032123-C-8 Corresp.pdf — Long Beach City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

C-8 Correspondence – Melinda Cotton

From: Melinda Cotton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:32 PM
To: Council District 3 <[email protected]>; Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Council District 1 <[email protected]>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 4 <[email protected]>; Council District 5 <[email protected]>; Council District 6 <[email protected]>; Council District 7 <[email protected]>; Council District 8 <[email protected]>; Council District 9 <[email protected]>; Tom Modica <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]> Cc: Alyssa Bishop <[email protected]>; Anna Christensen <[email protected]>; Charles Moore <[email protected]>; Karen Harper <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rececca Robles <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Bickford <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Doug Carstens <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mejia, Abigail <[email protected]> Subject: Item 8 " Unit Annual Plan" on tonight’s Council 3/21/23 Agenda Should be brought back at another Meeting with an adequate description of the subject matter.

-EXTERNAL-

I join the Sierra Club, the Center for Biodiversity, Algalita and the many concerned individuals below in asking that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion tonight, as the Agenda failed to include a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting .

The Long Beach Unit Annual Plan states that 33 wells will be drilled at the THUMS offshore location from July, 2023 to June, 2024. Expected oil and gas revenues are $357 million; however, operating expenses are $323 million! This leave a profit of only $34 million, an amount not worth the health and environmental risks these operations present.

Earlier this month, this council voted to study ways Long Beach could wean themselves from oil production. I urge you to take the first step by denying this plan. No new drilling should be taking place until voters have an opportunity to decide on SB1137 in November.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely, Melinda Cotton

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:11 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;

To: Long Beach Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force
Re: March 21, 2023 Agenda Item 8. 23-0238
Recommendation to approve and adopt the Long Beach Unit Annual Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024) and Program Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2028). (Citywide)
Office or Department: ENERGY RESOURCES

Dear Decision Makers:

We ask that

If the Mayor and Council are unwilling follow Brown Act section 54954.2. (a) “(1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting . . .” , we respectfully ask that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion tonight.

Respectfully,

Anna Christensen and Ann Cantrell, Co-chairs

C-8 Correspondence – Melinda Cotton

-EXTERNAL-

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely, Melinda Cotton

Dear Decision Makers:

We ask that

Respectfully,

Anna Christensen and Ann Cantrell, Co-chairs

C-8 Correspondence – Asley Craig

From: Ashley Craig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Mary Zendejas <[email protected]>; Cindy Allen <[email protected]>; Suely Saro <[email protected]>; Al Austin <[email protected]>; Daryl Supernaw <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Paul Monge <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Connor Lock <[email protected]> Subject: Pull item #8 and Phase out Drilling in 5 Years

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

I am writing with serious concerns in regards to item number 8 on tomorrows agenda.

Instead of passing this report, City Council should direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

Ashley Craig
[email protected]

C-8 Correspondence – Asley Craig

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

I am writing with serious concerns in regards to item number 8 on tomorrows agenda.

Instead of passing this report, City Council should direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

Ashley Craig
[email protected]

March 17, 2023

Mayor and City Council
Long Beach City Hall
411 West Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, California 90802

RE: Council Agenda Item 8 - Long Beach Unit Annual Plan

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Long Beach City Council:

I write to express my concerns with agenda item 8, which seeks the adoption of the Long Beach Unit (LBU) Annual Plan (July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024) and Program Plan (July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2028).

I strongly urge you to reconsider and reduce the rate and locations of oil and gas production as proposed in the LBU Annual plan. As Long Beach positions itself as a global leader in the fight against climate change and increased carbon emissions, its plans must reflect these values and part ways with its overreliance on oil production at the expense of our community’s health.

The effects of environmental pollution on public health are linked and exacerbated in areas like Long Beach, where community members face a multitude of toxic emission sources from oil production, transportation corridors, and ports. Recognizing the disastrous health impacts on residents living near oil production wells, the California legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1137 (Chapter 1, Statutes of 2022), and on September 16, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the legislation into law. SB 1137 protects the public health of California’s frontline communities by creating a minimum health protection zone of 3,200 feet between sensitive receptors, such as a residences, schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds, hospitals, or nursing homes, and new or reworked oil and gas production well. In addition, the bill establishes strict engineering controls to be implemented by existing operations within the health protection zone, including leak notification and safety protocols.

To protect residents and workers in homes, schools, childcare centers, and medical facilities from environmental health hazards of oil operations, the LBU Annual Plan should not include any development of wells within the 3200-foot health protection zone as defined in SB 1137.

Currently, the LBU Annual Plan (Part III - page 11) states - "This plan is based upon 33 replacement wells planned from existing cellars." Questions that the Mayor and council should take into consideration:
• Will this proposed new drilling occur in health protection zones? • How is the city contemplating health protection zones in their planning? • How has the city engaged with the greater Long Beach community (affected residents, stakeholders and environmental partners)?
Furthermore, it runs afoul for the city to continue permitting or reworking oil wells, both for the poor health outcomes it poses for our community, but also for the greater unfunded liability responsibilities it poses for both the City and the State of California.

At its March 7th, 2023 meeting, the City council approved an agenda item requesting that the city manager find alternative revenue opportunities to offset projected reductions in oil revenues.

This item relayed that “now is the time for the City of Long Beach to take its place as a global leader in curbing the effects of climate change and carbon-emissions by creating a sustainable climate economy. The City will need to part ways with the Long Beach of the past that rely heavily on the production of oil and fossil fuels at the expense of our community’s health.” For these reasons, I strongly urge the City of Long Beach to continue its commitment to reducing its reliance on oil production and to work diligently with the greater environmental community on a 5-year plan that truly reflects the values and fiscal priorities of the City.

Sincerely,

JOSH LOWENTHAL
Assemblymember, 69th District

March 17, 2023

Mayor and City Council
Long Beach City Hall
411 West Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, California 90802

RE: Council Agenda Item 8 - Long Beach Unit Annual Plan

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Long Beach City Council:

At its March 7th, 2023 meeting, the City council approved an agenda item requesting that the city manager find alternative revenue opportunities to offset projected reductions in oil revenues.

Sincerely,

JOSH LOWENTHAL
Assemblymember, 69th District

C-8 Correspondence – Constance May

From: Constance May [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:58 PM
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Mary Zendejas <[email protected]>; Cindy Allen <[email protected]>; Suely Saro <[email protected]>; Al Austin <[email protected]>; Daryl Supernaw <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Paul Monge <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Connor Lock <[email protected]>
Subject: Pull item #8 and Phase out Drilling in 5 Years

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

Line up our oil actions with the intent of SB 1137. Do not side with oil - Protect Sensitive zones like schools.

Thanks,
Constance May
Research Program Coordinator
Center for Ecosystem Climate Solutions (CECS)
Climate Energy and Water Solutions group (CLEWS)
University of California, Irvine

C-8 Correspondence – Constance May

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

Line up our oil actions with the intent of SB 1137. Do not side with oil - Protect Sensitive zones like schools.

Thanks,
Constance May
Research Program Coordinator
Center for Ecosystem Climate Solutions (CECS)
Climate Energy and Water Solutions group (CLEWS)
University of California, Irvine

C-8 Correspondence – Kailee Caruso

From: Kailee Caruso [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:51 PM
Subject: NO DRILLING NEAR SCHOOLS Item #8

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Mayor, City Council and City Clerk,

Hope each of you are well. Tonight you will be giving a 5 year oil plan with the state. We need a ban on any wells that are within the 3,200 foot health and safety buffer. The buffer zone must stay in the plan.

The city has continued to ignore years of climate experts saying we need a plan. For 6 years we have been calling for an end to the status quo. Orange County and LA City have all made moves in the right direction. In Long Beach we are even behind Texas on energy policy. We can no longer ignore the impacts climate concerns have on the livelihood of all our communities. Especially what the data tells us regarding the 17 year life expectancy gap depending on what zip code one lives in Long Beach. If we want true equity throughout our city we have to include proper environmental regulations to protect our children, families, seniors and residents. Data continues to tell us that communities of color are more impacted by this with a 9.4 times higher rate of hospitalization for asthma.

Thank you and take good care.

In Community,

Kailee Caruso

resident of D3, mother, community advocate, MPA

C-8 Correspondence – Kailee Caruso

From: Kailee Caruso [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:51 PM
Subject: NO DRILLING NEAR SCHOOLS Item #8

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Mayor, City Council and City Clerk,

Thank you and take good care.

In Community,

Kailee Caruso

resident of D3, mother, community advocate, MPA

C-8 Correspondence – Dori Chandler

From: Dori Chandler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:04 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment

-EXTERNAL-

Dear Office of the City Clerk,

I would like to ask that Agenda items 8 (and related 9/10),11, 12, 13, and 16 be removed from the consent calendar as they represent millions of investment in fossil fuels that cannot continue to be considered routine.

