ment Foundation. A major factor influencing the direction fisheries development will take is.the' result of ongoing research into stock sizes and marketing cur- rently being conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency has incorporated a major proposal in their 1980 budget to: 1. Increase surveillance and enforcement of the fisheries conservation zone, 2. Upgrade the marine recreational statistics program. 3. Provide additional socio-economic data for fisheries management and development. There has been a shift from monitoring , data collection and permit programs to a more active pr ogram directly related to the 200 mile fisheries. conservation zone. The major influences this may have on the coastal zone in Oregon are: 1) an underscoring of, the importance of the marine recrea- tional fishery; and., 2) a greater awareness of the socio-economic impacts of fishery development. The State Department has responsibilities for the international aspects of fishery agreements and treaties. Most nations with coastlines have extended offshore jurisdiction (Figure 22 ). Implications of foreign actions are transmitted to the management councils so that fishery management plans will be consistent with other U. S. treaties and agreements. The State Department is also involved in international trade agreements, along with the Commerce Departm ent. Since domestic markets are lacking for most of the currently urder.-utilized species , a large portion of the products wil I be exported. This will impact the balance of trade which is currently at a deficit of more than $2 billion annually for fisheries produc ts. 83 - SqwN U10j; uoiiieuiaojui wislo ellw-OOZ ON GIJOZ BU1481:1 swielo quoz DIWOUO*3 eas leliozliiojL aioqsllo Imolleuialul ................ ............. ....... . .. ....... .. zz *61=1 W ................ ............ ............. .. .. ... .... .. ........ .... ...... .. .. . . . . ............. .. E........... ........ . .... ...... H.. .................... I. .. ....... I.... ...... . ............ 11 .. ... .. ......... . ............ I I . ........ .... . ...... ........I........... ..... ........ ....... I...... .... I .. . . .. . . . ... . . ......... r . . . . . . . . . ."Hi ol 40 The FCMA and its amendments set a hierarchy for the commercial utilization of fish resources within the fishery conservation zone: first, fish caught and processed within the U. S. ; second, fish caught by U. S. fishermen and processed by a foreign nation; and, third, fish'caught and processed by foreign interests - Currently, in both Oregon and Washington, joint ventures utilizing U. S. fishermen and foreign processing are operating under permit. An expansion of this concept could reduce the potential impact of onshore development from the expanded harvest of under-utilized species off the Oregon coast. There is an emphasis on development of under-utilized species by U . S. fishermen. At the present time marketing problems frustrate their development. Marketing the volumes available is hampered by a public completely unfamiliar with the taste', texture and appearance of the product. Difficulty is also encountered in marketing a species because of the name associated with it (e.g. _ hake). The Food and Drug Administration is in charge of approving product name changes. Although changing the name of Pacific hake to Pacific whiting will not solve marketing problems, it will facilitate the development of domestic markets. Special Commissions and Interest Group The Pacific Fisheries Management Council Is major responsibility is to suggest allowable catch levels and determine equitable utilization and apportionment between user groups A major and continuing limi- tation on the ability of the council to develop management plans is a lack of accurate information on fish stocks in the offshore zone. Until this basic information has been generated, the likelihood of intensive development of any of the species in the conservation zone is low. Because the perspec- tive of the Council is regional, the ability of state political or special interest groups to influence the overall management of stocks off the Oregon coast is relatively small. 85 - The Council's actions so far have had the greatest impact on the salmon troll fishery. By recommending reduced commercial seasons, the PFMC has taken steps to protect the resource and to ensure adequate upriver returns for Indian harvest. In the past when management plans have failed to provide enough fish for upriver harvests the Indians have resorted to forced closures through federal courts. This circumvention of the management agencies is an important development and will continue to affect management policies and actions. The Fisheries Development Foundation is concentrating on fisheries marketing and development efforts. It is too early at this point to assess the magnitude of the impact this organization will have on fishery develop- ment. Special interest groups will have an increasing impact on nearshore fisheries. Indian nations, instream fishing sportsman groups and marine sport fishing groups may affect fishery policy. Concern and actions of these groups may well impact fisheries other than salmon and steelhead. On a national scale, recreational fishing is a $3.4 billion industry annually. Interest in the recreational harvest of many species will continue to grow as public pressure mounts. In the state of Oregon the al salmon fishery in 1977 was estimated at $65 million. The recreation influence of this user group is certain to exert a heavy influence, particu- larly where salmon stocks are concerned. Legal and Legislative Influences In addition to the specific policies of the agencies, board and commissions at the state and federal level, legislation and litigation will also have major influences on fishery development. Both legislation and litigation have focused on Pacific salmon harvest and allocation. Other fisheries have been affected by recent legislative action. In the state of Oregon, the 1979 legislature passed the Department of Fish and Wildlife's budget with a strong recommendation to increase releases 86 - of salmon fry as opposed to smolts. While this is not a direct control over the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it will certainly carr y weight in the Department Is budgetary allocations, and could affect priorities in their fish culture section. As interest and competitiod for fish stocks increase, it can be anticipated that stronger legislative pressures will be exerted on the state management agencies. Much of this will take the form of limited entry regulations. Many fishermen and legislators see a need to reduce competi- tion within certain fisheries. The troll salmon, Columbia River gillnet and pink shrimp fisheries were targeted for limited entry legislation. Aquaculture legislation was also passed in the 1979 session. At the federal level, the Supreme Court has ruled that treaty Indians have the right to harvest up to 50% of the available salmon resources. The decision, however, leaves the door open for Congress to allocate a smaller percentage to the Indians. The decision also put primary management responsi- bility with the state fishery agencies. Sportsmen's groups have indicated a desire to push for national legislation declaring steelhead a game fish. This would make it unavailable for commercial harvest of any kind, Indian or non-Indian. At the state level there is a move by sportsmen's groups for legislation to eliminate com- mercial fishing for spring and summer chinook in Oregon bays and rivers., This could seriously reduce the non-Indian gillnet fishery on the Columbia River. It is apparent that the controversy over fishery allocations in the Columbia system will continue for the forseeable future. Planning and Coordination Needs In the new and rapidly developing policy and legal climate of fishery development, a great deal of policy fragmentation and isolation has occurred. Analysis of the currently developing policy indicates that it is more directed toward resource protection and lacks direction for dealing with the potential 87 onshore impacts resulting from the management and stock allocation poli- cies being developed. There does not seem to be a clear policy connection between the developing marketing efforts and the land use planning process for land-based facilities. Formal communication between fisheries management agencies and coastal zone planning agencies will facilitate development of a complete policy package. Oregon's coastal zone planning authorities need to com- municate their planning goals and guidelines for coastal development to the fishery management 4gencies and the fishery management agencies need to inform coastal planners of policies and potential impacts of these policies. The recent emphasis by the federal government as well as the Management Council on socio-economic concerns and impacts underscores the recogni- tion of this need for integrated planning. There are ongoing intra- and interagency efforts to solidify a coordina- tion process to resolve conflicts between development, management, research, and environmental protection concerns. Federal policies have developed over the past few years which relate directly to the planning process . Federal policy today is moving away from strict environmental protection as set in the early 170 1 s and is shifting toward a more balanced approach involving both protection and use of the coastal resources (Department of Commerce, 1978). This emphasis has been focused at the federal level by coastal zone planning and the incorporation of the development of the offshore fisheries into this planning process. The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission in their 1978 meeting memorialized offshore coastal zone management. They also suggested that the National Marine Fisheries Service support, coordinate and fund plans by state coastal zone agencies and fisheries agencies for fishing, port development and improvement within the coastal zone. Because of the international and regional nature of offshore fishery development, coordination with a single agency is not sufficient. A position 88 on a regional commission by the coastal planning body would be much more effective means of fully coordinating fisheries development and onshore support facilities. A possible vehicle to achieve this would be a nonvoting membership onthe Pacific Fisher ies Management Council. Oregon Is coastal zone management program is a.logical vehicle for expressing the state Is interests in onshore facility impacts. Statewide Planning Goal 19 and Oregon's approved coastal management program provide a framework for the required coordination. Together they can ensure orderly develop- ment, conservation and utilization of all resources concerned. 89 - Future... N, I loop Mt': AP mod _Zzzz "No @,;S, If ...................... ........ NO 17, WIm miw- owl ww@ ow mll@ S y V 0 T ONSHORE EFFECTS OF FISHERY DEVELOPMENT Policy developments will influence fishing industry growth along with other factors. The fisheries management agencies establish the allowable catch of various species, but this does not necessarily indicate the actual harvest. Where under-utilized species are concerned, the industry itself often determines the quantity of fish. that gets to market. Processing capacity is often the limiting factor, although market vitality can also limit production. Factors ranging from the availability of fin- ancial support to harvesting and processing technology (Figure 23 ) can all influence fishery production. There are specific physical impacts associated with increased fish harvests that must be planned for. Increased moorage space, expanded transportation networks and increased utility service are some of the facility and service needs of an expanding fishing industry. Some goods IJ and services such as ice and moorage are already in critical supply. Thus, although plans must be made for future growth, there is also a need to address existing problems with support services Fishermen have several particular needs, and the most important is for safe and appropriate harbor facilities @ that is, harbor facilities including moorage and the marine services available onshore. There is presently a lack of moorage space on the Oregon coast. Boats must occasionally be "rafted", or tied side -by-side to a single dock. Space for fishing gear storage is quite limited by lack of nearshore open land or warehousing. The fishing industry also needs hoists to remove and -90 - Figure 23. Factors Innuencing Processing Capacity HARVESTABLE 910MASS 4aurce.0 vitala-Y site. Availa6i+y F@ieha-man DeJivery 91 te- vilialpi+y - 6 2-F. replace deck gear. The availability of fuel, ice and cold storage can significantly limit fishing opportunity. Processors likewise-have specific requirements. For new plants, site availability often limits growth. Plants must have direct access to both water and rail or truck transport. If large volumes are harvested, access to container shipping points may become important. Adequate utility service, both water and electricity, must be available, especially as dependence on mechanical processing increases. Large volumes of processed fish will require adequate disposal sites for solid wastes. Each fishery has its own specific requirements, and will place different demands, either in type or magnitude, on the coastal environment. Figure 24 provides a summary of the impacts of various fisheries develop- ments. In general, species that are already utilized extensively will not require as much development or impact coastal communities as heavily as under-utilized species Salmon Salmon is in many instances the simplest and least demanding to process of all west coast fish. Troll salmon are gutted and cooled on board and often marketed in this form. Large quantities are frozen for shipping to distant markets -- the most rapidly expanding market. Frozen whole or headed salmon are shipped worldwide. Increased troll salmon harvest would require