Metrics

This indicator measures changes in vessel activity, which can affect economic and social conditions in communities.

Port groups represent combinations of individual communities based on geographic proximity.

Analysis

Baseline: Before Catch Share Program

For the coast as a whole, the number of trawl vessels landing non-whiting groundfish showed an overall downward trend during the baseline years (2002-2010) due to the vessel and permit buyback program that occurred in 2003, together with management measures that restricted landings in order to reduce the harvest of groundfish species declared overfished (Number of Active Vessels). In addition, the relative importance of individual ports and port groups in the groundfish trawl fishery was affected by the consolidation of West Coast processing groups that followed an earlier expansion in the processing industry (Seafood Dealers and Processors). Vessel activity shifted toward those ports, such as Astoria and Newport, with expanding processing plants and highly-developed shoreside support services.

As a result of the above factors, varied patterns in vessel activity emerged across states during the baseline period. The decline in the number of active non-whiting groundfish vessels was especially steep in California ports, including Crescent City, Eureka, Fort Bragg, Bodega Bay, San Francisco, Monterey and Morro Bay. In some ports the reduction in fleet size was especially dramatic; for example, of the 17 resident groundfish trawlers in Crescent City, 16 participated in the buyback and were removed from the local fleet.

As a result of the decrease in the size of California’s non-whiting groundfish fleet, the concentration of active vessels shifted from that state to Oregon, although Oregon also experienced a decline in vessel activity during the baseline period. In particular, the proportion of the non-whiting groundfish fleet that landed their catches at Astoria, Newport and Coos Bay increased. The number of vessels in making non-whiting groundfish landings in Washington also declined over the baseline period, and throughout the period, Washington consistently had less non-whiting groundfish vessel participation than California or Oregon.

The number of shorebased Pacific whiting boats making landings in California expanded during the baseline period, with Eureka and Crescent City experiencing large increases in vessel activity. None of the vessels that delivered Pacific whiting at Eureka and Crescent City were home-ported in either community, and the Pacific whiting stock has a limited window of availability off the northern California coast due to its northward migration in late spring (Landings and Revenues by State and Port Group). Nonetheless, the vessels supported buyers and other shoreside businesses during an otherwise slow period at the ports.

Despite the increase in the number of vessels landing Pacific whiting in California ports, the shorebased Pacific whiting fleet, together with the shorebased Pacific whiting processing industry (Seafood Dealers and Processors), remained largely concentrated in Oregon during the baseline period. The number of shorebased Pacific whiting boats making landings in Astoria and Newport increased but dropped in Coos Bay. The number of shorebased Pacific whiting boats making landings in Washington ports was relatively stable during the baseline period.

During Catch Share Program

After implementation of the Shorebased IFQ program, there was a large increase in the number of non-whiting groundfish vessels landing in Morro Bay—from four in the 2006-to-2010 period to 24 in the 2011-to-2015 period—due primarily to participation by vessels with limited entry trawl permits using fixed gear to target IFQ sablefish (Financial Viability of the Fishery: Landings). Monterey also experienced an increase in non-whiting groundfish vessel activity. However, all other California ports and all ports in Oregon showed declines in the number of non-whiting groundfish vessels making landings relative to the five years prior to catch share program implementation. The decline happened for a number of reasons, including a decision by some fishermen to sell their non-whiting groundfish QP to other vessel owners and either enter different fisheries or stop fishing entirely (Number of Active Vessels). This exiting from the non-whiting groundfish fishery while retaining ownership of a QS permit may explain to some extent how after catch share program implementation Coos Bay experienced a decline in both the number of vessels landing non-whiting groundfish and number of resident non-whiting groundfish vessels (Active Vessels by Homeport ), while also being among the communities that have consistently had the highest percentage of QS permit owners (QS Permit Distribution by Community ). The number of non-whiting groundfish vessels making landings in south-central Washington increased, but no boats made non-whiting groundfish landings in the north Washington coast ports after program implementation.

With the consolidation that occurred in the shorebased Pacific whiting fleet following catch share program implementation (Number of Active Vessels) and shift of the Pacific whiting fishery away from northern California (Landings and Revenues by State and Port Group), virtually all vessels stopped delivering Pacific whiting to Crescent City and Eureka. The number of shorebased Pacific whiting boats making landings in Astoria and Newport increased slightly, while shorebased Pacific whiting vessel activity in Washington ports declined.