I include my comments on those items here:

#8, 23-0238 ER - Long Beach Unit Annual Plan (July 1, 2023 - June 30, 2024) This invests 60 million in 35 more wells when we need from a climate and finance perspective to be removing wells. Long Beach needs to wean itself off of oil and not invest more in it.

#11, 23-0241 Ray Gaskin - Contract for Ford F-550 truck for Clean Team By adding another fossil fuel vehicle to our fleet we are cleaning up trash while spewing pollution. One of the goals of this is to fit in smaller areas and a F-150 Lightning is available on the market. Please put this 159k into BEV, not fossil fuels.

#12, 23-0242 Purchase of two Volvo L120H Wheel Loader tractors Volvo has converted L120H wheel loaders to electric in Europe and it’s mentioned that they will respond to demand for more. Long Beach should ask for them to bring the L120H BEV to the USA. Also, the smaller L25 Electric is available today via SourceWell, but I’m not sure it’s a fit for the same work.

We should not get more vehicles to keep the sand in place, while helping raise sea levels. If we can’t get an electric version this year - let’s wait on the purchase until we can.

#13, On 23-0243 Arizona Machinery - Purchase of two John Deere tractors What kind of John Deere tractors are we purchasing as I found some price values ranging from 30k to 500k each and I didn’t find any in the middle. Again we should evaluate electric options and wait for the electric options that all companies are working towards. Solectrac and Monarch, among others, are making BEV tractors today.

#16, On 23-0246 Purchase of a mobile command center

Custom vehicles like this are harder to source but there are still greener options. LDV does offer a Mobile Command Center with solar and battery storage although mainly powered by fossil fuels still. Farber Specialty mentions options to customize the all-electric Ford eTransit van or the MT50e walk-in van from Freightliner Custom Chassis.

I fully support item #15, 23-0245 Velocity Truck Center - Contract for two BEV Crane Carrier LNT-26 trucks and that should be approved without delay.

Sincerely,

Dori Chandler

C-8 Correspondence – Dori Chandler

From: Dori Chandler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:04 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment

-EXTERNAL-

Dear Office of the City Clerk,

I include my comments on those items here:

We should not get more vehicles to keep the sand in place, while helping raise sea levels. If we can’t get an electric version this year - let’s wait on the purchase until we can.

#16, On 23-0246 Purchase of a mobile command center

I fully support item #15, 23-0245 Velocity Truck Center - Contract for two BEV Crane Carrier LNT-26 trucks and that should be approved without delay.

Sincerely,

Dori Chandler

C-8 Correspondence – Ketty Citterio

From: Friends of Bixby Park [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Paul Monge <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Connor Lock <[email protected]> Subject: Pull item #8 and Phase out Drilling in 5 Years

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

I am writing with serious concerns in regards to item number 8 on tomorrows agenda.

Instead of passing this report, City Council should direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

Ketty Citterio
CD2

C-8 Correspondence – Ketty Citterio

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

I am writing with serious concerns in regards to item number 8 on tomorrows agenda.

Instead of passing this report, City Council should direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

Ketty Citterio
CD2

C-8 Correspondence – Sona Coffee

From: Sona Coffee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:56 AM
To: Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council District 9 <[email protected]>; Kristina Duggan <[email protected]> Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council District 3 <[email protected]>
Subject: Pull item #8 and Phase out Drilling in 5 Years

-EXTERNAL-

Hello Mayor Richardson and Long Beach City Council,

I am writing with concerns on Item 8 regarding oil drilling.

Instead of approving this item, please consider directing the Energy Resources Department to prepare a plan with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling that adheres to a 3,200 foot health and safety setback.

At the last Council meeting this body took action to direct City staff to identify alternate resources to oil revenue, and cited the need for a phase out of oil drilling to address the climate crisis. Please reaffirm your commitment to climate action and protecting public welfare by rapidly developing and implementing a phase out plan.

On Monday, the IPCC issued its final warning to humanity to act now and avoid irrevocable harm.

Overwhelming scientific consensus has shown that without deep and rapid emissions reductions, global warming will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels, resulting in catastrophic damage around the world. Every fraction of additional warming above 1.5 degrees will worsen these harms, threatening lives, livelihoods, the environment and global security for this and future generations.

Long Beach and others cannot continue business-as-usual and need to transition away from fossil fuels today. If the City Council provides the direction, the Departments can shift their focus to implementing the clean energy solutions that are already available while attracting investment to the city that will make Long Beach the leader in this effort. This type of investment will also lead to community benefit and improvements to public health, something that we won’t see with continued oil drilling.

Thank you for your consideration. I am here to help in whatever information or support you may need.

www.wri.org/insights/2023-ipcc-ar6-synthesis-report-climate-change-findings

All my best,
Sona

Sona Kalapura Coffee, MPP
(she, her, hers)
Sustainable City Commissioner

City of Long Beach
linkedin.com/in/sona-coffee

C-8 Correspondence – Sona Coffee

-EXTERNAL-

Hello Mayor Richardson and Long Beach City Council,

I am writing with concerns on Item 8 regarding oil drilling.

On Monday, the IPCC issued its final warning to humanity to act now and avoid irrevocable harm.

Thank you for your consideration. I am here to help in whatever information or support you may need.

www.wri.org/insights/2023-ipcc-ar6-synthesis-report-climate-change-findings

All my best,
Sona

Sona Kalapura Coffee, MPP
(she, her, hers)
Sustainable City Commissioner

City of Long Beach
linkedin.com/in/sona-coffee

C-8 Correspondence – Ashley Craig

From: Ashley Craig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 12:45 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Connor Lock <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Number 8 on 3/21 Meeting Agenda

-EXTERNAL-

Dear LB City Council,

I was very disappointed to learn that the City Council is proposing a five year plan that includes continued oil drilling in all areas of LB, including within the buffer zones proposed in SB 1137. The LBU Annual Plan should not include any development of wells that are within the 3200 foot health and safety buffer zone.

The City Council must take decisive steps to move away from oil drilling and reduce reliance on the associated revenue as soon as possible. This action is going to create some funding challenges in the near term, but continuing to rely on revenue from oil drilling is irresponsible and inhumane. The IPCC report was just released this morning, stating that we are moving far too slowly to have a shot at keeping warming below the 1.5 degree target. However, the report also stated that all hope is not lost and that if we act now to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we may have a chance at avoiding irreversible harm.

Most of the new demand for oil and gas is going to produce plastics - the production of which is expected to double in the next few decades, unless we can come to our senses and stop using this toxic substance for our food, drink, and other consumer products. If we can cut back on plastics use, we will greatly reduce the demand for petroleum products.

The City Council must direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Ashley Craig

C-8 Correspondence – Ashley Craig

-EXTERNAL-

Dear LB City Council,

The City Council must direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Ashley Craig

C-8 Correspondence – Susanne Cumming

From: Susanne Cumming [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:37 PM
To: Rex Richardson <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Pull item #8 and Phase out Drilling in 5 Years

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

I am writing with serious concerns in regards to item number 8 on the agenda for 3-22-23.

Instead of passing this report, City Council should direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

The 5 Year Plan you are considering does not align with Long Beach’s big talk about phasing out fossil fuels.

Long Beach residents need their health & safety protected by these buffers.

Sent from Mail for Windows

C-8 Correspondence – Susanne Cumming

-EXTERNAL-

Long Beach Decision-makers,

I am writing with serious concerns in regards to item number 8 on the agenda for 3-22-23.

Instead of passing this report, City Council should direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately.

The 5 Year Plan you are considering does not align with Long Beach’s big talk about phasing out fossil fuels.

Long Beach residents need their health & safety protected by these buffers.

Sent from Mail for Windows

C-8 Correspondence – Indira Galvez

From: Indira Galvez [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:06 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item #8

-EXTERNAL-

Good Afternoon,

I am submitting a written comment for today's city council meeting in this email:

Long Beach City Council will vote today on March 21st to approve its “5 Year Program” for oil and gas development. Please vote NO on this highly destructive plan to our people's health and the planet. The plan also does virtually nothing to phase out oil and gas extraction which goes against Long Beach's message to phase out fossil fuels. Given how serious climate change is (the extreme weather and rain we have seen is already one sign of many), this plan should not even be considered. Please vote NO."

C-8 Correspondence – Indira Galvez

From: Indira Galvez [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:06 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item #8

-EXTERNAL-

Good Afternoon,

I am submitting a written comment for today's city council meeting in this email:

C-8 Correspondence – Emily Jeffers

From: Emily Jeffers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:30 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]>; Victoria Bogdan Tejeda <[email protected]>; Miyoko Sakashita <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Center for Biological Diversity comments on Long Beach Unit Annual and Program Plans

-EXTERNAL-

We were alerted that the below link to our cited references may not work for non-Microsoft users.

Please try this link -- Long Beach Unit Annual & Program Plans - References – and let me know if you are able to access and download the sources.