additional freezing and storage space. Shrimp The shrimp fishery in Oregon has expanded tremendously over the last decade and probably reached maximum development in 1978. Improved markets and prices make this an attractive fishery dependent primarily on stock size. Stocks are being harvested at near capacity at the present time. Shrimp stocks have moved south along the Oregon coast. Processing has primarily been located in Astoria. Additional peeling machines can be located nearer to the fishing grounds. Shrimp peeling machines use -92- "M-j W-M@ IF --- W--'I IW Rik- IM-i nI"- @M@M L. L Waste Processing Moorage 0 0 0) CL 0 r+ 0 C+ (D 0 C+ 0 0 0 0) 0 r+ in r+ M cn (D In Salmon Shrimp CDQ)G (DICE)VO(D (9) Crab Groundfish Hake @I (DIEDOGIMMI 18101 *(9 (U (D 0 0 En 11 (D ID 0 :3- (D (ID (D 0 (D 0 (D 0 (D 0 ID (D 0 5 r+ 0 D) :T ID (D = to En :3 En CL (D (D (D + 1"1% W D) (D in (D @3' (LD (D (D 9 (D LO 0 (D 0 0 (D 0 @j (D r+ f-: r+ :3 " , (D (D CL up to 100,000 gallons of water per day which will increase water consumption greatly in areas where new machines are located. If local water supplies cannot meet this demand, processors may have to run alternate shifts or reduce production. Waste disposal presents additional requirements. Waste water is screened and discharged into the waterway. Solid wastes, which rdake up a large portion of the harvested volume, can be processed into meal or fer- tilizer or chemically reduced for use in other types of products, but often large quantities go to landfills for disposal. Changes in waste disposal requirements can have a significant effect on shrimp production costs. Crab Crab is harvested at the capacity of existing stocks. Any increased crab harvest will create relatively little impact on coastal development. Markets for crab have often been glutted in the past, and recurrences are probable in the near future. For this reason, future production will quite, likely follow historical trends. Most crabs are cooked and sold whole local- ly or shipped frozen to other markets. The key impacts of the crab fishery are increased water usage and discharge of additional heated effluents. Groundfish Groundfish processing is a high volume industry. The upward trend in harvest .(excluding hake) will probably increase substantially due to additional fishing pressure. Mechanical filleting will be used to process a major portion of this increase. The potential catch for Oregon is 50 - 70 million pounds annually (PFMC 1979), as compared to the 1978 catch of 34 million pounds. Thus, a two-fold harvest increase could occur in the near future if stock availability were the major controlling factor. Approxi- mately 70% of the volume of processed groundfish is waste (bone, skin, en- trails and small amounts of flesh) which can be further processed (6.g., fish meal and fertilizer) or must be taken to disposal site. This means the waste 94 - potential from bottomfish (excluding Pacific hake) is an increase to 35 - 50 million pounds annually. Pacific Hake Pacific hake comprises the largest volume of potentially harvestable fish off the Oregon coast. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council esti- mates an Oregon harvest potential of over 250 million pounds. This is nearly three times the total fish and shellfish production in Oregon in 1976. Up to 706 of the weight of hake is waste, which will require processing or disposal of 173 million pounds of hake waste. The hake fishery will depend primarily on machine processing due to the short storage time before the flesh breaks. down and the phenomenal volumes involved. The effect of development of the hake fishery will be substantially different if processing takes place at sea on factory ships or on land. The major shoreside effect of processing at sea will be increased demand for mooring spaces for large vessels. Water, electricity and waste disposal demands will increase considerably, but labor demand will not substantially increase with on-land processing. 95 SCENARIOS OF FUTURE COASTAL FISHERY DEVELOPMENT The fishing industry is changing into a more highly organized and efficient system for harvesting, processing and marketing seafood pro ducts. A variety of factors will influence the direction of this rapid development. The outcome of developing policy will not be felt for several years. A series of scenarios has been developed to show some of the possibilities of future development in the Oregon fishing industry. Nearshore commercial fisheries such as black cod, ling cod and halibut are not specifically included for a variety of reasons. Most of the boats required for this fishery are relatively small and could probably fit into existing 'Marina and service facilities. These fish resources are extensively utilized already and will not expand and impact the coastal zone in any dramatic way. In general, these lower volume, more tradition- al products can be handled without additional special equipment of-facilities. qrab and shrimp are not included because populations are already being heavily utilized, and harvests will probably not increase greatly. Cyclical fluctuations in populations and harvestwill probably continue to occur. Catches will remain at the present high levels due to the relatively -high value of these fisheries. Shellfish aquaculture is increasing in certain areas, especially oyster culture, but is severely restricted by environmental and spatial constraintse Algae cultivation is also limited by lack of suitable environ- ment in Oregon, and both are somewhat limited by lack of proven technology. Both oyster culture and algae culture are excluded from the scenarios. The scenarios are presented as individual future possibilities and can not be combined into an overall view. They are developed as possible futures and are intended to show the type of impacts that could occur, the way impediments can affect development, and how various factors interact. As such, these scenarios are designed to be both informative and thought provoking. 96 The future development of Oregon's coastal fisheries depends on a variety of factors that are not predictable. The direction and emphasis of development will depend on political decisions, legal actions, treaty nego- tiations and other mechanisms that can act as "trigger mechanisms". The Hake Fishe Pacific hake is an abundant species of fish which migrates from California along the Oregon coast and north to British Columbia before returning to Southern California to spawn. The highest concentrations of this fish are found around Coos Bay, Oregon. Oregon is geographically in a better position to utilize this resource than any other state. Several problems have prevented utilization of this resource. At the present time interest is growing rapidly and U. S. fishermen, who have harvested very little hake in the past, are beginning to target on this species - The main markets for hake are foreign markets reached through joint ventures. This may be slowing development of the hake processing industry, but by guaranteeing markets to the fish ermen, capital is provided for improvement of the fleet. Until U - S - shore-based or sea-based processing is expanded, joint ventures will continue to process the majority of U. S. caught hake. Other factors are influencing development of the hake industry. At present there is considerable int eres t in development of the hake fishery, both by the agencies and the industry. The resource represents a large potential economic opportunity. However, because hake is a high volume, low value fish, it must be harvested and processed in great quantities to provide adequate return on investments. Many of the larger processing firms have been hesitant to enter such a fishery while low volume, high value fisheries (such as salmon and king crab) are still available. The magnitude of potential onshore impact is much larger than for any other fishery in terms of waste utilization, water consumption, transportation, etc. 97 - However, the financial opportunity will be pursued by the industry and a series of developments could lead to a great expansion of the hake fishery. In light of these factors, the following scenario is presented. The Pacific whiting fishery in Oregon has the opportunity to expand greatly. Major increases in both fishing and pro- cessing capacity can lead to an annual Pacific coast harvest of over 385 million pounds, 200 million of which can be land- ed and processed in Oregon. This is more than twice the total 1976 Oregon landings of all other fish products combined. The landed value will be only about $25 million. With substantial hake development, joint ventures with foreign nations may be replaced with an American version based on vertical inte- gration of the industry. Full development would require two large hake-only plants (Astoria and Coos Bay) with several trawlers. These would directly employ fishermen in order to ensure adequate deliveries. Full development would require some 20 new midwater trawl vessels, mostly over 100 feet long, to fish out of Oregon ports. Moorage facilities at Newport and Astoria will have to be improved to handle these boats and Coos Bay will have to construct a new turning basin and moorage facilities adjacent to its processing plant to accommodate full development. In addition to fishing vessels, several large transport ves- sels and barges will have to be introduced by the major processors for full hake development. Fishermen will load their catches onto these vessels at sea to eliminate many trips to shore. Transport vessels reduce both consumption of fuel and demand for ice. The transport vessels will do much of the processing on board, especially heading and gutting. Product quality is improved by this method and the onshore waste disposal problems are minimized. Waste utilization problems will be reduced by the use of transport vessels. This use can cut the expected 140 million pounds of waste annually in half. Waste utilization studies. will be required to find uses for most of the remainder. Water re-use systems to reduce water consumption from the 20 million gallons per year will be required for full hake development. Full development for hake will re- 98 - quire a major cold storage facility at Newport. Frozen seafood products will require shipping in container ships and/or by improved train transport to various markets. Worldwide markets can be supplied with quality whiting products from Oregon if full develop- ment of the fishery occurs. This scenario has the greatest potential to change significantly if certain developments occur differently. Lack of markets could prevent the expansion of domestic processing capacity indefinitely. Environmental regulations could also slow development, and the utilization of 150 million pounds of fish waste material may not be achievable. The water demand could also be an insurmountable barrier to development in some coastal areas. These factors all combine to prevent onshore processing of hake and require development of offshore facilities. The onshore impacts.of offshore processing would be increased need for moorage f@r a'relatively few very large vessels, a large cold storage area, and development of a container and overseas shipping point. The Troll Fishery The salmon fishery is the most controversial and the most over-utilized of all fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. Many changes will occur in the poli- tical, environmental and biological arenas that will affect both the short-term and long-term character of this fishery. The Pacific salmon resources have been over-harvested for many years, which combined with destruction of fish habitat, has severely reduced many salmon populations. Competition@fnr the remaining salmon has intensified to the point of legal battles and occasional violence. Manage- ment and allocation plans have been very controversial. The federal gov- ernment is mandated to protect Indian treaty rights, which has been interpreted by the courts as reserving 501o of the catch for the treaty Indians. With increasing pressure from the Indians and recreational fishing sector, it becomes difficult to provide equitable allocations. If dollars 99 are used to measure the value of commercial and recreational fisheries, the first step is to determine how to evaluate the recreational fishery. By many estimates the recreational fishery is significantly more valuable than the ocean troll fishery. In those economic terms it would be cost effective to reduce the troll fishery. On'the other hand, reducing the troll fishery would reduce the commercial availability of fresh and frozen sal- mon and drive prices higher. These are the types of problems that must be addressed and solved before an equitable management program which provides long-term stock protection can be established. The following scenario describes the many factors influencing the possible outcomes of the ocean salmon fishery: Dwindling salmon stocks and allocations to the Indian tribes may force severe cutbacks in the commercial and recreational fishing seasons. If commercial fishermen are restricted to fishing only a few weeks per year, most could not afford to *stay in the fishery and either drop out of fishing and go to other jobs or switch to the black cod fishery. If the troll fishery declines, the fishermen hardest hit economically will be those who just make a living and depend on salmon fishing alone for their income. The relatively f ew remaining salmon fishermen may eventually be highliners who fish other high value fish during the remainder of the year. The price of salmon will quite likely rise substantially as stocks decrease and if commercial fishing is phased out. If salmon stocks are improved during the 1980 Is, the recreational sector will quite likely demand more of the available fish. The charter industry will con- tinue to expand by focusing on groundfish as well as salmon. Recreational demands have the potential of placing pressures to reduce the commercial troll fishery. Salmon ranching could provide the vast majority of the salmon commercially marketed in Oregon if legislation allows. Private hatcheries have the potential of producing more than 50% of the recrea- tionally caught salmon. 