by about 15 percent. The fleet is diverse in fishing patterns and in economic characteristics.

In 1998, Oregon’s commercial groundfish landings totaled 90,298 m, with an ex-vessel value of $23 million (Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission, unpublished report). Pacific whiting constituted 81 percent of these landings, with the remainder consisting mainly of flatfish, rockfish, and sablefish. The groundfish fishery is important to coastal communities, particularly Newport and Coos Bay.

The Oregon shrimp fishery is an important trawl fishery. Landings have cycled between 5 million and 10 million pounds (early 1970s, mid 1980s, late 1990s) and 45 million to 57 million pounds (late 1970s, late 1980s to early 1990s) since the late 1960s. Most harvests are taken off the central and northern Oregon coast, and shrimp landings are particularly important to the ports of Astoria and Tillamook.

In Washington State the seafood industry is important to several areas, mainly Ballard, Port Townsend, and Anacortes. There has been growth in the factory trawler sector that participates in the Alaska fishery as well as in whiting fisheries. Factory trawlers primarily home port in the Seattle area, and the smaller groundfish vessels come from other ports in northern Puget Sound. About 95 percent of the groundfish catch (by weight) for the Washington State fleet comes from Alaskan waters, mostly from the trawl fisheries (Natural Resource Consultants, 1999).

California’s trawl fisheries began using the otter trawl in 1946 (Starr et al., 1998) and grew substantially after passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Although groundfish landings have declined since 1981, they accounted for the state’s highest average annual ex-vessel revenue by species group for the period 1995– 1999 (Thomson, 2001). Together, shrimp and prawn ranked sixth and seventh in annual average revenue and weight landed for the same period. The minor sea cucumber fishery, located in southern California, accounts for a small proportion of California’s fishery landings and revenues.

Patterns of fishery participation and dependence vary within and across California’s three regions (Thomson, 2001). Thomson (2001) reports that an annual average of 29, 41, and 11 vessels participated solely in the groundfish trawl fishery in Northern, Central, and Southern California, respectively, between 1995 and 1999. Other fisheries in which groundfish trawl fishery participants take part include shrimp, prawn trawl, or crab pot fisheries in Northern and Central California. Trawl fisheries in Southern California are seldom pursued in combination with other gear types (Thomson, 2001). Mobility among regions, and in many cases among states, is critical to many California fishermen. For example, shrimp trawlers in Northern California earn more revenue from their out-of-state landings than their California landings (Thomson, 2001).

These characteristics of the California fisheries help explain the variability typical in fishing operations within and among fisheries. They also aid the consideration of opportunities, constraints, and potential responses to fishery management action. Those vessels that work a single fishery or gear, for example, could be less able to adapt to gear modification or reallocation of allowable catch to other gear types. Those who focus their effort in a single region are more vulnerable to local area or species closures than are those who fish in multiple regions. Operations that are more geographically diversified can intensify effort in one location if others are closed. Finally, although detailed information is lacking, bottom trawling supports not only the fishing operations—vessels and skippers, crews, and families—but also the people and businesses in coastal communities that receive and process their fish and provide support services (fuel, equipment, repair, and maintenance).

The groundfish fishery has recently been subject to severe regulatory restrictions that have widened the gap between harvest capacity and available harvest, thereby creating economic hardship for fishery participants, fishing households, and communities and greatly complicating monitoring and management of the fishery (Thomson, 2001).

Information about the trawling effort off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington was provided by Natural Resources Consultants, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department

Front Matter (R1-R10)

Executive Summary (1-6)

1 Introduction (7-11)

2 Characterization of Fishing Gear (12-17)

3 Effects of Trawling and Dredging (18-29)

4 Habitat Mapping and Distribution of Fishing Effort (30-47)

5 Analyzing the Risk to Seafloor Habitats (48-56)

6 Management Options (57-64)

7 Findings and Recommendations (65-68)

References (69-74)

Appendix A: Committee and Staff Biographies (75-79)

Appendix B: Regional Distribution of Fishing Effort (80-119)

Appendix C: Mapping Tools (120-121)

Appendix D: Workshop Agendas (122-125)

Appendix E: Acronyms (126-126)