Best,
Emily Jeffers

From: Emily Jeffers
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]>; Victoria Bogdan Tejeda <[email protected]>; Miyoko Sakashita <[email protected]> Subject: Center for Biological Diversity comments on Long Beach Unit Annual and Program Plans

Dear Clerk,

The Center for Biological Diversity submits the attached comments in response to the City of Long Beach’s draft five-year Program Plan for the Long Beach Unit, covering years 2023-28, and the related one-year draft Annual Plan for the LBU, covering July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024.

All sources cited in the comment letter are included in this public folder: Long Beach Unit Annual & Program Plans - References

Please confirm you can access and will download these references.

We will also hand-deliver a USB flash drive containing all cited references at tonight’s city council meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions. You can reach me at (408) 348-6958.

Thank you,

Emily Jeffers
Center for Biological Diversity

Correspondence Item 8 – Emily Jeffers
From: Emily Jeffers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:20 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]>; Victoria Bogdan Tejeda <[email protected]>; Miyoko Sakashita <[email protected]> Subject: Center for Biological Diversity comments on Long Beach Unit Annual and Program Plans

-EXTERNAL-

Dear Clerk,

All sources cited in the comment letter are included in this public folder: Long Beach Unit Annual & Program Plans - References

Please confirm you can access and will download these references.

We will also hand-deliver a USB flash drive containing all cited references at tonight’s city council meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions. You can reach me at (408) 348-6958.