100- Limited entry legislation can prevent new fishermen from entering as the old ones leave. With limited entry legislation passed, fewer new boats will enter the ocean fishery and new moorage space will not be required. This scenario is the most difficult to predict. A commercial troll fishery, although reduced substantially, is likely to remain indefinitely. Private aquaculture could be restricted to low levels of production so fewer salmon would be available. Fuel shortages may force cutbacks in boat traffic to the extent.that only net fisheries (gillnet and purse seines) are feasible; or the troll fishery may continue as a small boat, nearshore fishery which depends heavily on private aquaculture to put more harvestable fish into the ocean. The Trawl Fishery The Oregon trawl fishery has a regional and international character. Most stocks are managed by PFMC which generates plans and review.9 allo- cations. The trawl fishery includes flatfish and rockfish , including Pacific Ocean perch. This scenario excludes hake and shrimp. Several major factors that may influence development will be resolved over the years. Marketing programs, both domestic and international, will affect develop- ment. Policy issues such as gear restrictions and quotas will also impact development. The industry's ability to expand production and ports ability to provide space and services will also affect development. The following scenario provides one view of what the future might bring. Ocean coastal ports could have 20 new midwater trawl vessels harvesting groundfish in the fishery conservation zone. These vessels, which would range from 86 feet to 140 feet, would have great difficulty finding even temporary moorage space if the ports do not take an aggressive approach to pro- vide the facilities needed, primarily adequate moorage. Harvest levels may increase to nearly 78 million pounds an- nually, more than twice the levels of 1978. Existing proces- sing plants will reach capacity production and new plant con- struction would be required. If this does not occur much of the 101- resource may go unutilized due to limited processing capacity. Astoria will most likely be the center for the trawl industry because reserve processing capacity is greatest there. With full development, trawl vessels may travel long distances to unload their fish in Astoria. The smaller ports can expand along traditional lines, including hand filleting with full trawl fishery develop- ment. In these areas the labor force will have to expand to handle fish deliveries made by smaller boats. Problems with adequate water supply and limits on deep-draft vessels can prevent significant expansion of processing at the smaller ports. With significant expansion of the trawl fishery, expansion of processing facilities or construction of new plants will be stalemated until waste disposal and utilization procedures and other environmental impacts are re- solved. Water usage will increase greatly with the introduction of more processing machines and the labor force will be slightly reduced with full expansion of the trawl fishery. This scenario shows how environmental protection regulaiions can affect industrial growth, Factors that could influence trawl fishery develop- ment include provision of adequate moorage for the growing fleet and addi- tional space, service and facilities for processing expansion* The lack of domestic market growth could also slow expansion, as could depletion of stocks of the more favored species. Another option would be to establish joint-ventures similar to those now in operation for Pacific hake, with American fishermen selling directly to foreign processing ships. This avoids most onshore impacts with the exception of moorage, and a limited entry system could reduce this problem. Salmon Aquaculture Aquaculture is exclusively under the control of state resource agencies, although federal policy and funding can exert considerable influ- ence. Presently there are unresolved questions regarding the biological 102 - and economic feasibility and desirability of greatly increased private salmon ranching. Declining natural salmon stocks have forced reductions in harvest by all user groups. The treaty Indians have been guaranteed a large share of salmon stocks which has reduced the amount available to other users.' Public outcry for more salmon has led to increasing emphasis on hatchery production. However, hatchery-reared salmon can interfere with natural or wild stocks. The concern over declining wild stocks is shared by agency personnel, sportsmen and other public groups. The agencies are most concerned about the genetic vitality of natural populations, which allows the population to adapt to changing conditions. Sportsmen often feel that hatchery fish are less desirable to catch. Many feel that there is an intrinsic value associated with maintaining wild stocks. However, as fewer fish are available to catch and more inexperienced fishermen want to catch them, pressure will be applied to make more fish, not necessarily quality fish, available. Because the Indians are guaranteed a percentage and recreational fishing pressure is increasing, the troll fishery is most susceptible to reduction and possibly elimination., A substantial reduction in the number of commercial salmon fishermen would increase the economic efficiency of the existing fishermen, but would cause considerable social impact. The boat buy-back program in Washington,. where the state purchases commercial salmon vessels and gear to reduce the number of fishermen, and limited entry legislation recently passed by the Oregon legislature have set the stage for restricting the commercial fishery. Private aquaculture has the potential to substantially increase salmon stocks - Heavy pressure. by commercial salmon harvesters has prevented expansion of this industry. Decreases in troll fishery may reduce the pressure- to minimize salmon aquaculture expansion. Salmon ranchers 103 - have already been authorized to more than double the hatchery population of salmon in Oregon. If recreational interests are convinced this means more fish for them, they can press the state to authorize more releases. The joining of these two forces, aquaculture interests and sports fishermen, L could exert enough pressure to change the whole structure of salmon pro- duction and harvest in Oregon. The following scenario describes how pri- vate aquaculture and the salmon fishing industry interact. The Oregon state legislature must clear the way for greatly exparded- salmon ranching production. The resource agencies will have to determine that the ocean and estuarine resources can sustain a sub- stantial increase in salmon production before they will approve more aquaculture permits for new sites. Production from currently authorized private hatcher- ies can total in excess of 180 million salmon. Increased facilities can add substantially to this total. Significantly more salmon would be made available to both troll and recreational fisheries off the coast by salmon ranching. At the same time salmon ranchers can maintain good profits. The aquaculture facilities will have to be designed to avoid impacts on the aquatic environment.. Aquaculture produced salmon will primarily be -canned if they are caught as they return to the facilities. If hatchery produced fish are allowed to be caught before they deteriorate, they would be fresh frozen. The majority of aquaculture production will more than likely be commercially canned. With increased aqua- culture production, existing canneries will be operating nearer to capacity and a few new facilities may be re quired. The. volume of canned salmon can be increased con- siderably and the price reduced slightly if ranching increases stocks. Fresh and frozen salmon will probably maintain high prices, even with increased volumes 104- This scenario is based on a future change in policy by the fisheries agencies in favor of increased hatchery production. If recreational and troll interests pressure the legislature and agencies to limit salmon ranch- ing , the projected production would never be reached. Conflicts with Canada over the origin of fish stocks could also influence development. If questions about competition between fish stocks in the ocean remain unresolved, the PFMC or the Indian tribes could move to limit private ranching on environmental or biological grounds. The Recreational Fishery The coastal recreational fishery in Oregon has traditionally been closely tied.to salmon. Both private boat owners and charter boat services have increased every year and the demand for salmon remains strong. Bottomfish, however, are also becoming more popular, especially as salmon limits and seasons are reduced. The following scenario describes the factors influencing Oregon's coastal sport fishery. Recreation'al angling will most -likely increase all along the Oregon coast. Demand for moorage space and shore access will increase dramatically if people have extra free time and money for recreation. Increased price and decreased availability of fuel may slow the demand for moorage space for private boats. This may allow the charter fleet to expand. The demand for fishing access will probably increase even during years when a one-salmon-per-day limit is, in effect. More emphasis will go toward catching rockfish, ling cod a d other species if salmon stocks are less available. n If the Oregon salmon culture program increases salmon stocks along the coast, the demand for bottomfish will not rise as dramatically. The smaller ports will become recreational boating centgrs and develop local tourist economies with increased recreational fishing. -The ocean. recreation- al fishery can continue to draw tourists from all over the county. The location of.salmon aquaculture facilities 105 - where past salmon runs were small or nonexistent can develop new areas for recreational fishing@ This scenario would change dramatically if fuel were not available either for boats or for transportation to coastal communities. Fuel is probably the only factor that could radically alter the expansion of recrea- tional fishing in Oregon. Even if salmon disappeared, the demand for fishing would continue, although possibly at a slower rate of increase. The question is not whether the recreational fishery will increase, but where and how much. 1o6 - BIBLIOGRAPHY Botzum, John Rd. and S. M. Contos , Editors. Marine Fish Management... Vol. 5, Nos. 1 - 8. Chaney, Ed. 1978. A Question of Balance. Summary Report. 29 p. 108. Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead Report, Number 13. 8 p. Cole, Bruce J. National Fisherman magazine. Vol. 60, Nos. 1 - 4. Editor. 1979 Pacific Packers Report, No. 77'. Combs, Earl R. 1979. Export and Domestic Market Opportunities for Underutilized Fish and Shellfish (Draft). Prepared for U. S. Department of Commerce. 1979. Prospectus for. Development of the United States Fisheries. Prepared for the Fisheries Development Task Force, NOAA, U. S. Department of Commerce. 442 p. Cummings, T. Edwin. 1979. Private Salmon Hatcheries in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife report. Department of Interior. Federal Register. December 1, 1975. 12 Department of Interior, Department of Commerce. Federal Register. May 18, 1979. t Eastland Fisheries Survey . 1977. A Report to Congress by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. 91 p. Fraser, Michael. 1978. Oregon Fisheries and Seafood Processing Industry (draft). 28 p. Giles, D.E. I J. Ball and P. York. Preliminary Draft Report The Ocean Charter Industry in Oregon, 1975. OSU Extension and Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. Corvallis, Oregon. October, 1976. Gunsolus, Robert T. 1978. The Status @of Oregon Coho and Recommendations for Managing the Production, Harvest, and Escapement of Wild and Hatchery-Reared Stocks. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife report. 59 p. Hake Committee, Port of Coos Bay. 1977. Report of Port of Coos Bay Pacific Hake Fishery Task Force. 52 p. Hester, Frank J., and P. E. Sorensen. 1978. A Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for Limiting Access to Ocean Recreational Salmon Fishing. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission Report. 129 p. Higgs., Robert. 1978. Preliminary Report on the Probably Socio-Economic Effects of a Moratorium on the Issuance of New Vessel Licenses in the Pacific Ocean Commercial Salmon Fishery. For the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 100 p. Jensen, William S. 1976. The Salmon Processing Industry, Part I: The Institutional Framework and its Evolution. Oregon State University Sea Grant Publication No. ORESU-T-76-003. 37 p. Liao, David S. , and Joe B. Stevens. 1975. Oregon's Commercial Fishermen: Characteristics, Profits and Incomes in 197 2. Oregon State University Sea Grant Publication. 20 pages.. Lukas, Jerry. 1979. 1978 Oregon Shrimp Fishery. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report 79-1. 11 p. National Academy of Sciences. 1978. Aquaculture in the United States: Constraints and Opportunities. 123 p. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fishery Market News. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. 1974. Economic Survey and Analysis of the Oregon Coastal Zone. Oregon Department of Economic Development. Dinectory of Oregon Manufacturers, 1978-79. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1976 Annual Report -- Fisheries. 139 p. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fisheries. 1978. Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1957 1977. Vol. 2, No. 3. Oregon State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 1978. Socio-Economics of the Idaho, Washington, Oregon and IL California Coho and Chinook Salmon Industry. Vols. A and B. State University Extension Service. Oregon Commercial Fisheries. Vol. 10, No. 1. September, 1978. eJ[ State University'Sea 'Grant Program. 1979. Oregon's Seafood Industry. It's Important to Oregon's Economy. Extension Circular 65. 1971. af-ifi Fishery Management Council. 1977-1978 Progress Report. 25 p-. c -, 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon and Washington Ground- Fish Fishery. 1979. Draft Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon and Washington Groundfish Fishery. 1979. Draft Fishery Management Plan for. the Dungeness Crab Fishery off Washington, Oregon and California. 93 p. 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon and California (and 1979 Supplements). acific Marine Fisheries Commission, .1977. Summary of Pacific Area Input to the Eastland Fisheries Survey. 107 p. 1978. Dungeness Crab Project of the State-Federal Fisheries Management Program. 1978. 31st Annual Report. 48 p. Perry, L. Edward. 1979. Statement Presented to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. 5 P. Philbin, Cavin W. 1978. Three Different Delivery Modes for Freshly- Caught Pacific'Whiting (Merluccias productus). Unpublished report, University of Washington. 31 p. Porter, Russell G. 19 78. Review of Limited Entry Alternatives for Commer - cial Salmon Fisheries. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission Report. Rompa, William J., F. J. Smith, and S. D. Miles, 1979. Oregon's Sea- food Industry: Its Importance to Oregon's Economy. Extension Circular 965. top Cam Commercial Food Fish Landings "I Pounds Round Weight by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1969 SturqWn Striped Bottom Chinook Stealhoad Socksyq Coho Chums -6 _ELI to Greaq Shad Bass Smit Pinks Crabs Clams Shrlfg Tuna Fish Nit 1@5 dus@@ Total District I Col. River 2,641,341 195.971 2a.168 910.145 1,510 144.040 47.871 33,924 38,877 - - 4.049,055 (Zones 1.2.47) Astoria 108148 65 - 320.095 - 146 5,563 - - 10,290 3.941.459 25.124 2,682,059 22,157,884 12.453.118 41.704 1 Tillamook 37:060 - 209.998 . - - 16.646 530.815 4.770 2.195,276 259,397 182.117 441.720 - 3.878:01,19 Pacific City 16,945 - 256,52a - 48 24.648 6.200 15.601 - 320.668 x Hst3rts &3y - - - 13,140 - 13,140 I"et'316M say - - - - - - 2,519 - - -=12 Total 2.803,512 196.056 28,160 1.700.085 1,518 144,166 53,434 33.924 38.925 $1.784 4,485,414 29.894 4.877,335 22.424.1111 12,650.836 441.720 - 49.968,952 01strict 2 Col. River 872,645 -117,145 25.664 359.354 1,24a 78,231 204 90.146 18,156 20.368 1,503,161 (Zones 3-51 4 O'sirIc" 0 - 17.046 16 4,324 22,156 194:471 36,517 208,072 - 71.116 21.495 550,769 DopoG Say 19.118 - - - Now 1650 2' 710.469 297 80 1274 377 1.581 1.483.224 :..099.10181 2.221:71611 311:9936 - 10.066.121 ,ollort 9 17:840 171.0 2.2,5 7 3 36 0 t., :342 912,940 1.297 357 1:300:295 1.597 1.483,224 4,324 10,639.095 1,047 - - - 3,083 IOs266 124 6,059 - 28 - 22.207 IstrIct 6 Day $7,965 375,621 450 371,174 19,481 3,696 34,177 85,165 9.1162 32,711 62,879 3,005,769 - 4,070,960 District 7 Coos. 523.373 979.203 41 - 32.425 18.337 2.041 50.196 1.581.711 5.772 3.551.949 '2.686.760 3,649.811 7.512 - 13.08).139 83nd 87.381 103,888 - 13.465 796 - 4.508 11.665 - - 127 5.291 - - 227,141 Port Orford 96,005 3 115.738 13,226 906,447 - 178.149 12,667 354.310 - - 1.676,545 D Gold Beach 12,491 7.222 371 238 . - 2,056 1,647 - 24,025 En Brookings :31, 41 26 1112 1'.106.204 - 145.065 44111: 713 1,11259:163 - 3 M 359 87 _r__ - .T i5y 5.3 72Z 7.5 '003:209 T9, W 45.910 U. 95:1 3 3706.265 5.772 3.875,163 U IS. 211-9 Total 911.11 3 1.564* District 9 Col. Rivor 339,655 .69,752 17,565 16 263 3" 1,609 450,443 GaMO TOTAL 5,235,332 382,936 71,397 -4,941,033 2,766 2Z7,857 55,385 $53,229 38,614 62,008 298,555 9,70,998 47,125 10.268,433 29.027.549 23.243,151 481.168 24,612 85,5.4602a $and ShricV, 4324 pounds, Crawfish, 5266 pounds, and W. 15.102 pounds. FISH Col-t4ISSION OF OREGON May 1970 04-15OR ow lpll@ AIM I-= - rAM 7M@M;Allp -M Estimat d Value at fisherman's Level of Commercial Food fish Landing$ by St:to of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1969 Sturgeon Uripod Bottom Chinook Staolhood Sockeye cow White Green Shad Bass Smelt Pinks Crabs Clams Shrimp Tuna Fish Oysters ELIE& Total District I W . River (Zones 1.2.97) S 991.000 S 61.000 $11.000 S 294.000 $29,000 $1.000 S 3.000 S S 0. 000 $ - S - I - S - S - S 1.398.000 Astarte 57.000 - - 137,000 - - - - 2,000 1.182,000 15.000 295,000 4.986,000 996.000 - 7.670.000 Tillamook 20.000 - - 89.000 - - 4 000 159,000 241,000 58,000 15.000 394..000 - 980,000 Pacific City 10.000 - 109.000 5:000 - - 2.OOD 1,000 127.000 Netarts say - - 4.000 4.000 flehalem Bay - - 1,000 TOM S, 661.000 :"0 S 0,000 SII,OD0 $1,345.000 $15.000 S 536,000 S5.046,000 $1.012.000 $394.000 S 110,180.000 .578.000 S11:000 S 630 000 $29.000 $1,000 $ 3.000 5 )Istrict 2 Cz;I. River S327.000 S36,000 SIO.000 S 115.OW S16.001) S 7.000 S 5 4.000 S S - S S 6 11 5 $5,000 5 520.000 (Zones 3-5) District 4 W F- e dport - S - S - S - S S S- $ - S - S 5.000 S S 5 - S1.000 S 6.000 Dapoa Day 11,000 - - 83.000 - 0.000 62.000 16.000 2,000 - - 182.000 No,,ort 87,000 - - 306,000 182. 163. 2107 000 .000 '293' 70T., 98.000 6 - S - 5 389.000 S 1 18. S S 3.M 91. DO "'.22 51'000 .000 6 S S26.= 6 1 938.2ffilS180.0 V51 SI 2. .009 )I strict5 flor... 11.000 5 S 2,000 5 S 1,000 S - S S - S 2,000 .11- S - S - S - S S 6,000 'S'r'c"6 L Bay S31,000 1 S - S 160,000 S ll- $40,000 $3,000 S 1,000 S 7,000 S 26,000 S 1,000 S 4,000 5 19,000 S 240,000 S - S - $ $32,000 District7 s S269.000 S - S - S 417.000 5 - S - S 4.000 $3.000 S - $11,000 S 475,000 S 1.000 S 391.000 S 605.000 S 292.000 S 6.000 S - S 2.474.000 Ba d n 47.000 - - 44.000 - - 2,000 - - 1,000 3,000 - - - - - - Pan,o g?.GOO r Orford 50.000 - - 49,000 - - - - 3.000 272.000 - 20,000 3.000 28.000 - - 425.000 G014 Beach 7.000 - - 3,000 - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 Brookings 143,030 - - 153,000 - - -- 000 362.000 - 16.000 6 8' 00 S516,000 S - S - S 666,000 3 - S - S 6,000 $3,000 101. 10 -M - S 3,1893.-1000 Total S $261 000 $1.112,000 5 1.000 S 427.000 5 709.= S 126.000 3 6,000 S District 9 Col. Rivar S127,000 $.22,000 $ 7,000 S 5,000 S 1,000 S - S - S- S S - S - S - 3 1 162,000 $17.588.000 Sand Shrimp, $1,000, Crawfish, $4.000. Eel, 31.000. FISH W-14ISSIOIJ OF OREGON Pay 1970 Commercial Food Fish Landings In Pounds Round Weight by State of Oregon Administrative Olstrict for Calendar Year 1 970 Sturgeon StrIpod Albacore Chinook Stualhead Sockoya Coho Chums Wh I to Green Shad Bass Smelt Pinks Crabs Clams Shrimp Tuna Groundfish Oysters MIsc.I/ Total i -r 133,754 7.243.83f " . River 5,296'Iff 75,aw 14.145 3,517,SSI 3.446 lf2.355 29,694 61.687 (Zones 1-2-7) Astoria 244.034 45 - 775,496 - 358 3.880 - 326 3,809,343 14.601 2.609.46, 23.888,175-2'11.627,887 - - 42.973.teS T1 I lar,*k 31.125 - 287,197 - - 982,908 7,819 1,261,639 300,143 33.595 241.929 770 3,147.124 Pacific city 23.972 14 - 444.614 - - - - - 110.585 10.402 - - 5sq.507 hat-arts aay - - - - 14,280 2,210 - - - 122 16.61S Peh3le-1 gay 54 446 - 6,718 258 - - - 8.476 3,595,296 1:304 3,448 112 713 33,514 61,687 Total 75,145 14.145 5. 29 133,754 326 4,813.249 24.9613 5.ell,100 24.298,90 11.67;,884 242:051 770 53,979.317 District 2 Col. RIver (Zones 5-4-51 811.537 61.362 22.f62 8S6,179 1.435 54,405 225 159,301S 6.350 42.790 2,015o551 District 4 Waldpcrt - 3,249 - - - - - 5.579 8,828 Depoe Bay 40,167 55;.765 28 441.212 - - 39.658 10,205 - - 1.096.0550 5 .. 2 5,.;9227 53-1 13 3.51955,..27,6 ::,4, 3:11771,867 _2,136,902 2.111,331 477,53101 1434824.9-16 3,.482,91.' P9. 35 391 3 27 3 919.879 7 5 [.Col 2.176,DbO 2, 4 .5 5.;,g DI.Strict 5 Florence 5,614 84,295 - 9,520 659 - - 17,641 - - 7,452 404 125,585 District 6 Winchester Say 55,727 556,312 245 394,016 35,473 7,316 - 268,137 10,631 60,716 43,367 3,229,882 4,681 8,24 DIs1rIct 7 C03s 568.642 1.908.440 . - 46 59,865 13,524 ISO 270 2,716,861 4.522 4.711.216 373,544 2,809.503 17,229 13.183,312 alldon, 152.733 2141,221 - - - - - - - Port Orford 161.285 7.430 -395 ll,1)6 13,368 403,263 325.9)5 - 17 1.072,311 125 1.214.950 - 461.701 - 3.256,364 Cold Beach 11,118 20.112 - 1,242 - - - 1.008 - 33,480 BrooU I nas 3S7.791 25 S7 049 1 OS9.096 - 4.989.629 1.25G569 '19 2:4 2P491 410.593 4J=6 17.229 - -2t.666,548 Total %M! N11 46 67.291 13.919 150 ;17 6 23'5:'069'1 4,;47 6.544U.3 OlstrIrt 9 Col. River 266.258 49,863 4.368 44,242 - 5.513 - 6,422 - 376,666 (Zowls 6-8-91 GWID TOTAL 6 t_kl 1 4 gi 186p370 40,675 13,084,479 4,083 172,631- 40,017 69a,248 .L/ Sand Shrimp 6,349; Crawfish 39.019; Eel 3,771. V Includes Other Tuna totalling 5.139,167. FISH COI-NISSION OF OREGON May 1971 814-15OR Estimated Vftlue at Fisherman's Level of Commercial Food Fish Landings by State of Oregon Admini stritIvo District for Calbndar Year 1970 St rgoo Striped Albacore Chinook Steelhead Sockeye Coho Chums Wt: Gneon Shad Bass Smelt Crabs Clams Shrimp Tuna Groundfish Oysters MISC.1/ Total District I Col. River $1,447,000 $24.000 3 6,000 $1,020.000 $1,000 $26.000 $2,000 S 6,ODO 3 $33,000 s - S 2.565,000 Uones 1-2-7) - -2-1 072,000 - 8.792.000 As;orl a 15B.000 - - 401,000 - - - 952.000 10.00() 313.000 6,086,000 Miam-ook 22,000 - 140,000 246,000 1.000 151,000 83,000 2.000 236.000 1,0()0 890.000 Pacific City 20.000 230,000 7 - 30,000 1.000 - 281,0013 - - - 3,COG lielarts Pay - - 3.000 119ha @ Bay - 1,000 00 - - - - ,.t!e 000 --7 $11,000 S 464. 4,000 $1,647.000 $24,000 S 6.000 $1,8DO, $1,000 $26,000 $2,000 S 6,6W 33:000 $1.203.0000 000 S6.1;9,OGPS 875.000 $235 1:000 $12.53"" District 2 S 355,000 $20.000 S 9,000 S 248,000 S - $12.000 $16,000 S S 2,00.0 $ - S - % - S 11 - $ - S13.000 S 676.000 T District 4 walcport S S - S - S - $ - S - I - S - $ 1,000 S - S S - S 5,000 5 6,000 Depoe Bay 30).000 2417,000 - - - - - - 110,000 - 11,000 1,000 - - 437,M I;e.o-rt 2 1.485 000 - - - - - - 700,000 - 587 000 162 000 56,000 - 3.111.10 11.772,000 5 - % - S - S - S - $ - $ 699.000 S - '000 .1, Total '::C 51 0 S 163, 1 5@,000 S 5,00 .000 S 24 00 1 S - 1 381:= 1: S 4 District 5 Florence $ 5,000 S - S - S 43,000 S - $ - S - S 1,000 5 S 4,000 S - S - S 2,000 S - 3 - I - S 55,000 01strict 6 Winchester Pay S 39,000 S - 11 - S 287,000 S - $ - S - 'i52,000 S6,000 S 2,000 3 67,000 3 1,000 $ 10,000 S 12,000 S 242,OOD S - S - 1 717,000 District 7 coos $ 412,000 S - $ - $ 987,OW S - $ S - S 9,000 S2.000 S - S 679,000 S 1,000 S 565.000 S 103,000 S 211,000 S 15,000 S - S 2,984,000 83ndon 113,000 - - 113,000 1,000 - 3,000 - - 1.000 - - 231,000 Part Orford 132,COO - 168,000 - - 268,000 146,000 35,000 - - 749,000 Gold Deach 8.000 - 10.000 - - - - - 18.000 212,000- - 320.000 - - 609 GOO 63 -M "1"' 000 5 9,3"'0 S S - $1.590.0w 1 110,000 $270-0-0-1 - Sl.559:00O_T_1_;0_00S 774 Al $ S S 372'1,061) S 6,010 J, $ 5,500,000 District 9 Col. River S 117,GOO $16.000 3 1,000 S 12.000 $ S1.000 1,000 .$ - $ - - S - S S - S S S 148.000 (Zones 6-8-9) GRMU TOTAL 1 13.307.000_ 160 000 $16,000 $5,760,000 $1.000 $39,000 $2.000 !86 000 $37,000 S3,732,000 S13,000 $1,629,000 36.924,OW- SI,605,000 $307.000 $19,000 $23.545,000 ------ 000 ==SO Sand ShrlaV S6,000; Crawfl@h_jI2,00 ; Eel -$1,000. 2 Includes Other Tuna totaillng $930,000. FISH CUI-INISSION OF OREGON 1971 -4M 4M -4" L 1 Food Wish lAndipgo to Foun4e Bound Weight by State of Oregon Commarcts Administrative District for Calendar Year 1971 sturgeon Striped Albacore Chinook Stealhand Sockoye Poho Chums. White - Shad Bass smelt Inaks, Crabs Clam@ Shrimp Tom Croundflah Oysters His," Total District I Col. River 2.385.349 121.133 55.064 1.236,704 3.050 108.240 25.386 31.399 84.5a0 5 - - - - 4.253.410 (zones 1-2-7) Astoria 162.631 191 - 788,509 $01 4.016 - 110 5,146.741 30.227 1.797.242 11.293.9392-1 10. 524.609 29.750.716 Tillamook 18.449 - - 777.671 - - - 987,058 5.948 $96.080 118.217 72.689 239,136 668 3.115.941 Pacific City 18.347 - - 792.773 17 142 - - 7.924 45.030 - 148 S", 381 fttarts Bay - - - - - 21.761 1.598 - 23.359 Nehalem Say - - - 5" - - 9 262 1,37$ Total 2.784,776 121,324 --35.064 -3. 59S. 181 3.0io 108.74; 29.902 31,399 84.580 137 6.157.702 38.13:2 2.693.32i 11.420.eO-l 10.64Z.590 239.136 836 30,009.183 District 2 Col. River 978.563 92.560 84.678 427.176 74.307 369 101,990 43,300 - - - - 42.537 1.851.482 (zones 3-4-5) District 4 - 176 176 $!let& Waldport - - - 3.914 - - - 6.077 10,791 Depoe Bay 21,577 - 626.3$2 1.410 663.193 - 29.531 31,901 - it) 1.396.097 Newport 104 166 146 9,59; 3 1 1: 3:624$2101 2.1139 3.1.1.671 1.118 262 1 361-197 39,560 12*447:184 it : 1 3111. to'l 9.,99 Total :53 IS :1 2.039 3.601.579 2.401.098 39.560 '26: 310 2, 4 '1, l2 02,o,13 7,16; 245 District S Florence 6,696 - 133,39S - - - 8,290 1,242 40 - 134,213 - - 12,003 2,292 - - 298,374 Rlmtllct 6 Day 26,377 - 701,611 - - 50 246,968 56,321 5,076 1,580 909,070 7,459 81,330 13,766 4,561,102 - - 6,592,210 District Coos 128.945 - 2.119.3 54 973 6 929 1.098,990 10.693 1.521.483 376.877 2.608.301. 208 0.809.929 48.113 - 11:601 -95'311 1.912 20,328 660 7.037 530.922 Bandon 440.728 - - - Port Orfordl 77.330 260.046 - - - - - 1.647 469.500 - 410.672 11 S52.890 - 1.772.296 Gold Beach 45.052 185.414 - - - 45 100 - - 953 S.830 - 237.594 Brooklatte 492,015 - 1.478.040 - - - 904 172 126 76::,3,1.0 140-004 1,179,134 - 5,227.943 437 3:1 Total 791.655 - -4.483.560 - - - 66,580 9,521 5. 461:6" lO.,9; '.69 618.505 4.432.198 208 - 16.578.684 District 9 t'V 298,821 99.243 23,698 28.914 - 18.660 - 12.595 - - - 481.933 GRAND TOTAL 5.013.113 311 119 161.110 11 114;.660 201,7R 39,920 473,822 67 084 1 4 AL12 IA 274& RAG qH,j%,j a nj%-nQ& 3.092.16 22.039,981 278,904 50,539 77,666,113 Rod r "",Xp S.;O,. Crew S fish '9,5;j, r jfO I'TI 'Incel'u'less Other Tuns totalling 4.672,582. APRIL 1. 1912 fish Commission Of Oregon i J Estimated Value at ylgh&rama's Level of Commarclel Food flab Landings by State of Or*Soa Administrative District for Calendar Year 1971 Sturseon striped Albacore Ch Inook Steelboad Sockoye Cohn UhIts Green Shed lose S-1 t Pink@ Crabs CI&&@ Shrl-P Tom Groundfish O!rst*ra Mac- I/ Total District I Col. River 978.000 036.000 $22,000 $ lie.ooo $27.ooo $1.000 $ 2.000 $ 023,000 $ - $ - 1.399,000 (Zones 1-2-1) Astoria 75,000 - - 247.000 - - - - - 1.184.000 18.000 208,000 3,086.0001, 065.000 - - 5.683.000 Tillamook 10.000 - 243.000 - - - 227.000 1.000 109,000 37.000 6,000 270.000 1.000 904.000 Pacific City 10.000 - 248.000 - - - - 3.000 4.000 - 265,000 Notarts say - - - - - - - 1 000 - --- 5.000 Total $1.073,000 $36.000 $22,000 $1.048.000 $27.000, $1,000 0 2.000 $ $23,000 $1.416oom $19.000 $ 3117. -67-5-.