Thank you,

Emily Jeffers
Center for Biological Diversity

March 21, 2023 Submitted via email to [email protected] References available at https://centerforbiologicald-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/celkins_biologicaldiversity_org/EnKgnCor99lGuuLZ09VgLJEBe1qZCkB-L3ApueGIIPlwhQ?e=glc5NS References also submitted via USB flash drive Long Beach City Council 411 W. OCEAN BOULEVARD Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: City Council Agenda Item: Recommendation to approve and adopt the Long Beach Unit Annual Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024) and Program Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2028). (Citywide) Dear Long Beach City Council: The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following comments in response to the City of Long Beach’s (“the City”) draft five-year Program Plan for the Long Beach Unit (“LBU”), covering years 2023-28, and the related one-year draft Annual Plan for the LBU, covering July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024. The City posted both plans to its website for review by the public on Monday, March 13, 2023, and consideration by the City Council on March 21, 2023. First, as a threshold matter, the City’s plans must be subject to environmental review and public comment under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). CEQA requires only that a discretionary activity may either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, for review to be triggered. As plans that propose over 100 drilling activities and open the door to other actions such as use of enhanced oil recovery, the plans meet this low-bar test. Long Beach oil and gas drilling, as we discuss below, impacts air quality, climate emissions, water quality, subsidence, species, environmental justice, energy use, and other areas of consequence. CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment and the City must take action to comply by subjecting the plans to full review. Second, we urge the City to adhere to its own plans to eliminate oil and gas by phasing down production. Inexplicably, the draft plans project over 26.2 million barrels of oil and over 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas production—an increase over the previous five-year Program Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 2 Plan’s production numbers. This comes despite the City “know[ing] and support[ing] the position that oil production is not in [its] long-term future.”1 Third, the City must end all oil and gas operations within 3200 feet of homes, schools, nursing homes, and hospitals, as established by Senate Bill 1137 (2022). Governor Newsom signed SB 1137 into law, and while its enactment is delayed because of a referendum, it is a vital public health protection that begins to address the environmental health disparities experienced by frontline communities. The City must not perpetuate the harms that the legislature already declared “disproportionately impact[s] Black, indigenous, and people of color in California.”2 Instead of pushing forward its plans that lead to continued harms and increased drilling, the City should create a plan for alternative sources of revenue, consistent with a five-year phaseout of oil drilling, that supports a just transition for impacted workers. Finally, one week is an appallingly short amount of time for the public to review the proposed plans that will have consequences for years to come. In addition to pausing approvals for CEQA review, the City must provide the public with adequate time (at least 30 days) for review and public comment. I. Because the plans are projects, CEQA review is required The City of Long Beach is proposing in its five-year Program Plan for 2023-28 and associated Annual Plan to conduct oil and gas drilling activities in the LBU that are likely to cause adverse environmental impacts, as described in greater detail below. That neither the City nor any affiliated agencies have conducted CEQA review on the plans runs counter to law and deprives the public and other officials of information necessary to make informed decisions and formulate project alternatives and mitigations.3 CEQA directs state and local agencies to “take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state” and to “[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.”4 “CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language,” and “[t]he purpose of CEQA is . . . to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind.”5 By “requir[ing] full environmental disclosure,” the Act 1 City of Long Beach, Recommendation from the Sustainable City Commission (March 15, 2022) at 19, https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/memos-to-the-mayor-tabbed-file-list-folders/2022/march-15--2022---recommendation-from-the-sustainable-city-commission; see also City of Long Beach, Recommendation from the Sustainable City Commission & Reducing Reliance on City Revenue from Oil Production (Jan. 2022 and Oct. 2021) at 4, http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10423777&GUID=CE2373C6-1897-4A8F-9FE8-858224EC882E. 2 SB 1137 (Gonzalez, 2022), approved and filed Sept. 16, 2022. 3 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002. 4 Id. § 21001. 5 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15003 (hereinafter, “CEQA Guidelines”).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 3 ensures public awareness and participation in decisions with the potential for environmental consequences.6 The LBU plans are projects under CEQA and therefore warrant environmental review. CEQA applies to all “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.”7 CEQA defines “project” as “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported or authorized by a public agency, “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”8 The bar for what constitutes a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment is low. According to the California Supreme Court, the “likely actual impact of an activity is not at issue when determining its status as a project.”9 Instead, the threshold question is whether an activity, “by its general nature” may be “capable, at least in theory, of causing” direct or “reasonably foreseeable indirect” environmental changes.10 The LBU plans easily meet the test for what constitutes a “project” under CEQA. The draft Program Plan, covering years 2023-28, prescribes discretionary activities such as redrilling and possible new drilling, potential use of enhanced oil recovery, and other activities that could be capable of producing environmental impacts on air quality, water quality, noise, species, and more. The Annual Plan is not only “based upon 33 replacement wells” described in the Program Plan, but also pledges to undertake discretionary activities related to “facilities piping, tanks, and vessels” as well as to “plug[] wells to surface, in-zone, and conditional abandonments.”11 These are all activities that are capable of causing environmental changes and must be subject to environmental review. Further, just because the City is projecting to end its reliance on revenue from oil production by 2035,12 that does not preclude the current plans (which extend to 2028) or future plans from triggering CEQA, given that the plans are capable of causing environmental impacts for many years to come. Once CEQA review begins for the plans, it is likely that a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) will be warranted because oil drilling activities may cause significant 6 Cmtys. for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478, 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). 7 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(a). Note that just because “further governmental decisions need to be made before . . . actual environmental impacts can be determined” does not mean an activity is not a project triggering CEQA review. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano Cnty. Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal. 4th 372, 383 (2007), as modified (Sept. 12, 2007); see also Save Tara v. City of W. Hollywood, 45 Cal. 4th 116, 194 P.3d 344 (2008), as modified (Dec. 10, 2008) (“CEQA review may not always be postponed until the last governmental step is taken, because postponing the environmental review may incentivize ignoring environmental concerns.”). 8 Cal. Pub. Res. Code. § 21065 (emphasis added); CEQA Guidelines § 15378. 9 Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal. 5th 1171, 1199 (2019) (emphasis in original). 10 Id. at 1197. 11 Annual Plan 2023-24 at 3-5. 12 See City of Long Beach, Recommendation from the Sustainable City Commission & Reducing Reliance on City Revenue from Oil Production (Jan. 2022 and Oct. 2021), http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10423777&GUID=CE2373C6-1897-4A8F-9FE8-858224EC882E.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 4 environmental effects.13 That EIR must present “feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such” activities.14 The foundational components of CEQA—transparency, analysis and information sharing, alternatives and enforceable mitigation measures, public comments and agency responses15—are vitally important to environmental protection and civic participation. Notably, all such components are absent in the City’s current process for Program and Annual Plans. The draft plans provide no impacts analysis, offer no alternatives, and prescribe no mitigations. Moreover, the City provided only one week between release of the draft plans and the hearing date before City Council—hardly enough time for the public, and particularly those in overburdened and frontline communities—to digest the plans and offer comment. As such, the City is running afoul of CEQA and undermining public participation. II. Impacts of Plan Activities The plans prescribe drilling and operations activities that will lead to the production of over 26.2 million barrels of oil and over 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas. These activities will cause a range of direct and indirect environmental impacts. The drilling will put communities and ecosystems at risk of oil spills and other accidents, degrade groundwater aquifers, and cause subsidence which can lead to flooding and increased seismicity. The plan activities will lead to harmful air pollution as well as approximately the same greenhouse gas emissions as two coal-fired powerplants. The activities also perpetuate environmental injustice since much of the operations are within the health and safety buffer researchers have identified as necessary to avoid frontline communities at risk. Because of these foreseeable impacts, and others, the City must conduct a robust CEQA review. A. The Plans Risk Harmful Oil Spills and Other Accidents Oil spills are an inevitable consequence of oil drilling and can occur during every phase of onshore and offshore drilling, from exploration to extraction to transportation and refinement. California has seen spill after spill during the decades oil companies have been drilling on land and in our ocean. In the last two years alone, Orange County has seen multiple oil spills discharge tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, from breaks in pipes connecting offshore drilling operations to shore. And in 2015, the Plains All American pipeline ruptured and spilled up to 142,000 gallons of oil on the Santa Barbara coastline. While there are inherent risks in any drilling, the infrastructure in waters off California is especially susceptible to causing another disaster due to its age and condition, including Long Beach’s oil islands and pipelines. Long Beach must consider the risk and mitigate the risk oil spills pose to the local community, the coastal ecosystem, endangered wildlife, and the economy. In addition to the risks inherent in drilling for oil, hazards from climate change, such as increased severity of storms and sea level rise, increase the risk of oil spills and other accidents 13 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); see also CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(1), 15064. 14 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002. 15 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002, 21003.1; see generally CEQA Guidelines § 15002.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 5 from aging infrastructure. Their old age also increases the risk of spills. For example, according to scientists, aging poses risks of corrosion, erosion and fatigue stress to subsea pipelines.16 Subsea pipeline corrosion appears to accelerate over time,17 and can act synergistically with fatigue stress to increase the rate of crack propagation.18 Marine environments are especially known to produce significant corrosion on steel surfaces, and when a steel structure is at or beyond its elastic limit, the rate of corrosion increases 10 to 15 percent.19 One offshore pipeline study found that after 20 years the annual probability of pipeline failure increases rapidly, with values in the range of 0.1 to 1.0, which equates to a probability of failure of 10 to 100 percent per year.20 The U.S. Department of Transportation itself found that offshore pipelines can be more vulnerable than onshore pipelines. They have a greater vulnerability to severe weather conditions than onshore pipelines, especially during hurricane events. And massive wave action can alter the pipeline stability, causing gradual displacement, especially in small diameter pipelines.21 Offshore pipelines can also face more corrosion than onshore pipelines due to higher temperature and pressure conditions that occur during the laying of these pipelines.22 Oil spills have a wide array of lethal and sublethal impacts on terrestrial and marine species, both immediate and long-term. For example, a growing body of evidence demonstrate that even brief exposures to crude oil and its components can have severe impacts on fish and invertebrate species. Schlenker et al. (2022) investigated the response of wild mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) to crude oil exposure and found: profound effects on survival and reproduction in the wild. In addition to significant changes in gene expression profiles and predation mortality, we documented altered acceleration and habitat use in the first 8 days oil-exposed individuals were at liberty as well as a cessation of apparent spawning activity for at least 37 days. These data reveal that even a brief and low-dose exposure to crude oil impairs fitness in wild mahi-mahi.23 16 Petroleum Safety Authority Norway, Material Risk – Ageing offshore installations (2006) (“PSA Norway”). 17 Mohd, M.H. and J.K. Paik, Investigation of the corrosion progress characteristics offshore oil well tubes, 67 Corrosion Science 130-141 (2013). 18 PSA Norway 2006. 19 Mohd and J.K. Paik, Pitting corrosion in pipeline steel weld zones, 53:12 Corros. Sci. 4026–4032 (2011); R.E. Melchers, et al., Statistical characterization of surfaces of corroded steel plates, 23 Mar. Struct. 274–287 (2010). 20 Bea, R., C. Smith, et al., Real-time Reliability Assessment & Management of Marine Pipelines, ASME, 21st Int’l Conference on Offshore Mechanics & Arctic Engineering (2002), https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-abstract/OMAE2002/36142/133/294825. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: The Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2 (2014). 22 Keuter, J., In-line Inspection of Pipes Using Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRA) (2014), Rosen Technology and Research Center GmbH, Rosen Group, Germany; Standard Oil Company (1981) Drilling fluid bypass for marine riser. U.S. Grant. US4291772 A. 23 Schlenker, Lela S. et al., Brief oil exposure reduces fitness in wild Gulf of Mexico mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hippurus), 56 Envt’l Sci. & Tech. 13019, 13019 (2022). See also Ek-Huchim, Juan Pablo et al., Red blood cell cytotoxicity associated to heavy metals and hydrocarbons exposure in flouder fish from two regions of the Gulf of Mexico, 108 Bull. Envt’l Contamination & Toxicology 78 (2022); McDonald, Ashley M. et al., Prior Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 6 Recent research demonstrates that fish exposure to oil and gas from any given lease—exposure that contributes to the cumulative stresses experienced by individual animals—rises to the level of significance. For example, Pulster et al. (2021) found that 99 percent of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) sampled throughout the Gulf of Mexico between 2011–2017 showed signs of liver damage (e.g., inflammation, neoplasms and other lesions, parasites) associated with exposure to PAHs.24 And Lawson et al. (2021) found that deep-sea invertebrate species including sea anemones, sea cucumbers, and sea pens bioaccumulate PAHs.25 Oil pollution poses a well-known and significant threat to seabirds.26 Seabirds are particularly vulnerable to offshore oil and gas development because of their frequent contact with the water’s surface, their myriad foraging strategies, and the propensity of oil—even the thinnest sheen—to adhere to the birds’ plumage.27 Birds may be exposed to oil through acute events like spills, and chronically through routine discharges and leaks.28 Chronic oil exposure is more challenging to measure, but can have pervasive lethal, sublethal, and cascading effects that exposure to weathered oil influences foraging of an ecologically important saltmarsh resident fish, 10 PeerJ e12593 (2022). 24 Pulster, Erin L. et al., Hepatobiliary PAHs and prevalence of pathological changes in Red Snapper, 230 Aquatic Toxicology 105714 (2021). Previous research has demonstrated that fish exposed to PAHs may experience reduced growth, endocrine disruption, reproductive harms, embryonic malformations, behavioral impairment, suppressed immune system function, skeletal and skin disorders, abnormal liver growths, cancer, and death. Peter Albers, Petroleum and Individual Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Ch. 14 in David J. Hoffman et al. (eds), Handbook of Ecotoxicology 352, 353 (2d ed. 2002); Tracy K. Collier et al., Effects on fish of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and naphthenic acid exposures, 33 Organic Chemical Toxicology of Fishes 195, 197-98, 200-06, 211-22, 224-30 (2014); Ronald Eisler, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. Biological Report 85 (1.11) 32 (May 1987); Xavier Cousin & Jerome Cachot, PAHs and fish—exposure monitoring and adverse effects—from molecular to individual level, 21 Envtl. Sci. and Pollution Research 13685, 13688 (2014); Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 5, 6, 8 (1999); Britton C. Goodale, Ph.D., Dissertation: Developmental toxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Defining Mechanisms with Systems-Based Transcriptional Profiling 8 (2013); Jerry F. Payne et al., Ecotoxicological Studies Focusing on Marine and Freshwater Fish, Ch. 11 in Peter E.T. Douben (ed.), PAHs: An Ecotoxicological Perspective 192, 201-06, 208-09 (2003). The harms of exposure may be passed down through the generations. Collier et al. at 222-24; Cousin & Cachot 16389; Payne et al. at 205-06. 25 Lawson, M. Chase, et al. PAH and PCB body-burdens in epibenthic deep-sea invertebrates from the northern Gulf of Mexico, Marine Pollution Bulletin 162 (2021): 111825. 26 Dias, M.P. et al., Threats to seabirds: a global assessment, 237 Biological Conservation 525 (2019). 27 O’Hara, Patrick D. & Lora A. Morandin, Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas development on the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds, 60 Marine Pollution Bull. 672 (2010); Haney, J.C. et al., Challenges to oil spill assessment for seabirds in the deep ocean, 73 Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33, 33 (2017). 28 Jodice, P. G. R., et al., GoMAMN Strategic Bird Monitoring Guidelines: Seabirds, at 129-170 in R. R. Wilson, A. M. V. Fournier, J. S. Gleason, J. E. Lyons, and M. S. Woodrey (Eds.) (2019), Strategic Bird Monitoring Guidelines for the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Research Bulletin 1228, Mississippi State University; Lamb, Juliet S., et al., Seasonal variation in environmental and behavioural drivers of annual-cycle habitat selection in a nearshore seabird, 26 Diversity & Distributions 254 (2020).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 7 hinder species and ecosystem recovery.29 Sublethal effects can occur even when oil is not visible.30 Marine mammals can be exposed to oil internally by inhaling volatile compounds at the surface, swallowing oil, consuming oil-contaminated prey, and externally by swimming in oil.31 Exposure to toxic fumes from petroleum hydrocarbons during oil spills have been recently linked to mortality in cetaceans, even years after such accidents.32 Studies have determined, for example, that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused adrenal and lung lesions in bottlenose dolphins which led to an unusual mortality event in which dolphins died over the course of several years.33 Oil spills can harm a wide variety of wildlife, which includes species protected under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). For example, ESA-listed sea otters are particularly vulnerable to contamination from oil spills. When sea otters come into contact with oil, it causes their fur to mat, which prevents the fur from insulating their bodies. Without this natural protection from the cold water temperature, sea otters can quickly die from hypothermia. The toxicity of oil can also be harmful to sea otters, causing liver and kidney failure and damage to their lungs and eyes.34 ESA-listed western snowy plovers and the California least tern are extremely sensitive to disturbances such as oil spills, especially during the nesting season.35 ESA-listed fish also may be affected by the lease extensions. Tidewater goby is a small, endangered coastal fish that inhabits the coastal areas of California. Steelhead trout are an anadromous fish, and the southern California population is listed as endangered. They both have designated critical habitat in areas along the Southern California Coast.36 Oil field pollution degrades tidewater goby habitat.37 Fish are vulnerable to offshore oil and gas pollution and oil spills at all life stages.38 For example, oil induced developmental abnormalities in laboratory 29 Peterson, Charles H. et al., Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 302 Sci. 2082 (2003). 30 Fallon, J.A. et al., Ultraviolet-assisted oiling assessment improves detection of oiled birds experiencing clinical signs of hemolytic anemia after exposure to the deepwater horizon oil spill, 29 Ecotoxicology 1399 (2020). 31 NOAA, Analysis of Hydrocarbons in Samples Provided from the Cruise of the R/V WEATHERBIRD II, (May 23-26, 2010). 32 Venn-Watson et al., Adrenal Gland and Lung Lesions in Gulf of Mexico Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) Found Dead following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0126538 (2015), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126538. 33 Id. 34 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (Sept. 15, 2015). 35 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Popultion of the Western Snowy Plover at 73 (Sept. 13, 2007). Available at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/western_snowy_plover/pdfs/2007%20recovery%20plan.pdf. 36 70 Fed. Reg. 52488-52627 (2005); 78 Fed. Reg. 8746-8819 (2013). 37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (2005). 38 Bernanke, J. & H.R. Kohler, The impact of environmental chemicals on wildlife vertebrates, 198 Rev. Envtl. Contamination & Toxicology 1 (2009).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 8 zebrafish,39 and salmonid embryos exposed to oil exhibited reduced growth and significantly lower survival.40 Oil and gas activity also creates noise, light, and other pollution that can harm ESA-listed species. For example, Senzaki et al. (2020) found “that anthropogenic noise and light can substantially affect breeding bird phenology and fitness.”41 Noise pollution created by offshore oil and gas activity can also harm marine mammals. In addition, the air, water, noise, light, and vibration pollution from injection activities onshore extends beyond the well pad and affects nearby habitat. Numerous studies have documented density effects whereby wildlife species decrease use of preferable habitat areas or avoid habitat areas altogether in areas with increasing densities of oil and gas development, leading to indirect habitat loss.42 Wetlands, and the sensitive vegetation and species they support, are also vulnerable to oil spills. When marsh plants come into contact with crude oil, it can cause nearly complete mortality.63 Additionally, the oil can reside in the soil and cause long-term stress for marsh vegetation and erosion of marshlands.43 Salt marsh bird’s-beak, Ventura marsh milkvetch, and other threatened and endangered plants along the Southern California coast are at risk. The coastal areas affected by oil spills in California include some of the more important cultural resources for Indigenous people. For example, the disastrous spills in 1969 and 2015 off Santa Barbara harmed Chumash sacred sites and animals.44 The 2021 Platform Elly pipeline spill has harmed Acjachemen and Tongva homelands and cultural resources. A spill in Long Beach would harm important cultural resources. Under CEQA, agencies must, when feasible, avoid damaging tribal cultural resources, which include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to California Native American tribes.45 Several tribal entities of the Acjachemen and Tongva nations hold critical cultural information regarding the cultural sites affected by the continued development of oil infrastructure, continued extraction, and continued threat of oil spills that threaten to impact these cultural resources and sacred sites. Oil spill response efforts without consultation with these entities risk further impacting cultural resources, and the City should consult early and often on these impacts and oil spill response plans. The City has the responsibility to engage in early and meaningful 39 de Soysa, T. Yvanka et al., Macondo crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disrupts specific developmental processes during zebrafish embryogenesis, 10 BMC Biology 40 (2012). 