-00-; ---J-270,000 1 1,000 5 8.256.000 District I Col. River 1 342.000 $27.000 $34.000 $ 107.000 $18.000 1 $11.wo 1 $12.000 $ 6 $16,000 $ 561.000 (Zones 3-4-5) District 4 Weldport 4 - $ 1.000 $ 7.000 $ 8.000 Depoe Bay 4 12.000 196.000 - 206,000 9.000 3.000 - 426.000 Heror, 63e= 317::00 118= '12 1 19-1 - 2 612 -.0 ,f:0 I I ON:= 3 0. $ T to, 75 $ 72 _ $1 $1,000 $1*214 0 - $ 431.2 @t .000 6 3al26,000 District 5 Florence 4,000 S 42,000 $ 1,000 4 - $ - S - 6 40,000 6 - $ nit 4,000 6 91,000 District 6 Winchester Day 15,000 S - $ - 6 245,000 1 134,000 $ 9,000 0 2,000 6 - $ 283,000 $ I,OD0 1 10, 4,000 S 315,000 978,000 District 7 Coom $ 66.000 $ - $ - $ 663.000 3.000 $ 11000 $ - $ - $ 665.000 0 1.000 $ WAD( $ 112.000 221.000 S - $ - 0 1.934.000 Bandon 27.000 - - 136,000 2.000 - 1.000 7.000 - - - 1.000 - - 176.000 Fort Orford 40.000 - - BLOOD, - 1,000 164.000 54.001. 43.000 - - 3:5 000 Gold Basch 23.000 - - 58.000 - 1:000 Bro2 insts 241 - - 461.= - - - - '16 .000 101, 71 97.000 - 1:,3".' Teal $ Me= 40'. $ $10.000 $ 1.000 $ - 12.0.0 $1.212.ooo g i,wo I 352.00C 13o= 364.000 3 16.000 District 9 Co - "v " $ 105.000 $26.000 $9.OD0 $ 7.000 6 5.000 $ - $ 1.000 $ - $ IS3,000 (Z!..' a 61-1) D I 12.M. $61,000 $3.S79,000 $50,000 $2,000 $59,000 110,000 $37,000 $3,000 $4,245,000 $2I,OD0 $1,110, i$3,628,0002-/ $1,812,000 $351,000 $24,000 $17,097,000 $ dam .. SM, 1:!;r C,.fl&h 16. 000. If Includes Other Tom totalling $1.000.000. APRIL It 1972 rimb Comolselon of Oregon CAminercial food Fish Lending% In Pounds Round Weight by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1972 Sturgeon Striped Albacore Chinook Stselhead Sockays Cohn, Chums Whift Groan Shod Bass Smelt Pink$ Crabs. Clams Shrimp Tuna Groundfish Oyst*rs Hisc.11, Total District I Col * M-Ver 2,260,690 200.009 74.1329 698,441 9.216 102.844 16.871 14,t22 124.625 3.510.451 (ZOMS 1-2-7) Astoria 88,724 312 402.191 113 1,154 3,872.563 12.550 2,359.920 22,377.1-15-2110.610,3)5 39,733.637 Tillamook 26,089 390,887 461,151 9.541 1.911,811 109.605 116,440 132.224 1,029 3.2511,876 Pacific City 20,622 430,795 6,521 3.305 28.198 1.501 490.742 Netorts Bay 5.461 914 56 78 6.509 562 25 so 715 -N-STho-SUIP Bay 2.396,1418Z 209.121 14,029 1.923,476 9.216 102,957 18,031 14.122 124,623 4,365.521 23.085 4.271.731 22,570,085 10.763.029 132,224 2,700 47.000.950 District 2 car-w-ver 906.046 70.946 50.293 1110,5211 144 01,574 101 149.661 BDO 9,597 1.458,292 (Zones 3-4-5) District 4 Mo-rz- 969 969 Waldpart 491,213 83 70, 105,7 6,279 ":7" 65.950 3 ': 8@'-' Depoe Day 29 004 5 94 25.674 492 724 26 191 113 1 11 1:213 1'51 '71:333311. t 230. .3011.07 "11 11.&617 7" tn. or, .11. 9" 7. 13 3:91723 ' 2,11H. 7' '59651 196.."3a223 4:14. .113 3 $75139 1 .1515 19, 7, 1110 a, To, District 5 FloFift-zi- 9,909 73.7si 6,151 734 100 46,577 73,944 1,454 214,620 District 6 - III nX-es-Ter Bay 43,262 414,687 367,229 42,08a 6,779 248,795 6,105 813,027 293,3119 2.2a4,764 4,522.0as District I coos 336,591 1,709,860 54 95.413 11.627 451 14 468.685 44,813 5.409,721 2.528.603 5,592,960 6.928 16,205,718 Bandon 70.900 143.442 10,011 16,402 12,499 255.356 Port Orford 174.133 147.327 77.155 1.217.042 399,981 2.015,638 Gold Beach 120.407 41,149 10.248 5.30 11.525 1113.4159 BrookIft4s 341 41 7' 3.695.544 To,. 20' 1,655.1 2 " "5101 '490' 1 .11T' I ' 29 57 - 1 '015 2,271, 54 95,03 il.07 431 14 M .9'599 11.11.1 5 3,2M 1.6T5:739 7.1 '2 6,970 27354. District 9 Col: wrv-sr 419.367 169,209 28,600 10,966 18.134, 6.268 "0.544 --(Zones 6-8-9) GRMO TOTAL 5,085.474 457.276 153,722 6.482.926 9.960 202.665 33.823 640.844 54.449 133.403 132 6.762,259 74,718-3'20,..731.151 29,231,7152-122.801,367 175,720 20,065 93,053,609 I/ Includes Send Shrimp 10,0112. Crawfish 41.730, Eel 1.273. j/ Includes Other Tuna Totalling 6,177.711. 2/ mussels 58a. FISH ODMISSIO" OF ORE0011 MY 19)3 SM 15OR r-]Mr--Mi 7JW 7M!M Estim ted Value at Fish Ley I C er lal Food Fish Landings a G-n:lsr. Do Ict or Calendar Year 1972 by State of Oregon Admint tiv: istrom fc Sturgeon Striped Albacore I/ Chincck Steelhead Sockeye Coho Chums White Green Shad Bass Smelt Crabs Clams -Shrimp Tuna Groundfisli Oysters Misc. Total Distrii, S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6 1.750,000 C01. v! $1.109.000 3 93,000 $34,000 $ 363,000 $3.000 $21.040 11.000 $ 2,000 $ $44,000 $ - (Zones 1-2-7) Astoria SS,000 - - 107.000 - 1.642,000 9,000 283,000 6,805,0002/ 1,009,000 - - 91 90,000 21, amook. 17.000 - - 1 281.000 204.000 1.000 229,000 64,000 11,000 228,000 935.000 Pacific City 14.000 - - 200,000 3,000 - - 1.000 3,000 - 221,000 Natarts say - - - 2,000 - 2.000 Mehalem Bay - 3.000 - - 3,000 Total $1,27S,000 $ 93,000 $iW,000 $ 934,000 $3,000 $22,CCO $1.000 $ 2,000 $ $44,000 $1.8S1,000 $14000 $ 512,000 $6,870,000 $1,023,000 $ 228,000 $ - $12,90I.;-00 District 2 Col. R r $ 477,000 $ SS,000 $23.000 $ 94.000 $ - $16,cco $ - $19,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $4.000 $ 660.000 (Zones 3-4-5) District 4 Siletz $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - Waldport - - 1,000 - - - 1.000 Depoe Bay 45,OOC 230,000 - - 12,000 - - 36,000 2,000 - - 325.000 Newport 137,CO3 508,000 000 - - 536,000 - 990,000 1,,215,000 247,000 107,000 - 3.741.000 Total $ 282.000 $ $ 738,000 $1,000 $ $ - $ - $ 549,000 $ - $ 990.000 $1.251,000 $ 249,000 $ 107.000 $ - $4.067.000 $ 7,000 $ $ 34,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 20.000 $ - $ - $ 2S.000 $ - $ - $ - $ 87,000 District 6 -M-ege-ster Day 30,000 $ - $ - $ 192,000 $ - $ - $ - $51,000 $6,000 $ 2.000 $ 10S,000 $ 1,000 $ 122,000 $ 100.000 $ 217,000 $ $ - $ 826,000 District 7 7oos $ 224,000 $ - $ - $ 972.000 $ - $ - $ - $14.000 $3,000 $ - $ 190,000 $ 7,300 $ 811,000 $ 060.000 $ 531,000 $ 0.001) $ - $3,626.000 Bandon 46.000 - 66,000 - 4.000 - - 6,000 . 1,000 - - 123,000 Port Orford 114,000 - 68.000 - 33,000 - 182.000 - 38,000 - - 435,000 Gold Beach 91,000 - 19,000 4,000 - - - 1,000 - 105.000 Brookings 242,000 - 110.000 102,000 - 253.000 24,000 106,000 - 637,000 Total $ 707,000 $ - $ - $1,235,000 $ - $ - $ - $14,ooo $3,000 $ $ 341.000 $ 7.000 1,246,000 $ 090,000 $ 677,oOO $ 8,000 - $ 5,120.000 Dlsl@r,91119 $ 7or.- 221,000 $7S,000 $13,000 $ 10.000 $ - $ 4,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 324,000 (Zones 6-0-9) GRAND TOTAL $2.099,000 $203.000 $70,000 $3,237,000 $3,000 $41,000 $2 Goo $88 000 @9,orjo $46,000 $2.066,000 $19.000 $2t670,000 $9,136,000?/$2.16fi,000 $ 345,000 $4.000 $24 001M .1/ Includes crayfish $4,000. 2/ Includes other tuna totalling $1,297,000. FISH CDMMISSIOR OF OREGON April 18, 1973 ML LAM! I-M Cj@*, FEW 70r Fa Mj 7 Ckimmerclal Food fish Landings In Pounds Round Weight by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1973 Stool Sock Sturgeon Striped Ground Chinook head eye Coho Chums White Green Shad. Bass Smelt Eln!Ls Crabs CIONS Shrimp T. n ly fish Oysters MIsc.3J Total District I Mr-.W-Ver 3.603,414 161.452 32 1,102,216 10,389 165,094 14,197 27,210 .46,915 121,174 - - 5.252.893 (Zones 1-2-7) Astoria 87.311 276 217,448 - 424 1,436 - 4,829 992.973 16.252 2.777.298 19.102.041 9.450,108 - - 32,650.398 Tillamook 46,509 - 220,383 - - - 7 293.092 12.052 2,254.430 94.049 99,806 126,392 2.146 3.148.866 Pacific City 38,290 127 366,543 - - - 9 - - 6,681 17.688 - 152 429.490 Notarts Bay - - - 1,151 1.231 - 319 - .426 3.127 138Y 125 1,602 - 319 - - 94 - 2 150 tW 3,775,649 161,857 32 I'Vos, 46 15.633 27,210 4b.911 4.836 1,287,225 29,864 5,031.728 19.202.771 9.689.189 126.392 2524 41.486*924 District 2 Mr.-IrWe r 1.308.472 122,565 6.557 263,866 1,399 83,521 198 140.078 6,365 - - - - - - 9,878 1,944.899 (Zones 3-4-51 - District 4 Siletz 1,928 1,928 Waidport - - - 1:413 - - - - 6,658 8.271 Depoe Bay 132,962 - 381,355 17 46 968 949 76,011 37,364 - 1,307 676,933 NogV 9552,45953 lo;;.195 - 6.148 - I In 321. 15,756,961 2 '71 '75.3131 - :,.,5O0,5q42 2 7243 3,531,150 5e,776 - ,3 . 2 2:Hj, tcou - 171 - .7r 3,568.514 58,776 10.093 16,444.093 District 5 Florence 56,649 - 119,306 - - - 26,324 1,094 - 16 44,492 - - 39,481 2,1176 - ----- - - 290,238 ;htcrWlc,., 6 T_ - - .r Bay 248,996 - 515,469 - - 145 206,654 29,178 4,306 2,661 131,139 786 1,131,376 217,999 2,565,644 5,054,553 District 7 Goos 1,580.830 - 1.432,607 - - 54 30,986 0,799- 610 1.923 245,662 2j653 8,825,822 2,118.794 4,G41,513 12.904 18.303.365 Bandon 212.040 - 238,602 - 6,612 446 - 2,008 10,078 - - 25,033 22,641 - 517,660 Port Orford 243,223 - 180,560 930 77,570 - 1,952.036 - 326,393 - 2,780,762 Gold Beach 102,605 - 100,052 48 1,281 - - 2.703 9.353 - 216,072 Brookinqs 27;, 47215 253 54 31.190 9,245 4, 1 616 '76 462 :8071.640 74 70 1,717,987 3. 713 I'D 53,548 2.221:9 25.571:429 50 T Z.3 U14 .2 500 6,117.917 12 MAL 61 1. 5 91T. 53 2J55 1 9;4 District 9 Col. RIv* 72 - 69 12,683 - 944,385 (Zones 6-8-9) M,133 176,907 2,355 31,666 - 18.5 GRAND TOTAL 9,595.654 461,329 10,944 7,305,423 11,785 2611,582 22,247 450.747 39,517 62,244 I4.M3 2.349,645 34,452 24,517.194 24.425,485 21,944,140 198.072 22,695 91,736,521 ...................................................................... . .............................. . .......................................................................................... lnc:.Udos Albacore Tuns 16,338,027 and other species of Tuns 8,086,650 Inc des Send Shrimp 12,753, Crawfish 9,942 FISH OOMMISSION OF OREGON May 1974 Am L.- J Estimated Value at Fisherman's Level of Comerclal Food Fish Landings by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1973 Steel Sock Sturgeon Striped Ground Chinook head eye rAft Chums White Green Shad Bass Smelt Pinks Crabs Class Shrimp hmv tl*h Oysters Misc.?/ Total District I 15TI. River $3,491,000 S81,000 5 - S 750,000 $5.000 S41,000 $1,000 S 7,000 S $12,000 1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5.000 S - S 4.393,000 tzon*s 1-2-71 Astoria 66,000 - 138.000 - - - - - 2,000 566,000 12,000 611.000 6.490,000 1,134,000 - 9,019,000 Tillamook 39.000 - 145.000 - - - - 167.000 3,000 496.000 39,000 12.000 242,000 2,000 1,145.000 Pacific City 34,000 250,000 - - - - - - - 3.OW 2.000 - - 289.000 Metarts Bay - - - - - - 1.000 - - 1,000 Nona am -av - - 1,000 - - - - - - - 0 h 1 0 000 $111.000 S - $1,284.000 $5.000 $41.000 $1.000 S 7.DOO S - $12.000 $2.0oa S 734.000 $15,000 111,107,000 $6.532,000 $1.153,000 S242.000 S 2. - TOTAL J3,630, ;00 S14.8411:00000 District-2 Col. River 11.268,000 $61,000 $4,000 S 179.000 $1.000 $21.000 S - $49,000 - S 2.000 S S S S 3.GOO S 1,508.000 (Zones 3-4-5) 01 trict 4 Siletz $ S S S 1 11000 $ 1.000 Waldport 1,000 - - - 5,000 6iOD0 Depoe Bay 116,000 - 273.000 27,000 - 32.000 4,000 - 1,000 453.000 He o S ------- T- 0 5802 000 001) E 1 10 10 1 '4:= 7:= 000 S - '87:0 Et 116 000 TOTAL S 972s $1.514 215 00 3144430solo $11o'.039mO'000 9 :28 $1 557 S 7,;0 1:4 coo District I Florence S 4a.000 & - S - 3 85,000 5 - S 4,000 S S 25,000 S S t6,OOO S 3 S 17a.000 District 6 Winchester S 215,000 S - S - S 354.000 S - $27,000 16,0W 3 1.000 $1,000 S 75.000 $ S 249,000 S go.ooo s 3oa.ooo s S 1,326.000 Bay District 7 Coo$ $1.402,000 S - S - S '928.000 S - S S 4.000 12.000 S - $1,000 S 140,000 31.000 $1,942.000 S 679,000 S 465,000 S 17.000 S - 5,S01,000 B.andon 187,000 - - 152,000 - 1,000 - - 1,000 6,000 - - J0,000 3,000 - - 360,000 p rt Orford 217,000 - - 114.000 - - - - - 44.000 - 429,000 - .39.000 - 643,000 Gold Beach 62,000 - - 63.000 : - - - - 1,000 - - 1.000 1,000 - 148,000 Brook gs 1.000-2 10 3' 206 1. 095,000 000 0 000 S 5;000 $2.000 4 00 1 0 00 237:0 In 252:0 TOTAL $2.149 00 S $1,25617oOGO S 1,000 114:0000 S 2901:0000 S 1.;00 $2.60. 00 S 92.*'00'0 S 734s= S 17.;00 S S a,247.000 District 9 Col. River S 680,000 semoo $1,000 S 22.000 S - S 5.000 S - S 4,000 S $ 800,000 (Zones 6-8-91 GRAND TOTAL Sa,959.OOD $230,000115,000 $4.955.000 $6.000 1167.000 111.000 $96.000 SO-000 $16.000 $7.000 $1,340,000 $16.000 $5,394.000 $8.698,000 $2.623.000 $416,000 $12.000 s32,a49,000 .............................................................................................................. ................................................................................... Includes Albacore Tuns $6.779.000 other species of tuns 111.919.000 2-1 Includes Send Shrimp $9,000, Crayfish $3.000. FISH C"ISSION OF OREWN May '1, 1974 Momercial Food fish Landings In Pounds Found Weight by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar year 1974 .steel- Sock- Sturpon strip" Ground- Chinook -!Load eye -Qft jam White Groan J%d JIM jeta Pinks Crabs Clam Shripst Tuns 11 fish Ovate Misc. 2/ Total 1,406,705 36,656 1.558,"2 3,051 193,811 02,409 -5,628 222.067 - 200.508 16.081 3,726. 708 Izows 1-2-11 A torls 103.430 23 - 300. "q 484 - 5 1.390.220 6.553 6.700,631 26.723,583 9,907.149 - 45.230.637 TS1 I I amook 54.637 - - 400.083 - - 276,460 9.309 2.352.628 62.206 116,829 163,968 4.249 3,455.369 Pacific City 31."1 24 - 757.2" a 289 18.624 - 170 816.327 Rotarts Bay - - 2,049 488. 482 3,019 Nehalm On 129 - 122 - 223 TOTAL 1.676.092 36.703 25.901.079 10.243.110 164.456 - 3.074.1153 3.051 193.F, . 222,867 5 1,614,680 2D.791 9.W1.459 [email protected] 53,233s263 District 2 1 -EXITV-sr 399,31111 19,824 - 164.286 221 59,044 358 31,385 - 195,732 23 - 070.259 (Zones 3,-@Sl District 4 SlIttz 1,731 1. 73f Maidport 41 112 2.740 7,251 10.150 Dopoe Bay 74.834. 612.265 2.392 25.990 - 37,203 605 IS3.449 He ort 1121 1921 2-*Ill 2 2 587 209 55 144 ,01 qg jM-0, 344,216 a I 43, 7, 16038 546 HO 386 -2 430 3 .386.054. Z 310.246 003 llog 398 1 ...4.4 Z '1 .144 003 mw 15,705 84,404 - 14,279. 197 - - 17.057 - 127,389 2.006 - 261,015 "Mr Say 46,642 733.3-76 too ldf,549 26,610 2,515 32 257,797 194 769,3" 326,781 3,431,589 - 5,756,854 District I @s 1,127,186 - - 2,148,789 257 32,543 6,344 83 7 742,518 3,510 4,834,286 3,119,027 3,649.716 13,926 13 15,720,215 Bandon 241.950 - - 286.963 40 53 23,577 56.454 57'.128 - 668.065 Port Orford 209.684 - - 270.780 4:9510 494.050 27,527 224.3?0 - - 1,324.220 Cold 34.816 - 123.073 - 47.413 11.113 7.356 - 223.811 160 6 21 372 504 19 r,kI. 6' 121 TOTAL 11JI. 5.099.02 1. 