40 Heintz, R.A. et al., Delayed effects on growth and marine survival of pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha after exposure to crude oil during embryonic development, 208 Marine Ecology Progress Series 205 (2000). 41 Senzaki, Masayuki et al., Sensory pollutants alter bird phenology and fitness across a continent, 587 Nature 605 (2020). 42 Beckmann, J.P. et al., Human-mediated shifts in animal habitat use: Sequential changes in pronghorn use of a natural gas field in Greater Yellowstone, Biological Conservation 147(1): 222-3 (2012); Dzialak M.R. et al., Prioritizing conservation of ungulate calving resources in multiple-use landscapes, PLOS One 6(1): e14597 (2011); Doherty, K.E. et al., Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 187-195 (2008). 43 NOAA, Oil Spills in Marshes (2013). 44 Ben-Hur, Arielle, The Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary: An Exploration of Changing the Discourse on Conservation, 105 Pitzer Senior Theses. 45-50 (2020). 45 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21084.3.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 9 consultation with tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area (if such consultation is requested by the tribes).46 Oil spills also cause economic impacts, from closures of fisheries to lost revenue from tourism. Even before the 2021 oil spills in Orange County, an analysis found that since 1986, nearly 1400 oil and gas pipeline leaks, spills and other incidents in the California have caused at least $1.2 billion in damages, as well as 230 injuries and 53 deaths.47 On average California has suffered 40 significant pipeline incidents a year, according to federal data.48 Other areas also experience significant costs as a result of oil spills. For example, tourism significantly declined after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, even in neighboring states that were largely free of oil on their beaches.49 Leisure visitor spending in Louisiana alone dropped by $247 million in 2010, with a total loss of $422 million over three years.50 Even after shorelines are clean of oil, normal tourism activities may not resume if public perception of prolonged and wide-scale pollution remains.51 Both the Plains All American Oil Spill and the Platform Elly pipeline spill closed California fisheries and caused longer-term harm. The Deepwater Horizon disaster also has long lasting impacts on the region’s fisheries. The long-term economic impact of the spill on commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated at $8.7 billion.52 California’s economy similarly stands a lot to lose if an oil spill were to seriously impact the state’s commercial fisheries. In 2017, approximately $210 million dollars in ex-vessel revenue (the amount paid directly to fishermen) came from commercial fishery landings, and more than 120,000 jobs on and off the water were supported by the state's seafood industry.53 B. Injection Wells Could Contaminate Drinking Water and Result in Earthquakes The Plans will result in the injection of produced water containing chemicals used in oil production, and analysis must be done to ensure these injections do not contaminate drinking water in Long Beach or have other harmful impacts to human health and the environment including increased seismicity. Under CEQA, Long Beach must consider and mitigate direct and 46 Id. §§ 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2. 47 Center for Biological Diversity, Analysis: Even Before Orange County Leak, California Pipeline Incidents Cased $1.2 Billion in Damages, available at https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/analysis-even-before-orange-county-leak-california-pipeline-incidents-caused-12-billion-in-damages-2021-10-07/ (Oct. 2021). 48 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Accident and Incident Data, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/distribution-transmission-gathering-lng-and-liquid-accident-and-incident-data 49 Oceana, Oil Spills and Tourism: They Don’t Mix (2015), https://coastalcarolinariverwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/14Oil-Spills-Tourism-Dont-Mix-Oceana.pdf. 50 The Impact of The BP Oil Spill on Visitor Spending in Louisiana: Revised estimates based on data through 2010 Q4 , Tourism Economics, prepared for the Louisiana Office of Tourism (June 2011). 51 ITOPF 2014, Effects of Oil Pollution on Social and Economic Activities, https://www.itopf.org/fileadmin/uploads/itopf/data/Documents/TIPS_TAPS_new/TIP_12_Effects_of_Oil_Pollution_on_Social_and_Economic_Activities.pdf. 52 Sumaila et al. 2012, Impact of the Deepwater Horizon well blowout on the economics of US Gulf fisheries, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1139/f2011-171. 53 NOAA, Fisheries Economics of the United States (2017), https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-09/FEUS2017-final-v1.3.pdf Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 10 indirect impacts of allowing injection. Because injecting produced water is part of the process of producing oil and gas, all those impacts should be adequately disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated for the entire 5-year duration of this project. CalGEM’s independent scientific panel has recommended a 3,200 foot buffer between homes and all oil and gas activities, including injection, and Long Beach must ensure that it meets this minimum distance for all injection wells.54 CalGEM has also questioned the validity of Long Beach’s maximum allowable injection pressure, and in particular the current injection gradient.55 If altered, this “would limit the Unit’s ability to inject water and subsequently reduce produced volumes.”56 Long Beach must disclose the content of the discussions with CalGEM and why the agency believes the current injection pressures and gradients are insufficient to protect the environment, including human health. 1. Risk of Aquifer Contamination The Plans make clear that new injection wells are anticipated in the coming years, but make no attempt to ensure they do not result in contamination of nearby aquifers. The Plans also suggest that injection wells will be drilled in more permeable layers, which could result in increased leaching into nearby aquifers.57 (To support the “strategy to invest and minimize the decline of the LBU’s oil production rate” . . . activities will include [d]rilling injection wells targeting increased throughout in the less mature sand layers”). At a very minimum, Long Beach must disclose what is in the water being injected, and the water quality of the aquifer being injected into. Because the risks of aquifer contamination are great, and because Long Beach relies upon local groundwater for 60% of its water use, the City must ensure injection wells do not risk the drinking water for any residents of Long Beach.58 As shown by a century-long hydrological record, California undergoes repeated cycles of drought and non-drought due to natural climate variability.59 During drought periods—when precipitation and snow pack are at a minimum—the state is forced utilize its groundwater reserves to meet it agricultural and drinking water needs. With ever-progressing climate change, such demand will only increase as drought-favorable conditions become more prevalent.60 Studies show that anthropogenic warming contributed to the severity of the recent California drought. One study attributes as much as 27 percent of California 2012-14 drought 54 PSE Berkeley, Response to CalGEM Questions for the California Oil and Gas Public Health Rulemaking Scientific Advisory Panel (Oct. 1, 2021), https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Documents/public-health/Public%20Health%20Panel%20Responses_FINAL%20ADA.pdf. 55 Program Plan at 13. 56 Id. 57 Id. at 27. 58 Long Beach Water, Water Sources, available at https://lbwater.org/water-sources/ (“Roughly 60% of the Long Beach water supply is local groundwater). 59 See Cheng, L. et al., How has human-induced climate change affected California drought risk?, 29 Journal of Climate 111 (2016); Diffenbaugh, N.S. et al., Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California, 112 PNAS 3931 (2015); Williams, A.P., Contribution to anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012-2014, 42 Geophys. Res. Lett. 6819 (2015). 60 Id.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 11 severity to anthropogenic warming, with natural variability accounting for the remainder.61 As a result, drought severity was record-breaking in many counties.62 This is because higher temperatures increase soil moisture loss, alter the timing of snowmelt, and decrease reservoir levels due to increased evaporation.63 In the future, municipalities may need to look not just to seawater, but to aquifers previously considered too salty to be usable, as a source of drinking water. The SDWA mandates protection of future drinking water sources as well as current sources. Given the potential for desalination and other treatment systems to render what was previously considered unusable water potable, the City must protect “freshwater” using a protective approach that more accurately reflects current technology in water treatment, and the necessity of preserving the future availability of sufficient fresh water during times of drought. The fragile state of groundwater makes any potential impact of great and significant concern. All oil and gas wells, cyclic steam wells included, use a host of chemicals that are harmful to the environment and human health that would jeopardize groundwater. Recent studies have found numerous chemicals contained in fluid involved in routine oil production operations are harmful to human health.64, 65 These include injection activities like waste disposal and enhanced oil recovery.66 Disposal wells may receive wastewater that contains chemicals used to perform well maintenance or other chemical-dependent processes. Oil and gas wastewater and fluids injected for enhanced oil recovery may contain additional chemicals added in other phases of production or maintenance of a well. Contaminating nearby aquifers would be an irreversible disaster. The State Water Resources Control Board explained to the state legislature recently that injection wells across the state have already contaminated scores of aquifers: “any injection [from injection wells] into the aquifers that are not exempt has contaminated those aquifers.”67 And once contaminants reach an aquifer, according to the Water Board, “you don't clean up aquifers, you contain the spread of 61 Williams, A.P., Contribution to anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012-2014, 42 Geophys. Res. Lett. 6819 (2015). 62 Id. 63 Gleick, Peter, Circle of Blue, Clarifying the Discussion about California Drought and Climate Change (Mar. 7, 2014), available at: http://www.circleofblue.org/2014/in-the-circle/peter-gleick-clarifying-discussion-california-drought-climate-change/. 64 Stringfellow WT, et al., Comparison of chemical-use between hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and routine oil and gas development, 12 PLoS ONE(4): e0175344 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175344. 65 See Shonkoff, S., “Hazard Assessment of Chemical Additives Used in Oil Fields that Reuse Produced Water for Agricultural Irrigation, Livestock Watering, and Groundwater Recharge in The San Joaquin Valley of California: Preliminary Results,” PSE Health Energy Technical Report (Sept. 2016). 66 Id., citing Muggeridge, A, et al., Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits, Phil Trans R Soc A. 372:20120320 (2014), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866386/. 67 Transcript: Joint Oversight Hearing: Senate Natural Resource and Water and Environmental Quality Committees, “Ensuring Groundwater Protection: Is the Underground Injection Control Program Working?” Jonathan Bishop speaking at 74, (March 10, 2015). See also, CalEPA 2015, Memo: CalEPA Review of UIC Program, https://sntr.senate.ca.gov/sites/sntr.senate.ca.gov/files/3_10_15_cal_epa_review_of_uic_program.pdf.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 12 contamination.”68 Thus, any plans that puts groundwater at risk could lead to irreversible damage. Long Beach should not be jeopardizing groundwater for the benefit of the oil industry. Injection activity does not occur in isolation. Operators use chemicals in all stages of oil production, such as drilling muds to facilitate the drilling process, powerful cleaning solvents, or chemical mixtures designed to maintain the well. Unfortunately, neither state nor federal regulations require companies to fully disclose the chemical identities or volumes used. While some chemicals have been identified, a substantial portion of chemicals remain secret. This is worrisome because enhanced oil recovery operations like cyclic steam injection commonly employ harmful chemicals acting as surfactants, polymers, caustics, or biocides to facilitate the operation. The City must be aware of the full spectrum of substances being injected in order to regulate effectively. Accordingly, the range of substances to be tested for must be expanded, so that regulators and operators are aware of all fluids and chemicals injected or emplaced into a Class II injection well. Without such chemical information, it is impossible to detect contamination or predict how chemicals will interact or migrate in the subsurface. The potential for harm is evident from past studies of oil and gas activities. CalGEM itself acknowledges that there are potential pathways for the chemicals and hydrocarbons to migrate underground. For example, “[o]ther wells within the area of review that penetrate the injection zone could potentially serve as conduits for fluid migration.”69 The injection wells themselves may become conduits for fluid migration. In cyclic steam injection, the repeated soaking of the formation with very hot steam creates “large temperature variations and formation movements,” putting extreme pressure on the ground and well casing, which can cause well failure or the migration of fluids and steam.70 Indeed, “[c]yclic steam injection presents some of the harshest conditions” under which a well can be placed.71 Thus, it is not surprising that rates of well casing failure from “excessive deformation, buckling, and collapse” are especially high in cyclic steam injection wells.72 Further, the injection of hot steam can deform the surrounding formation and overlying ground so much that cyclic steaming can result in the migration of fluids and steam. This can sometimes pollute underground aquifers. It can also result in “surface expressions,” in which the steam, oil, gas, and whatever else might be mixed in underground come bubbling to, or even exploding out of the surface of the ground.73 68 Id. at 73. 69 Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Initial Statement of Reasons In Support of Updated Underground Injection Control Regulations (2018) (“Statement of Reasons 2018”), at p. 16. 70 Xie, Jueren, Analysis of Casing Deformations in Thermal Wells (2008), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308709003_Analysis_of_Casing_Deformations_in_Thermal_Wells. 71 Kulakofsky, David, Achieving Long-Term Zonal Isolation in Heavy-Oil Steam Injection Wells, a Case History (Aug. 2008), DOI: 10.2118/115201-MS. 72 Wu, Jiang, Casing Temperature and Stress Analysis in Steam-Injection Wells, paper presented at the International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition (December 2006); see also Wu, Jiang, Casing Failures in Cyclic Steam Injection Wells (2008). 73 Cal. Dep’t of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Report of Occurrences, Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 13 Cyclic steam injection leads to changes subsurface pressures, which are poorly understood and opens the door to fluid migration. A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory explained: “As important as the subsurface is for U.S. energy strategy, our understanding of how the subsurface responds to common perturbations, such as those caused by pulling fluids out or pushing fluids in, is quite crude.…We’re not able to manipulate the subsurface with the control that can guarantee that we’re not only maximizing energy production or waste storage, but that we’re also protecting our environment—including minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, impacts to groundwater, and induced seismicity. That’s a significant gap.”74 Cyclic steam operations will lead to significant and unavoidable impacts for surface and groundwater. In the winter of 1995, six well casings in a field in Alberta, Canada, failed under the pressure of cyclic steam stimulation.75 Similar to projects in Long Beach, the operations were pursuing heavy oil at relatively shallow depths.76 The failures released approximately 55,000 cubic meters of “oil, saline produced water, and solids” to the environment, polluting two groundwater aquifers in the process.77 2. Increased risk of earthquakes The mechanisms linking wastewater injection and earthquakes are well understood: injection-induced increases in fluid pressure within aquifers and fault lubrication by injected fluids have the potential to destabilize well bores and cause preexisting faults to slip.78 Such mechanisms serve to explain atypical seismic activity, such as the extensively documented earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. There, earthquake count has increased dramatically over the last decade, with more than 300 earthquakes with M ≥ 3 between 2010 and 2012, or an average of 100 events/year, compared with an average rate of 21 events/year for the period spanning 1967 to 2000.79 This surge of activity includes a magnitude 5.7 earthquake that struck Oklahoma in 2011, in close proximity to active hydraulic fracturing wastewater wells,80 The Chevron Fatality Accident, June 21, 2011, and Area Surface Expression Activity, Pre and Post Accident, Sections 21 & 22 T.32S./R.23E., Midway-Sunset Oil Field, Kern County (May 2012) (“Accident Report”); Cal. Dep’t of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Reports of Occurrence: Surface Expressions in Bakersfield (2011) (“Spill Binder”). 74 Chao, J., “Underground Science: Berkeley Lab Digs Deep For Clean Energy Solutions,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Oct. 19. 2016), quoting Susan Hubbard, Associate Director, available at http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/10/19/berkeley-lab-digs-deep-clean-energy-solutions/. 75 Kennedy, Alan and Calvin Sikstrom, Assessment and Remediation of a Heavy-Oil Spill into Groundwater Aquifers, International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1997, No. 1, pp. 347-363 ( April 1997). 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Brodsky, Emily and Lisa J. Lajoie, Anthropogenic Seismicity Rates and Operational Parameters at the Salton Sea Geothermal Field, 341 Science (2013); Davies, Richard et al., Induced Seismicity and Hydraulic Fracturing for the Recovery of Hydrocarbons, 45 Marine and Petroleum Geology 171 (2013). 79 Ellsworth, William, Injection-Induced Earthquakes, 341 Science ( July 12, 2013), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1225942. 80 Keranen, Katie M. et al., Potentially Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between Wastewater Injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 Earthquake Sequence, 41 Geology 699 (2013).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 14 and a 5.8 magnitude quake on September 3, 2016 that proved to be the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma.81 Detecting induced events in California has received less attention due to the greater background seismicity in the West. However, such connections have been made, as is the case in a published 2016 study linking wastewater injection in the Tejon Oil Field in Kern County to a September 2005 earthquake swarm of three M ≥ 4 events near the White Wolf Fault.82 Given California’s history with earthquakes and the noted links between wastewater injection and seismicity, these plans should not be approved without adequate consideration of these threats. In Oklahoma, wastewater injection has already led to a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.83 The earthquake’s epicenter was an unknown fault.84 The proposed regulations require disclosure of only previously known faults. This leaves the operator with no requirement to seek out any unmapped fault lines, like the one triggering Oklahoma’s record earthquake, before injection operations begin. Seismic monitoring should apply to all injection wells. Until more is known about the link between injection activity and seismic events, it is necessary to collect more data on earthquakes near injection activity. By failing to require data collection on injection wells, Long Beach is eschewing an important opportunity to further study how injections may lead to increased seismic activity. 3. Track record of missing well integrity tests An analysis of state public records between 2015 and 2018 from California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources showed that the THUMS offshore platforms had long lapses with missing well integrity tests that are required by state law at least every five years. Most of the missing and failed well tests in the THUMS notices of violation were for underground injection wells, which are used to stimulate oil and gas production and help prevent the land subsidence that has caused billions of dollars in damage to Long Beach. Drilling wastes contaminated with toxic chemicals and heavy metals can be injected into these wells, which state law requires to be enclosed and able to withstand pressure so the ocean and freshwater aquifers don’t get contaminated. “Mechanical integrity tests” are required before any underground injections take place. THUMS had 103 violations for missing tests and 47 failed tests, and Tidelands had 68 missing tests and 10 wells that failed the tests over the past three years.85 Long 81 Chen, Xiaowei et al., The Pawnee earthquake as a result of the interplay among injection, faults and aftershocks, 7 Nature Scientific Reports 4945 (2017). 82 Goebel, T.H.W. et al., Wastewater Disposal and Earthquake Swarm Activity at the Southern End of the Central Valley, California, 43 Geophys. Res. Lett. 1092 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066948. 83 Yeck, W. L., et al., Oklahoma experiences largest earthquake during ongoing regional wastewater injection hazard mitigation efforts, 44 Geophys. Res. Lett. (2017), doi:10.1002/2016GL071685. 84 Id. 85 Center for Biological Diversity, “Records: Nearly 400 Violations at California Offshore Drilling Operations (April 11, 2018), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/offshore-drilling-04-11-2018.php#:~:text=THUMS%20had%20103%20violations%20for,over%20the%20past%20three%20years; see also Database of Violations (included in references).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 15 Beach must ensure that oil and gas operations are performing the proper well integrity tests to ensure adequate protection of the environment and human health. C. Enhanced Oil Recovery The Program Plan leaves open the possibility for enhanced oil recovery to “be considered for implementation if economically and technically viable.”86 Long Beach must examine and mitigate the impacts of such dangerous oil and gas extraction techniques under CEQA. Enhanced oil recovery involves the injection of fluids or steam underground to increase the flow of oil and gas to the surface. Enhanced oil recovery techniques may combine injected fluids or steam with harmful chemicals used as surfactants. And while there are a number of enhanced oil recovery technologies, some elements are common to all processes; the use of a recovery fluid, a system to inject recovery fluids, surface processing, and a need to dispose of waste materials.87 As a result, the environmental risks of enhanced oil recovery are shared by all methods. Groundwater contamination: As discussed above, migration of injection fluids into drinking water aquifers is concerning due to the potentially hazardous substances those fluids may contain.88 Chemical additives are often added to help increase production, and disclosure of contaminants in not required by federal or state regulations. Post injection, dissolution of other contaminants present in oil reservoirs can introduce new compounds into the fluid that will be recovered with oil. Contamination of groundwater is a major concern as approximately 60% of Long Beach’s water needs are filled by local groundwater.89 Health risks from chemicals migrating into Long Beach’s groundwater must be adequately examined and mitigated. Air pollution: As detailed below, oil and gas drilling in Long Beach results in emissions of hazardous air pollutants include volatile organic compounds and considerable greenhouse gas pollution. The pressure and heat needed for extended oil recovery operations can lead to significantly larger quantities of air pollution that conventional oil and gas extraction techniques. The California Air Resources Board itemized a number of sources associated with operational activities including steam generators, steam drive wells, cyclic steam wells, fugitive emissions from the wellhead, valves, fittings, and evaporation from sumps and pits.90 The air pollution from these operational activities will be a significant impact if the Plans authorize extended oil recovery. In addition, the energy required to create the steam and transport the oil makes 86 Program Plan 2023-28 at 6. 87 See Clean Water Action, Environmental Risks and Oversight of Enhanced Oil Recovery (2017), https://www.cleanwateraction.org/sites/default/files/docs/publications/Environmental%20Risks%20and%20Oversight%20of%20Enhanced%20Oil%20Recovery%2011.08.17a.pdf. 88Stringfellow, et al., Comparison of chemical-use between hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and routine oil and gas development, 12 PLoS ONE(4): e0175344 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175344. 89 Long Beach Water, Groundwater, available at https://lbwater.org/water-sources/ground-and-imported-water/. 90 CCST Report Vol. II at p. 199, citing CARB (California Air Resources Board) (2013), Almanac Emission Projection Data: 2012 Estimated Annual Average Emissions by California Air District, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/statemap/dismap.htm.