24 32 5.858 oil 93 21: 1 0362 2q a 11.314 S.M I 1 1 4T District 9 475 "'Sol 21 17.992 10.340 19,1" - 603.507 '01 - III vsf,,,, -IM r (Zones 6 Cols Ft. jt2831 @225 129, 1; 21 1.741.270 3,272 2714203 82 @76 1 - 418,599 200' 131 16.081 5.200.474 - - S. 14.956 20.311.7 M 0,313,411 35. 131 6,074 ;.VZ6 zj.ff7 233F2ze 14:641 90,637,536 85,771 264,505 35,151 424,627 1 3,9 17' .625 24,956 ZO.31).7'"6033,039,926 22,0971723 233,520 0 722 M538,310 (VAND TOIAt _4 % Ip 1.11F1.14 41 3,272 271.201 r .!!4., I/ Includes 7.61 .01 re. I/ Includes 12.094 crayfish. 4.000 **1. and 14.628 sand shrimp. March 20, 1975 DEPAITI'MENT OF FISI-I AND WILDLIFE July 3, 1975 "7 t-AM, ram Etitimated Vilue dt lishosvionts Loyal ol Gmwrcia# I'OW Fish Landimls In Thrmsands of Dollars by Uate Of Oreqna Adminkirat1we District for Calendar Year 1974 $test- Stu$ U&MI Sif 11A.1 G@jnd- Chinook . beed Oil- Ch- White Green Shad Rjss it Crabs Clams Slirimp ...Y fish Oysters Uisc.V Total District 0 Col.River 'Zones 1-2-I)SI.055 SiA % 79a s2 $46 $4 S - 11 S22 11 - %- 11 a S - 5 9 S 1.960 Astoria 143 197 2973 7 1.227 9.982 1.475 - 14,004 TI, I&mook 50 267 10 2 433 28 20 406 2 1,416 Pacl tic C Ity 30 495 - - - 3 2 - $30 Notarts Say - - - - - - - - I . : I TOTAL $1.278 $11 $1.7-57 $2 $40 114 1 SF2---Fl -.181 --- 1 9 $1,660 $10.013 91.505 $407 511 Wl-.913 District 2 Col.River (Zones 3-4-S)t 298 S7 6 Be S_ 11is S_ 113 S $20 S I - 2 431- District 4 WaIdport 2 S- 11 - S - S - 5 - 5 4 S 6 Depoe Bay 69 395 1 - - If go - - 4116 "offiL :?6 17714 913 961 409 156 4 95 $:::gl S: S 13 92 11- 11- 5 1 972 S 419 $156 6 5SIR District 5 Florence Is S- S 59 S_ 11- S_ .113 11 13 S- S - $ 52 S - S 142 District 0 Winchester 113 41 11- S 497 1- S_ S_ $29 1;a S S 203 S- S 190 S 134 S 489 11- S - g; 1,@ql District 7 Coos $1,036 - 1111"s .11- 11- S_ S6 93 S S 550 S1 $1,255 S 1.279 S 516 S19 S - 66,130 Bandon 225 193 - - - 2 36 23 7 Also Port Orford 192 103 - 87 3 Its 33 639 6 each 33 - 82 - - 13 1 - 134 firtokel ngs 152 - :93 2 140 - 190 82 264 - 111 16 S3 1 2 S 785 S3 $1.591 S 1.400 S 821 rg-- TOTAL $1,638 5- $2, 5519z District 9 Col.River (Zones 6-0-9)$ 309 11is 11 5 11- S 5 S_ S2 11- S - 5 - S- S - S - S- S - S 339 Total Col.R. $1,662 S39 s 891 $2 SW $4 S5 S- $42 S - S- S - S, - S * a S- 1 9 S2,730 Total Ocea 12 1,12 If 142 2 S4m420 $12,511 rl 126 1 1136* '31.566 4*0 - 1 5 1 1 1431 1 Il! 4 6 lu IL 242 ----------- GRANO TOTJ? 4 139 Up416 1; 122oli: 1:1 Z 4 j ................................................. includes $2.230 Other Tuns. $10.341 Albacore Includes $9 Crayfish. $6 Sand Shrimp DEPARTMENT OF FISH N,11) WILDLIFE July 1975 PWR LAW, 11@_, IM Low Am ,-Wm Commercial food Fish Landings In Pounds Round Weight by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1975 Steel- Sock- Sturgeon Striped Ground- Chinook head eye Coho Ch- XqM Green Shad [lass 'Smoot Pinks CEabs Clams Shrimp T-4 ji fish Oysters Hisc. Total !!Istrict I Col. River 2.7112,263 925.789 1.694 205.500 25,942 4.022 2.421 52 - - - 73,700 - 26.559 4.040.142 (Zones 1-2-71 Astoria 122,139 276.785 - 697 885 - - 456 1.090.353 40,656 5.075.526 16,599.703 9,572.829 - 38 32.580,049 Tillamook 42.203 343.718 - - - - 316.914 4,637 3,734,305- 78,840 60,784 142.144 7.559 4.731.184 Pacific City 39,624 440,434 - - 7,694 21,752 - 285 517.789 Notarts Bay - - - - - 72 299 371 fiend I am Bay - - - - - - - - TUAF 2 . 48-C 2 ii_ 1.994.726 1,894 206.197 26.827 4,022 - 2,421 508 1,407.247 45,293 8,809.915 16,686,237 9,529.065 142,216 34,740 41.877.535 District 2 Col. River 302,668 186.811 2.731 85.924 652 197.055 - 200 - - - - 226 - 3.136 779.405 _!Zonas 3-4-51 District 4 Sliatz - - - 11673 - - - - 1:673 waldport ;S3 603 - 347 101 - 9.670 " 854 Lopoe Day 46,577 .266.247 204 565 - - 55.100 15.235 - 1.470 387,398 -PIQ-1!2rt 342,126 1.010.606 265 :868 - 3,997,369 M, 312 - 13,705,167 4 700 139 525,516 5,017,210 2,746,056 TOTAL 388 836 1,279.456 265 4 - 700 343 527,754 347 S.017,210 2.803,156 4,012,705 58,312 11.140 14.105,092 District 5 -Dorence 1).140 55,104 14,473 133 - 41 12,643 - - 36,733 1,450 - - 191,725 District 6 -tinchastal Day. 115, Wh 4Q2,754 70 160,130 12,617 1,096 22 212,587 463 1,553,798 293,754 2,032,624 - 4,585,723 District I C,oo s 1,047,535 I,im,lsi - - - 512 40,564 4,954 - 13 774,489 22.632 7,431.766 3.560,942 4,196,999 12.608 65 18.276.450 handon 2S2.952 158,290 - - - 25,509 315 - - 710 38 304,182 52.637 39.978 - - 8J4,61J florl Orford 452.381 166,204 - - - - - - - 512,408 - 826,067 8.76D 154.519 - 147 2.120.06 Gold Heach 73.084 114,354 - - - 15 - - 16,197 338 5,850 - - 209,838 383 275.100 - - 45 4,;30 99 579,099 - 324,435 141,852 1,050,323 - - 2,759,007 TOTAL 2.109.176 - 1.897,099 - - 557 66,093 5.269 4.730 127 1.866,706 22.1116 8,902.647 1.764,529 5,447,669 12,608 212 24.180,392 District 9 Col. River 418.990 26.529 7 9,590 - 8.898 - f4,965 - - - - - - - - - - 530.999 Uonus 6-6-9-) Tolal W . R. 3.563,921 26,529 7 1,022,190 4,625 300,322 26,594 216,062 - 2,621 52 - - - - 73,926 - 29.697 5,366,546 ToWl ocean 2.971,034 - 4.701.350 - 962 6.380 240.696 18,019 6,526 989 4,026,937 68,973 24,083,566 23,584,409 20,949.813 213.136 19.533 80.692,325 GIVaD TOTAL 6,514,955 _ 6 529 7 5 623 540 4 6- Ij includes 6,418.02 other June. 17.165.537 albacore 2 includes 26,559 crayfish, 3.130 set and 19.533 send shrimp -ARE -11@0 -MM 2" 'MM r-MM -J= FE", Estimated Value in Thousands of Dollars at Fishermen's Level of Commercial Food Fish Landings by State of Oregon Administrative District for CaleKdar Year 1976 Steel- Sock- Sturgeon Striped Ground- Chinook head eye Coho Chun White Green Shad Bass Smelt Pinks Crabs Clams Shrimp Tunay fish Oysters Hisc.?J Total District I Col. Rivii (Zones 1-2-7) $2,365 861 $1 $62 $1 1 $- $16 S 3.314 Astoria 95 $ - $ 184 - - 872 34 682 $5.142 1.242 - 8.251 Tillamook 31 - 231 - 254 1 502 27 7 250 4 1.313 Pacific City 37 - 301 - - 3 3 - - 344 Iletarts Bay - - Rehalem Day - - - - $1,126 $35 $1,18 TOTAL $2.5;4 $ - S - st.577 $1 $62 $1 4 $6.172 $1,259 $250 T2NOT-T". 21- District 2 Col-.--RTv-er (Zones 3-4-5) S 257 S - S - 1 174 12 %2fi $28 I- I- I- I 487 District 4 $ Waldport - S 6 Depoe Bay 43 9 3 - 246 Hew 68704 42; 674 927 47 12 3,72107 sort 854 421 $ 6 So $1 0 4.0 TOTAL 358 $ 614 946 6 20 S District 5 F15re S 67 S - 1 36 11- I I- 1 3 I- I in I S 12 S I - I - S 128 6 District Wfnchgter B. S IOz I - 2 266 S- 130 14 11- I- I t7n t S 182 S 99 1 288 2 - I - $ 1,141 District I Coos $ 934 3 $ - S 784 8 $2 620 $ 5 S 999 S1.2021 602 S17 $ - S S.173 Bandon 217 - 106 6 1 - 41 is 5 - - 394 Port Orford 425 110 - 410 - III 3 19 - 1.078 Gold Beach 66 75 - - 2 144 Brook ngs 4: 11 1 221 TOT' L $1.38 $14 $2 S1.441: S17 S - ---- A 9 $ S1.107 $1.2471 S ;;O? $ 01T District 9 Col. River (Zones 6-6-9) 1 354 S 21 1 - I a t- S- 1 2 11- I 388 Total Col. R. S2.976 S 21 S - 11.041 ti CQ1 $1 131 I- S- - t t 7 $Ifi S 4,189 Total Ocean %2.68o I - I - 13,128 I- I - 11- 147 '16 I- I- tl@221 $40 13,237 17,500 12,90 SIR7 tin S?3.ZZL- GRAND TOTAL S5,656 S 21 L_-__SA.I7I SI 01 11 178 16 I- SI-221 140 13,237 17Ann 0AM VIRI M $27,412 I/ Includes $5.794 received for albacore. $1.706 received for other tuna species. Includes $16 for crayfish, $9 for sand shrimp. $1 for other miscellaneous species. DEPARTME T OF FISH AND WILDLIFE N July 1978 I'@. Ak= HM rim 171PE -W FARM L Commercial Food Fish Landings In Pounds Round Waight by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1976 Steel- Sock- Sturgeon Ground- Chinookl/ head eye Lh-" Chums White Gr.. Shad Smelt Pinks I/ Crabs Clams Shrimp lu--" fish Oyster M! sc.v Total District I Col. River (Z ... S 1-2-7) 1,783,074 - 13 76o,817 8,978 310,497 35,149 7,038 1,914 - - - - 55,162 - 13.545 2.994.656 Astoria 308,484 - - 868.830 - 6.386 2.911 - - 7 1.353 092 117.476 5.700.549 16,166,021 12.653,359 - 551 )7,164,197 Tillamook 78,589 - - 744.206 - - - 8 - - 375:216 875 3,794.571 7.756 92.872 iiil,M 13.922 5.226,183 Pacific City 34.766 - - 911,771 - - - 8 - 62 337 - - - 16,254 - 879 964.077 110tarts Say - - 368 363 Nehalem Bay 60 - 2,035 - 625 244 - 248 3.212 TOTAL 2,209,971 13 3.287.659 8,978 316,88i 38.060 - 7,054 1,914 69 1,728.645 118.351 9,495.120 16,174.402 12.817,891 118,168 29,513 46.352.693 District 2 Col. River (Zones 3-4-5) 284,00.9 - 220,358 I.IJ3 144,777 76 161.437 17,588 70 - - 829.4hS District 4 Siletz - - 24 24 Waldport 973 48o - 9.775 1?.641 Depoe Day 37,666 565,803 267 11.551 - 764 616,051 tic-gort 4:474171. 2 2:3147 :@50167 1010 516 1 14144 1.,1,107,151 7:7799:329 1:1,8j6 5,146:880 39 416 49.269 17.003-265 TOTAL g 4 1, 4i. 7 77 329 @4 5. 3 5 33Y_ __j__ 'T_ I o 1:531 1'93'9 1 .158 431 j9:416 1 1 5 2 2 District 5 Florence 29,916 113,329 - - - 11,875 - h7.577 - - 481 4,698- - 208,076, District 6 Winchester B. 80,792' 637,128 - - - 136,553 - 98 319,996 - 575,450 76,097 1,203,942 - 45,310 3.075.366 District 7 Coos 61o,iqfi 3.393.572 - - 273 9.089 259 3.741 1,427,844 87,192 6,214.827 512,827 6.315,464 8.544 5.957 18.589.7E5 Bandon 153.660 399.835 - - - 6,485 - 1,958 15.611 - 13.420 18,481 31.396 - - 640,646 Port Orford 170,757 229.525 - - - - - 63 1.903,188 22 758 239 9.524 111.114 - 2.951 3X5.363 G _h 119.079 163.418 - - 216 - S - - 3,601 10.379 - - 296.c3a O'd "La' Brookings 2 0' 1'. 280 - 44 - 3 1:811,9311 0" 4,471 __25F 5;767-4 8,544 19.3 2,500 TOTAL 254.7 635 273 15.B3V 22 "1 8" 1:2 ':M - 7 .57':077 - "'M J .919 726 87.214 7.9.9 108 193. 97 7 70 7 Distrl@, 9 Col. 4", ar (Zones 6-3-9) 538,106 33,548 386 12.196 - 22.055 - 79,686 - - - - - - - - - 685,977 Total Col. ft. 2,610,189 33,548 399 99) 371 10,111 477,329 35,225 248,j6i 19,502 - - 418 - 55,232 - 13,545 4,510.081 Total ocean 2,209,815 - -10,420:337 - 6,566 5,720 164,474 259 6,378 8,134,065 205,627 25,456,007 17,349,410 26,874,744 166,128 129.4al 91.115.90 GRAND TOTAL 4.820.004 33,548 399 11.413,708 10,111 483,895 40.945 412,635 -19,761 6078 8.134.06S 2o6.045 25.456,007 17,349.410 26.929.976 166.128 143.026 95,626,041 I/ Chinook. coho and pink salmon are landed at acean ports In dressed form. Conversion to pounds L4@ijnd weight was made by multiplying dressed weight by a factor of 1.15. 11 Includes 5,933,617 pounds albacore. 11,415,793 pounds of other tuna species. 'P Oyster harvest is rpported in gallons and converted to pounds by multiplying by a factor of'8.0. "Jil fliscellancous includes landings of crayfish. sand shrimp. herring. mackerel, eel, octopus, anchovies. and surf parch. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE July 1978 Estimated Value in Thousands of Dollars at Fishermen's Level of Commercial Food Fish Landings by State of Oregon Administrative District for Calendar Year 1976 Steel- Sturgeon Ground- Chinook head Sockeye Coho Chums White Green Shad Smelt, Pinks Crabs C1 ams Shrimp Tunay fish Oysters Mlsc.Y Total District I Col. River (Zones 1-2-7) $2.621 913 $7 $145 $4 $ 1 $- $- 7 $ - $ 7 $ 3,605 Astoria 43S 940 - 3 - - 880 105 1,140 5.093 1.910 - - IO.SO6 Tillamook 117 819 - - - - 244 - 759 4 14 250 7 2.214 Pacific City 53 1,001 - 1,054 fletarts Day - He say - 2 - $1.899 $5.097 $1,931 1250 $14 $17.381 TOT $3.126 3,675 $7 $148 $4 $ 1 $1.124 SIOS District 2 Col. River (Zones 3-4-6) 391 264 $1 62 $37 $1 756 District 4 Sffe-tz - - Waldport 7 Depoe Bay 59 - - 617 - - 2 - - 678 Newport 605 - - 21294 - 726 - 1.566 199 906 93 1 6,379 TOTAL 664 $ - $ 2,911 727 - $1.656 $ 199 908 $93 $ 6 $ 7.064 District 5 TI-orence 47, S $ 125 3 31 $ - 1 $ - $ - $ 207 District 6 Uinchester 0.$ 125 S 703 $- $29 208 S. 115 37 201 $' - 1 $ -7 District 7 fo-os $ 946 $ 3,741 $- $ 2 $4 928 S 17 41.242J 246 $1.030 $12 1 $ 8,710 Bandon 244 442 - 1 2 10 - .. i 9 . 4 - - is Port Orford 272 250 - - 1.237 - 152 6 '16 1 1.933 Gold Beach 191 179 - - 2 1 373 316 2,087 Brookings 345 - .1,023.. 124 67 210 2 TOTAL $1.969 $ 4,957 $ s. 3 $6 $3,198 17 $1.521 $ 329 $1.261 $12 $ 4 $13,277 District 9 Col. River - (Zones 6-8-9) $ 355. $?B S 10 $ to $- $17 $- $ - $ - $ - S 420 Total Col. R. $3.2it $28 $ 11187 $8 $217 $4 $55 $1 $- $ - $ -$ - 7 $ - j'7 $ 4,781 Total Ocean $3.410 $ - $11.458 $- 3 $35 $- $6 $5.288 $122 $5,091 $5.661 $4,295 $355 $18 $35,742 GRAND TOTAL $6.677 $28 $- $12,646 $8 $220 $4 $90 , $1 $6 $5,288 $122 $5,091 [email protected] $4.302 $355 S2S $40,523 Inc ludes $2.848 received for albacore. $2.813 received for other tuns species. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Includes I? for crayfish, 112 for sand shrimp. 13 for octopus and lesser amounts ter the other species. JulY 1978 APPENDIX B LCDC GOAL 19, OCEAN RESOURCES OCEAN RESOURCES. GOAL OVERALL STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS To conserve the long-term values, benefits (1) State and federal agencies with and natural resources of the nearshore. planning, permit, or review ocean and the continental shelf. authorities affected by the Ocean Resources Goal shall review their All local, state, and federal plans, procedures and standards to assure policies,projects, and activities which that the objectives and re- affect the territorial sea shall be quirements of the goal are fully developed, managed and conducted to addressed. The following authorities maintain, and where appropriate, enhance are of special concern: and restore, the long-term benefits derived from the nearshore oceanic resources of Division of State'Lands Oregon. Since renewable ocean resources Fill and Removal Law OR S 541.605 and uses, such as food production, water --541.665 quality, - navigation, recreation, and Mineral Resources OR S 273.775 aesthetic enjoyment, will provide greater --273.780 long-term benefits than will non- Submersible and ORS 274.005 renewable resources, such plans and Submerged lands --274.940 activities shall. give clear priority to the Kelp Law ORS 174.885-.274.895 proper management and protection of renewable resources. Department of Economic Development Ports Planning OR S 777.835 INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS Department of Geology and Mineral As local governments and state and Industries federal agencies implement plans or carry. Mineral Extraction OR S 520.005 out actions, projects, or activities related Oil and Gas Drilling --520.095 to or affecting ocean resources, they shall develop inventory information necessary Department of Energy to understand the impacts and relationship Regulation of thermal OR S 469.300 of the proposed activity to continental, power and nuclear installation --469.570 shelf and nearshore ocean resources. As specific actions are proposed, inventory Department of Environmental Quality information shall be gathered by the unit Water Quality Permits OR S 468.700 of -government considering the action with --468.775 ; ssistance from those agencies and Oil spillage OR S 468.780 overnments which use or manage the. Regulation --469.815 resources. The inventory shall be suf- ficient to -describe the long-term impacts Department of Fish and Wildlife of-the. proposed. action on resources and Fisheries regulation ORS Chapter uses of the. continental shelf and nearshore 506 ocean. (2) Each state and federal agency, 19 special district, city and county (c) Navigation and Ports within the limits of its jurisdiction and as necessary to: (i) Determine for the state as a whole, the navigation (i) determine the impact of needs for the coast of proposed projects or ac- Oregon. Such needs will tions; and ref lect, i n part, the (ii) for the sound conservation capability of each port to of ocean resources; shall: handle differing types of ship traffic, consistent (a) Fishery Resources with other , statewide planning goals. (i) Develop scientific in- (ii) Maintain appropriate formation. on the stocks navigation lanes and and life histories of facilities free from in. commercially, . recreat- terference by other uses to ionally, and ecologically provide safe trans- important species of fish, portation along and to the shellfish, marine mam- Oregon Coast. mals and other marine fauna. (d) Aesthetic Use (1i) Designate and enforce fishing regulations to maintain the optimum Maintain the aesthetic , en- sustainable yield (OSY) joyment and experiences while protecting the provided by ocean resources. the natural marine eco- system. (e) Recreation (iii) Develop and encourage improved fishing practices Identify, maintain and enhance and equipment to achieve the diversity,; quality, and the OSY while protecting quantity of recreational op- the natural marine eco- portunities on and over -the system. Oregon continental shelf, as consistent with the Beaches and scientific un- (iv) Develop derstanding of the effects Dunes Goal* and Estuarine of man's activities, in- Resources Goal. cluding navigation, min- eral extraction, recre- (f) Waste Discharge and Mineral ation, and waste dis- Extraction charge, on the marine Provide that exUaction of ecosystem. materials from or discharge of (b) Biological Habitat waste products into or affecting the Oregon territorial sea do not substantially interfere with (I) identify and protect areas or detract from the use of the of important biological continental shelf for fishing, habitat, including kelp and navigation, - recreation, or other algae beds, seagrass aesthetic purposes, or from the beds, rock reef areas and long-term protection of areas of important fish, renewable resources. shellfish and invertebrate concentration. (g) Dredged Material Disposal GO Identify and protect im- portant feeding areas; Provide for suitable sites and spawning areas; nur- practices for the open' sea series; migration routes; discharge of dredged ma- and other biologically terials, which do not sub- important areas or marine stantially interfere with or mammals marine birds, detract from the use of the and coWmercially and continental shelf for fishing, recreationally important navigation, or recreation, or fish and shellfish. from the long-term protection 01i) Determine and protect the of renewable resources. integrity of the marine ecosystem including its (h) Archaeological Sites natural ;iological pro- ductivity and diversity. Identify and protect, whenever possible, significant un- derwater archaeological sites of the continental shelf. III Contingency Plans 2. Geology; Before issuing permits for 3. Biological features, Including fish and development on the Oregon con- shellfish stocks; . other biologically tinental shelf, slate and federal Important species; important habitat agencies, in coordination with the areas including sea grass and algae permitee, shall establish ' con- beds; and other elements important to tingency plans and emergency maintaining the biological resource procedures to be followed in the such as plankton and benthos; event that the operation results in conditions which- threaten to 4. Mineral deposits, including sand and damage the environment. gravel and hydrocarbon resources; and GUIDELINES 5. Present and projected uses, use pat- A. Implementation terns, and values associated with the ocean resource, including commercial fishing, port and navigation uses, The Ocean Resources Goal does not in- recreational activities, and waste clude any specific plan requirements. It discharges. primarily sets implementation re- quirements- giving priority to certain C. Research uses and requiring that actions affecting Ocean Resources must be preceded by an Resource agencies and research inventory and based on sound information. organizations should continue to develop These requirements address all units of complete and comprehensive information government. Examples of plans, actions on ocean resources to promote their or programs of local government. which proper management and protection.' mightaffectthe identified ocean resources 0. Fish Harvest include construction and expansion of port and navigation facilities, recreation use, State and federal agencies should en- and disposal of chemical, thermal, sewage or dredged materialwastes. Other kinds of courage, where' appropriate and I' n actions in ocean resource and continenta-I keeping with sound practices for con- shelf areas are primarily under the servation of ocean resources, the ex- regulatory authority of state and federal ploitation of unutilized and underutilized agencies; these activities must be closely fish species. coordinated with local government to avoid or minimize impact on adjacent and E. Permits affected upland areas. Permits for development on the Oregon continental shelf should: B. Inventory 1. Designate areas within the proposed The goal does not intend that local development where activities such as government and state and federal agen- exploration and extraction, will be cies develop complete Inventories of ocean prohibited; resources. Rather, It requires that actions 2. Specify methods and equipment to be affecting the nearshore ocean and con- used and standards to be met; tinental shelf areas be based upon a sound understanding of the resources and 3. Reculre the developer ' to finance potential impacts. Therefore, the In- monitoring and ' Inspection of the ventory should Identify the affected ocean development by the appropriate state area and describe. the. extent and age .ncy; significance of: 1. Hydrographic conditions and processes, 4. Require that pollution abatement utilize including characteristics of ocean the best avallabf e* technology when waves, current, tidal, water quality, needed. to prdtect.coastal resources; and bottom; 5. Require the developer to be liable for individual or public damage caused by the development and to post adequate bonding.or other evidence of financial responsibility to cover damages; 6. Specify the extent of'restoration that must be accomplished, where ap- propriate, when the development is finished; 7. Specify that the state or federal government may revoke or modify a permit to prevent or halt damage to the environment and that such revocation or modification will recognize vested rights of the developer; 8. Require the developer to describe the extent . and magnitude of onshore support' and operation facilities and their social, economic and environ- mental impacts on. the Oregon coast; and 9. Be avalldble for' public review and comment before Issuance. tj APPENDIX C OREGON COASTAL ZONE FISHERY MANAGEMENT CONTACTS Name Agency Location Dave Johnson Salmon Troller Astoria Betty Fowler Oyster Grower Newport Larry-Qualman Oyster Grower Charleston Lee Hanson Oyster Hatchery Netarts Bay Bob Olson Ols on Oyster Co. Garibaldi Neal Coenen DLCD Salem Glen Carter DEQ Portland Duane Karna EPA Seattle Jack Kincheloe USF&W Portland Keith Stewart PEA Portland Floyd Shelton ODED Portland Bill Dickinson NMFS SEattle Bill Wagner'' Daily Astorian Astoria Bill Wick OSU Sea Grant Corvallis Bob Kuhn ODFW Portland Jeff Tobolski Earl A-Combs, Inc. Seattle Wilbur.Ternyik OCZMA Florence' Pat Amadeo Governor's Office Salem Barry Fisher Seawest Fisheries South Beach Chuck Moulton Eureka Fisheries, Inc. Brookings Jerry Bates Depoe Fish Co. Newport Sue Harrington Tom Lazio Fish Co. Newport Mike Sehayler New England Fish Co. Newport Doug Stafford. Charter Ocean Products Charleston Name Agency Location Tom Bourns Eureka Fisheries, Inc. Coos Bay Nick Bulg4ris Bumble Bee Astoria Roy Haug Astoria Fish@Packers Astoria Dana Besecker Barkey Packing Co.. Astoria W. Alder Ocean Sea Foods Astoria Ray.Kraatz NMFS Seattle Bob Balkovic NMFS Seattle Dr. Alverson NMFS Seattle Lorry Nakatsu NMFS Seattle Larry Six PFMC Portland John.Bishop NMFS Seattle Kay Brown ODFW Portland Rich Berry ODFW Portland Cristopher Carter ODFW- Portland Ken Hall ODFW Portland Jerry Lukas ODFW Newport Robert Schoning OSU Corvallis bbrritt Tuttle NMFS Portland Chuck Walters NMFS Portland Kim Larson Corps of Engineers Portland Bruce Cole National Fisherman Seattle Ray Lewis Alaska Packers Seattle Pete Harris New England Fish Co. Seattle -Terry Nosho *Sea Grant. Seattle Tom-Libbj Alaska Packers Hammond Ed Cummings ODFW Portland Wally Perera Marine Resources Seattle Name Agency Location John Harvill PMFC Portland Mike Fraser PMFC Portland Wayne Johnson NEFCO Newport Jack Damron Oregon Trawl Commission Astoria Bob Hudson .'All Coast Fishermen's Charleston Marketing Association Dick Nelson NMFS Seattle Bob Jacobson OSU Sea Grant Newport- Kirk Beiningen ODFW Portland Dick Carruthers Bioproducts Astoria Tom Gaumer ODFW Newport Jack Robinson ODFW Newport Clyde Hamstreet Fisheries Development Newport Mike Hosie ODFW Charleston Jim Bergeron Extension Agent"; Astoria Harry A.. Utti Port of Astoria Astoria Steve Felkins Port of Coos Bay Coos Bay Darold G,.@-Richcreek Port of Newport Newport Joseph W. SAbia Port of Brookings Brookings Basil Edmans Port Manager Garibaldo Jim Lannon OSU-MSC Newport Duncan Law OSU Seafood Lab Astoria Mr. Harris Tillamook Oyster Co. Tillamook Mrs. Jim Irwin Fishermen's Wives Brookings Association Jim Irwin Fishermen's Marketing Brookings Association Fred Wingard: - Fishermen's Marketing Brookings Association Name Agency Location Larry Carlson Oregon Trawl Commission Brookings Joe Easly Fisherm@enls Marketing Brookings Association Mike Storey Trawler Astoria Wayne Viakola Bottom Trawler Astoria Jim Copenhauer Shrimper Astoria Ray Toste Shrimper Warrenton Dave Duncan Shrimper Astoria Edlon Korpela Economic Development Astoria Commission Bill Neff Pacific Whiting Astoria RoySigardson Bell Buoy Crab Co. Seaside Harry Howard Meredith Fish Co. Brook ings Jessie Hayes Hayes Oyster Co. Hoy Bros. Garibaldi Phil and Joe's Crab Co. Garibaldi Smith's Pacific Shrimp Garibaldi Jhis is a data compilation for the Oregon Coastal Zone Fishery Management Analysis Report. It contains information on salmon aquaculture firms; port-owned commercial fishing facilities; public and private marinas with commercial fishing facilities; and information about various seafood processing firms. A. OREGON PRIVATE SALMON HATCHERIES OREGON PRIVATE SALMON HATCHERIES Department of Fish & Wildlife *ay 1979 Date of Original Species Name-Address Permit Coho Chinook Chum Site Location Keta Corporation 12/1/71 X Sand Creek, Sand Lake c/o Linton Whittles 22930 Sandlake Rd. Cloverdale 97112 Siuslaw Fisheries 3/19/72 X Sweet Creek, Siuslaw River 31766 Freedom Lane Eugene 97401 Attn: Gary Brain Alfred Hampson 10/31/73 X Sand Creek, Sand Lake 505 Pacific.Bldg., 520 SW Yamhill St. Portland 97204 Cecil D. Harris & Don Hugie 8/23/72 X Dick Creek, Tillamook Bay 3460 Bayocean Road N.W. Tillamook 97141 Ceratodus Fisheries 12/28/73 X Divide Creek, Siuslaw R. C/O John S. Marshall 6523 E. Street Springfield 97477 Oregon Aqua Foods, Inc. 11/l/72 X Wright Creek and South Beach PO Box 1218 -Send Mail to:- 3/19/74 X X Yaquina Bay Newport 97365 Oregon Aqua Foods, Inc.1 88700 flarcola Road I Anadromous, Inc. Springfield 97477 10/24/74 x X Jordan Point, Coos Bay Ernest R. Lewis, Pres'. Rt 2, Box 2013 Deer Island, OR 97054 FM 'FM [-MM FM FM FEM FEM @-IIM -11M OREGON PRIVATE SALMON HATCHERIES (cont'd) Date of Original Species Name-Address Permit, Coho Chinook Chum Site Location- Arnold L. Manseth & Jon Jaqua 3/4/76 X Vosberg Creek--Nehalem Bay. 34320 McKenzie View Dr. Eugene 97401 Calvin W. Heckard 3/4/76 X Unnamed tributary of Coos Bay Rt. 4, Box 152 Coos Bay 97420 Robert Stricklin 3./4/76 X Unnamed tributary of Skipanon R. Rt. 1, Box-538 Warrenton. 97146 Oregon Aqua Foods 7/30/76 X X X Maronade trib. of Coos Bay 88700 Marcola Road .Springfield 97477 Domsea Farms, Inc. 5/5/78 X X X Siuslaw Estuary 510 Washington Avenue Bremerton, WA 98310 Burnt Hill Salmon Ranch, IncY 4/25/78 X Burnt Hill C. P. 0. Box 40521 Portland - 97240 TOTAL 4 5 11 1/ Authorized but not issued pending completion of zoning and funding details. B. EXISTING COMMERCIAL FISHING SPACE, MOORAGE FACILITIES AND BACK-UP FACILITIES FOR SELECTED OREGON PORTS (FROM INTER- VIEWS WITH PORT MANAGERS) jw- MIR-, ow- NMI- owl--, EPIF-; ON- ME- NIE-M-, EW aw MW PORT SPACE- MOORAGE BACK UP FACILITIES Astoria East End Basin-Currently Ice Plants: CRPA cold storage at Bumble Bee. Only those selling trying to find funds for fish to Bumble Bee are allowed to use facility expansion and construction Hoist: On Pier 2. Can handle small fishing boats. The of breakwater will be cargo for larger boats, No hoists for smaller gear. caphble of accomodating Gear Storage: Pier #1 warehouse, 60,000 sq. @t. good condition. 40 vessels - 851 long Two section of warehouse on Pier #3 now used for West End Basin: Expand processing. Use determined by commissioners. for additional 300 boats Fuel Docks: One Union Oil, one Chevron 1 mile east fisher- primarily*gill hetters, mans dock/marina owned by Port of Astoria. small trollers and Fuel docks open to anyone needing fuel. draggers and pleasure Boat Repair: AMCO (Astoria Marina) on Lewis and Clark River. boats Has two marin& ways and two 2501 covered areas for repair. Also one outfitting dock for 4 or 5 601 vessels. Bumble Bee (CRPA) shipyard Bay City- Ice Plants: P.M. Seafoods - 24 tons/day, 50 ton storage Garibaldi Hoy Brothers - 50 ton storage Smith's Produce and store very little Ice is only for their own boats Hoist: Processors own their hoists. Boat yard & boat launching yds. have cranes to move boat. Also 100 ton floating dry dock. Gear Stroage: Very little space fisherman storegear off port property. Fuel Docks: Every plant has own fuel dock... Own fishermen use docks first. Boat Repair, Minimal facilities for engine repair mechanics Etc: from Port must be called down to do engine repair. Marine Hardware has good supplies and availability. PORT SPACE MOORAGE BACK UP FACILITIES Newport 6 acres land Not definite Ice Plant: Port does not operate a plant. All ice is 451 high water on % moorage .;presently supplied through the processors. South Beach sport-comm. There is a severe ice shortage in Newport. 26 acres 90% pleasure The port is considering a plan to add ice high water out of 500 facilities. boats. S. Hoist: One at Port Office, 3500 lbs lift. A fee is Beach all plea- charged for its use and it does not meet needs in sure, sport peak use periods. Gear Storage: In parking lot. 2-3 acres for storage. Use is subject to space availability. The Port of Newport does want a larger Storage used for crab pots, crab tanks, other fishing industry. gear. They are increasing the size of present Fuel Docks: Three at the Port of Newport. New one at So. moorage slips and realigning slips to Beach.. Moderate use and congestion. improve movement in and out of harbor. Fuel allotment only 96% of last year. After renovation the port will be able Boat Repair: GMC at So. Beach Catapilliar, GMC in town to accomodate boats in the 751-801 range. 3 electronic stores The port does not expect the Oregon 3 marine stores in town fishing industry to expand rapidly to 2 boat repairs upriver and I in Toledo boats of 1001 or greater. 1 private boat repair facility has been proposed for the port. Warrenton Enlarged port 343@Moorage Ice Plants: Port has no ice facilities. Ice presently for draggers, -'slips obtained from New England and Alaska Pakcers. shrimpers over 240=sports Anyone can buy ice from these processors. 551 Ist year.- 103=commercial Hoist: Presently putting in new 2500 pound hoist at Plans for gas 23 slips for new dock. Hoist is open to the public. dock and 30 vessel 701 Gear Storage: Most private all around town. Many new or in boat dock for 30 for 30-501 good condition. Capacity not known. boats 55'. 50 for 20-301 Fuel Docks: Plans for one in the future. Boat Repair: "Jim's Diesel" on the basin. Warrenton Auto-Marine Grants Union gas dock Warrenton Boat yard Bumble Bee Boat yard Availability is good but high prices prevail. NN1LJ Eqlt__@ 1101--) mmv@ NNOL" wmi_@ =u Omni M_ 3 =F-_ W-I W- NP17 UW7 NN7 MW7 71, PORT SPACE MOORAGE BACK UP FACILITIES Coos Bay 7,000 acres Of the Ice Plants: Three plants owned by processors plus one (6,000 can't developed independent company - 70 tons per day. Still be developed port about shortages of supply. Also short on cold storage as it is wet- 50% of the facilities. Plan to build storage unit at lands) 650 moorage slips industrial park. acres now are commercial Hoist: Port does not manage any docks. Docks are developed 180 new moorage leased out to processors who put up hoists. slips planned Gear Storage: 96 unit dry storage. Y2 for boat storage, ?/2 to accomodate for gear at Charleston boat basin. an additional Industrial Park will add storage as needed. 70 boats, 2 801 Fuel Docks: Port's leased out to Hillstrom Marine. Also additional 6 private marine fuel docks. Three in Charleston, one in Empire, and two in Coos Bay. Boat Repair: Three ship yards. Two under construction will Port of Coos Bay does want a larger fishing have capacity of 3001 boats. Capacity presently industry- To enlarge the fishing industry at 1101 Hillstrom Ship Builders Coos Bay the port must phase out sport expansion. All Mid-coast Marine - East side expansion is presently for commercial boats. One in Charleston Charleston boat basin is being enlarged and there are plans for an industrial park (processor) complex (284 acres) on the north spit. State agencies are not coordinated to commercial needs and port's planning proposals. Ports and processing plants need to shift plans to accomodate larger trawl boats and greater processing demand. processors need 5-10 acres for plant sites. Product must be shipped by trucking industry and larger amount of space is needed for this. New plants cost $7 million. Coos Bay needs dredging, jetty extensions. PORT SPACE MOORAGE BACK UP FACILITIES Brookings Land 30 50-50 sport Ice Plants: Eureka Fish only plant; inadequate for the fleet acres Need more cold storage. Presently there is Water = 30 Commercial "Randy's" cold storage at port and one more acres 200 on each cold storage facility in town. side waiting Hoist: Two hoists, one light duty, one heavy duty (1500 lb) to get in. Also mobile crane w/3000 pounds capacity. The fish buyers also have one apiece, one of This port does want larger fishing which is 2500 pound capacity. industry and would like to expand Gear Storage: A lease has been signed and a new 2-story 40 upriver or into the old deep water unit building is proposed to be .built this year within 5 months. port. Fuel Docks: Only one fuel dock, owned by Eureka Fish. Generally the port has good rapport Capacity of 2-3 boats (inadequate for the with state agencies; however, the fleet). port feels agencies limited ability Boat Repair: Hillstroms Ship Buildings. Eureka Fish owns of port to expand and operate. E.G. trailer that can lift 30-351 boats out of the harbor cannot be dredged to 7 221 water. Need new facilities. These present max, thus.making it a shallow port. facilities are over crowded and in pobr Port generates $31 million in income condition. all. uses combined. This money turns over 2.4x to generate $84 million for county. Mj C. MARINAS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES (FROM ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS OF OREGON) Facility lam, Location rh,:nership @!ater :!ax. Perranent Transient Percent Covered I)p,!n 110ist Surface goat "Porarie 'loorage Commercial Cry Dry apacity Acres Size Snaces S,)aces Storane Storm (T=tons) Fuel Ice Shm-ter Repair Dryeoc Siuslaw Pacific Siuslaw 'Z. Private 2.54 l5n, 90 20 ? 25 spaces ST; 7T 0 Moorage Bay Bridge Marina Siuslaw R. Private 2.45 W 110 -- 5:@ 0 0 C) Port of Siuslaw Comm. Mloor. Gasin Sluslaw R. Port 2.61 70' 65 28 1001. 2400'2 20,090.2 0 L3 0 0 0 Siuslaw Marina Siuslaw R. Private 1.03 30' 3( 10 5OZ 2T 0 "rapqua R. County 1 11) 944 ]Do 0 Salron Harbor 36.rl 43% Moorage Port 11 0 0 Coho ".arina Unpqua R. Private .73 40' 60 is 101. 25 spaces Charletton Goat Coos Bay Port 25.88 99, 558 70% 94 sp. 50 spaces 0 0 0 0 Basin flanson's Landing Coos gay Private 6.17 so, ion 75% 69 spaces 32' 0 City of Coos Bay Coos Bay Municipal Al sr), in 5 Solf Moorage f I Port Orford Ilarbor Port 1011% 40 spaces 42' 0 Port of Gold Ceach Rogue R. Part 77.00 so, 285 24 so@ 4590'2 0 Ro ue Bay lelharf Roque R. Private .23 3Q' 20 If. 5(0012 Port of Brookings Chetco R. Port 56.00 75' 1053 8 36% 0 11 0 Moorage Ili I I s troms Chetco R. Private 50 spacesi 0 0 ....... ....... . LM Lm L@ Faci I ity I-lame Location Own e rs h i p Uater Max. Permanent Transient Percent Covered Open lloist Surface Poat '!oorage Moorage Commercial Dry Dry Capacity Acres Size Spaces Spaces- Storage Storane (T=tons) Fuel Ice Shower Renair Drydoc Garibaldi Basin Tillamook Port 22.96 70' 350 50', -- -- SOT; 4T 0 0 0 0 0 Garibaldi Marina Tillamook Private 1.14 24' 6n <10". 0 0 G a r, I b a 1 d i& Tillarrook Tillamook Private .19 35' 11 1 2% 200' 1200' .Marina 0 0 Cepoe 'lay Depoe Say Municipal 3. 03 55' 124 41 6V, P .:eptune's Wharf Yaquina Uray rivate .34 35' 12 1 50Z ,Seagull Landing Yaquina Cay Port (leased) .20 27' 24 4 36'. ,Port of !Iewport Yaquina Bay Port 22. Of) 90, 498 75 85% Commer. Boat Basin Embarcaclero Yaquina Bay Private 6.59 511' 232 6 2 5! 0 0 ;Yaquina Marina Yaquina R. Private .50 27' 54 3 20'. 0 0 .Riverbend Moorage Yaquina R. Private I.jo 36' 175 -- 10% 100, 36' G 0 Criteser Moorage Yaquina R . Private 1.14 dr) 75 100% 25' Port of Toledo Yaquina R Port .31 45' 16 75% Mooraw D. SELECTED SEAFOOD PROCESSORS INVENTORY (FROM INTERVIEWS) MIF_@-j MR77 MP@7 Mt*7 MIM7, OW-1 M! IF M"7 MW. mill NMI @7 POUNDS SPECIES PROCESSED ANNUAL LANDING SERVICE PROCESSOR EMPLOYEES PAYROLL PROCESSED ANNUALLY CAPACITY FACILITIES FACILITIES Astoria 100 btm fish 3-3.5 million 6-7 million 1101 boats none Seafoods (some hake) (Astoria) shrimp 1.0 million 1.2 million draft no troll salmon 15C,000 problem 3 (silver) gillnet 3-500,00 salmon (chinook) dungeness 500,000 50,000/day Bumble Bee (Astoria) 1000 tuna crab salmon shrimp 225' bts shipyard (95' btm-fish 60 million 120 million '241 draft limit) GM smelt (fish- 5 hoists dealor for meal, oil, & engines, no pet food) fuel Alaska 400 btm fish Newport Packers (no hake) 140'bts Association shrimp 27 million 40 million draft no prob (Newport 80 salmon 2 hoists Hammond 260 crab Charleston Charleston 60) 100' bts draft 71 low tider 2 hoists Hammond 2001 bts draft no prob 3 hoists ANNUALLY SPECIES PROCESSED ANNUAL LANDING SERVICE PROCESSOR EMPLOYEES PAYROLL PROCESSED ANNUALLY CAPACITY FACILITIES FACILITIES Bio-Products 50 All btm fish 2.5 million 2.5 million 1601 bts No service (Warrenton) except fish 30' draft food Mid- I hoist water round & flat fish Barbey 150 dungeness 175' bts No service Packing shrimp 251 draft Corp. salmon 12.0 total 36.0 7 hoists (Astoria) btm fish million million shad sturgeon Pacific 100 hake 2 million 1501 bts No service Whiting blk cod 2 million 12' draft (Astoria) shrimp 2 million 2 hoists skate 1 million will have 200 dog fish 2 million ton transport btm fish I million ship to deliver salmon 3-500,000 every two days Astoria 20 btm fish .75 million 4-5 million 2-3001 bts No service Fish 60-70 drafts Factors 2 hoists Ocean 75-100 btm fish 4.5 million 7.0 million 1001 bts No service Foods shrimp 1.0 million 3.0 million draft no limit (Astoria) albacore 15,000 40-45,000 3 hoists smelt 300,000 ------- Have machine salmon 1009000 ----- shop for crab 750,000 1.5 million welding 00' Nib-Z' lmillfj- WW@3 mft@j ob, via, air IML ANJ Now M, mob' - mllb@ lot] EM-i No N01-7 mpt--, omit- "ft POUNDS SPECIES PROCESSED ANNUAL LANDING SERVICE PROCESSOR EMPLOYEES PAYROLL PROCESSED ANNUALLY CAPACITY FACILITIES FACILITIES Bell so shrimp Buoy crab 600,000 1.5-2.0 mill dock & hoist Boats only Crab Co. clams 200,000 1.0 million in Warrenton (Seaside) silvers 10-15,000 100,000 2/491 boats chinook 50-60,000 150,000 draft no sturgeon 10-15,000 30,000 problem Phil & 50 Bottom fish 120,000 240,000 1001 boats bait for Joes Crab crab 500,000 1 million draft prob crab Co. only low fishermen (Garibaldi) tide I hoist Smiths 50 shrimp 1.25 million 50,000/ 1 831 max None Pacific day no entry on Shrimp low tide (Garibaldi) 2 hoists can unload 2/601 boats at same time Hoy Brothers 40 shrimp 500,000 .75-1.0 861 max ice, fuel (Garibaldi) million 7-91draft space facilities 1 hoist for people to; I pneumatic work on boats unloading limited amount system diesel unloading cap. 2 bts 1. daily capacity (ANNUALLY) SPECIES POUNDS ANNUAL LANDING SERVICE PROCESSOR EMPLOYEES PAYROLL PROCESSED PROCESSED CAPACITY FACILITIES FACILITIES Olson 10 6-8,000/ crab 150-175,000 300,000 601 bt gas, Oyster month btm fish 200,000 200,000 draft no no diesel' @oaribaldi) salmon 200,000 200,000 prob 1 hoist oysters 150 bushels/ 200/week conveyer belt week for unloading oysters IIa__i E&Lj mii@j owl Ami -Ami owi. Nis) M01--mou-m- ME--- MM- NEI- me- ME- ow- =11- =11-- (ANNUALLY) SPECIES POUNDS ANNUAL PROCESSOR EMPLOYEES PAYROLL PROCESSED PROCESSED CAPACITY FACILITIES Charter Ocean 40 160,000 crab 2.0 Total 2.0 Total 1001 Empire, 801 Charleston Product. Has btm. fish draft 261 Empire draft 6' working agree- salmon. LaZios 1 Empire. Unload ment w/LaZios shad 8000 lbs/hr btm fish, shrimp. in Charleston sturgeon and docks next tuna to Eureka Fish trout in Empire (Charleston/ Coos Bay) Peterson 150 Bottom fish 2.5 8.0 901 boats, 101 draft 6 hoists Seafoods other species 2-.5 4.0 Provide fuel, showers, bait, ice 13 acres transportation. 4001 water frontage % Hallmark fish- 120 665,000 @Shrimp 3.5 4.0 801 boats, ill max draft, 3 eries Plant crab 800,000 1.5 hoists. Provide fuel and ice. 300 x 120 ground bottom fish 1.0 1.5 450 x 140 320 x 100 Eureka Fish- 40 shrimp 2.5 2.5 Charleston eries, land crab 1.0 1.0 851 boats, 5-6' draft low tide CQ W 1001 x 4401 clams variable 1500lb/ 3 hoists, unload 2 boats, simult. 0 water-61 off day rarely 3. Provide ice and fuel. 0 0 1001 dock Leased also 0 (E- 200" finger 14 dock. (40- 60,000 lbs hake/day in Eureka) (ANNUALLY) SPECIES POUNDS ANNUAL pROCESSOR EMPLOYEES PAYROLL PROCESSED PROCESSED CAPACITY FACILITIES New England 125 750,00 Bottom fish 5.0 10.0 85' boats, 1 hoist eventually (3) Fish Com. shrimp 2.5 2.5 unload 2-boats/day supply ice 175" (dock crab 850,000 2 for fleet frontage) x salmon 39,000 no limit 120' = after expansion (Newport) DePoe Bay 100-115 3-325,000 Bottom fish 2.0 2.0 NEWPORT Fish Com . crab 800-1.0 1.0 1001 Boats, 121 limit on draft 100, x 180, shrimp 3.5 5-6 2 hoists, service facilities- frontage is salmon 300,000 no limit none (Newport) Bumble Bee 150 btm-fish Can handle 75' boats. Have 6 hoists. Unloading 3001 x 1001 crab capacity 30-40 boats per day. Provide only ice. (Newport) shrimp salmon tuna 0) 00@! o@ 00 '@J@ 00@