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 16 California’s oil production some of the most carbon-intensive in the world, especially from fields that rely on enhanced oil recovery.91 Worker safety: California regulators now rightly presume injections into diatomaceous formations “creates a risk of surface expressions….”92 These surface expressions have occurred frequently and with disastrous effects. On June 21, 2011, a Chevron worker was killed when investigating steam coming from a surface expression caused by cyclic steaming in Kern County’s Midway-Sunset oil field.93 When approaching the plume of steam, the ground gave way, and the worker fell into a sinkhole and died.94 In May 2012, California’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (now known as CalGEM) issued a report on the tragedy.95 As with the Plan at issue, operations in the Midway-Sunset oil field were using enhanced oil recovery (cyclic steam injection) to exploit shallow heavy oil deposits.96 D. Subsidence and Increased Impacts from Sea Level Rise, Storm Surges, and Flooding Long Beach admits in its Program Plan that “the oil reservoir zones of the Wilmington Oil Field are susceptible to compaction” and “[a] major goal during the operation and development of the Unit is the continued prevention of subsidence related to oil and gas production.”97 Long Beach must examine and mitigate the risks of subsidence under CEQA, especially as subsidence will be exacerbated by sea level rise, storm surges, and flooding caused by climate change. Land subsidence in Long Beach is caused by the extraction of oil and gas from underground reservoirs. Long Beach is home to one of this country’s most dramatic cases of land subsidence caused by oil and gas production; between 1928 and 1965, the community sank almost 30 feet. As the oil reservoirs were depleted, sand compaction caused a land subsidence that flooded streets and wharfs and caused structural damage to bridges, railroads, and other harbor facilities.98 While subsidence in Long Beach in recent years is less dramatic, subsidence is still a major issue. One recent study that examined subsidence in Long Beach was conducted by the 91 Center for Biological Diversity, Killer Crude: How California Produces Some of the Dirties, Most Dangerous Oil in the World (2021), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/pdfs/June-2021-Killer-Crude-Rpt.pdf. 92 Statement of Reasons at p. 30. 93 Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Executive Summary of Report of Occurrences: The Chevron Fatality Accident June 21, 2011 and Area Surface Expression Activity Pre and Post Accident – Sections 21 & 22 T.32S./R.23E., Midway-Sunset Oil Field Kern County (May 2012). (aka “Accident Report ES”); Accident Report at 2. 94 Id. at 2. 95 Id. at 1. 96 Id. at 9. 97 Program Plan 2023-28 at 11. 98 USGS, National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards (2003), https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/extraction.html.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 17 United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) in collaboration with the City of Long Beach.99 The study, published in 2018, used satellite data to measure changes in land surface elevation in Long Beach over a 17-year period. The study found that parts of Long Beach had subsided by as much as 9 inches during that time period, with the greatest subsidence occurring in areas where oil extraction had taken place. The impacts of land subsidence are particularly dire near sea level where minor lowering of the land surface results in permanent inundation. Not only are many of Long Beach wells near sea level, but sea level rise in coming years will compound the subsidence problem and result in increased flooding. In the Los Angeles region, containing all of Ventura, LA, and Orange Counties, roughly 1 to 2 feet of sea level rise is projected by mid-century, with the most extreme projections predicting 8 to 10 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century.100 Scientific estimates suggest that sea level rise in California could be at least half of a foot just in 2030.101 In its recent adopted Climate Action Plan, the city of Long Beach projected 11 inches of sea level rise by 2030.102 As drilling in Long Beach exacerbates land subsidence in the community, the impacts of sea level rise will become increasingly severe. The City of Long Beach has voiced extreme concern at the prospect of sea level rise and resulting economic impacts.103 For example, in its Climate Action Plan, Long Beach acknowledges that “permanent inundation from [sea level rise] as well as increased frequency and intensity of temporary flooding from king tides and storm surges will become a very real threat in the near future.” The Plan identifies a number of actions the City will take to address sea level rise and flooding.104 These include relocating/elevating critical infrastructure, including elevating riverine levees and flood proofing vulnerable sewer pump stations, elevating streets and pathways, extending sea walls, and investigating the feasibility of a managed retreat in the long term.105 Despite the concern the City professes to have for the impacts of sea level rise, it continues to allow oil and gas drilling that will inevitably increase subsidence and vulnerability to sea level rise, as well as produce the very emissions that causes sea level rise in the first place. The subsidence caused by drilling in Long Beach will also result in increased expense to mitigate the harm of sea level rise. With 11 inches of sea level rise (predicted by 2030), approximately 1.3 million square feet of buildings are projected to be exposed to annual king tides. Approximately half of these buildings are residential (624,100 square feet) and half are 99 USGS, Comparison of regression relations of bankfull discharge and channel geometry for the glaciated and nonglaciated settings of Pennsylvania and southern New York (2018), https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20185066. 100 California’s 4th Climate Change Assessment, Los Angeles Region Report, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg%20Report-%20SUM-CCCA4-2018-007%20LosAngeles_ADA.pdf. 101 Legislative Analyst’s Office, What Threat Does Sea Level Rise Pose to California (2020), https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4261/sea-level-rise-081020.pdf. 102 City of Long Beach, Climate Action Plan at 16 (2022), https://longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/lb-cap/adopted-lb-cap_-aug-2022. 103 Id. at 55. 104 Id. at 11-12. 105 Id.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 18 commercial (689,600 square feet).106 At the very least, Long Beach must examine to the degree to which oil and gas drilling exacerbate the burdens of sea level rise within the city. In addition, larger storms are predicted in the future, resulting in increased rainfall, flooding, and storm surges. According to the Climate Action Plan: “Urban flooding during precipitation events is already a problem in Long Beach, and extreme events today provide an example of what may become more common in the future, when more intense precipitation events are projected.”107 As Long Beach experiences heightened storm surges and king tides, battering the coast, subsidence will increase water inundation and cause innumerable problems for residents of the city. E. Environmental Justice There are significant environmental justice impacts from drilling in the Long Beach Unit. According to analysis by FracTracker, an estimated 140,138 Long Beach residents—amounting to over 30% of the City’s population—live within 3,200 feet of an operational oil and gas well within the city limits.108 Of those, 101,498 (72.4%) are people of color.109 According to CalEnviroScreen, communities living near Long Beach Unit drilling activities are in the highest percentiles for pollution vulnerability. The CalEnviroScreen map below “shows the combined Population Characteristics scores, which is made up of indicators from the Sensitive Populations and Socioeconomic Factors components of the CalEnviroScreen model. Population Characteristics represent physiological traits, health status, or community characteristics that can result in increased vulnerability to pollution.”110 Environmental justice is increasingly being incorporated into State decisionmaking, and CEQA is an important environmental justice tool. The State Attorney General announced that his office “is particularly concerned that land use planning and permitting decisions consider and address any additional burdens on environmental justice communities.”111 And as stated by the California Environmental Justice Alliance, “CEQA protects the basic rights of disadvantaged or EJ communities in California. These rights include the right to clean air and water, [and] the right to participate in local land use decisions, and the right to affordable housing and good schools free from pollution and other harms.”112 As shown above, environmental justice considerations are directly relevant to LBU plans. The City’s current process to prepare, propose, and adopt Program and Annual Plans ignores the need to take environmental justice considerations into account. 106 Id. at 23, Appendix C. 107 City of Long Beach, Climate Action Plan at 56. 108 FracTracker, City of Long Beach Oil and Gas Extraction (April 1, 2022) at 2. 109 Id. 110 OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 (search for “Long Beach” and “Population Characteristics”). 111 Bon Bonta, Cal. Attorney General, https://oag.ca.gov/environment/justice. 112 Cal. Environmental Justice Alliance, Protect CEQA to Advance Environmental Justice and Protect Housing, https://caleja.org/2019/05/protect-ceqa-to-advance-environmental-justice-and-protect-housing/.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 19 F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Air Pollution Drilling and other oil field operations in the LBU produce significant air pollution and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated under CEQA.113 The climate crisis, caused primarily by fossil fuels, poses an existential threat to every aspect of society. In the words of the State Lands Commission: Climate change is an existential threat that grows more urgent each passing day . . . . The State of California, the fifth largest economy in the world, is aggressively pursuing various options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deaccelerate the impacts of climate change. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that emissions from fossil fuels are the dominant cause of global warming. Oil, a fossil fuel that releases an enormous amount of carbon when burned, exacerbates climate change.114 113 See generally CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; Appendix G (naming GHG emissions and air quality as environmental factors that must be evaluated for significance). 114 State Lands Commission, Staff Report 52 (Feb. 25, 2022), https://slcprdwordpressstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpressdata/2022/02/02-25-22_52.pdf.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 20 Indeed, the vast scientific literature documenting these findings has been set forth in a series of authoritative reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), U.S. Global Change Research Program, and other institutions, which make clear that fossil-fuel driven climate change is a “code red for humanity.”115 Without limits on fossil fuel production and deep and rapid emissions reductions, global temperature rise will exceed 1.5°C and will result in catastrophic damage in the U.S. and around the world.116 While the City has made statements to the effect of, “Long Beach knows and supports the position that oil production is not in our long-term future,”117 the LBU continues to produce millions of barrels of oil each year. In 2015, “oil fields in Long Beach [likely referring to the entire Wilmington field] produced more than 13 million barrels of crude oil, representing significant [GHG] emissions.”118 Those 13 million barrels of crude oil (and 5.1 million Mcf of natural gas extracted) “generated an estimated 8.3 million MT CO2e in lifecycle emissions.”119 This is the equivalent of over 1.7 million gasoline-powered passenger cars driven for one year, or the annual operations of 2.2 coal-fired power plants.120 Similarly, in 2022, the City reported production of approximately 10 million barrels of oil per year.121 According to a 2020 study conducted as part of the City’s climate action planning, approximately 96 percent of the city’s oil and gas lifecycle emissions are attributed to oil, with the remaining 4 percent resulting from natural gas.122 That same study determined that Long Beach oil field carbon intensity is 5.48 gCO2e/MJ, which puts the oil field at 94th out of 157 115 See United Nations Secretary-General, Secretary-General’s statement on the IPCC Working Group 1 Report on the Physical Science Basis of the Sixth Assessment, Aug. 9, 2021, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/secretary-generals-statement-the-ipcc-working-group-1-report-the-physical-science-basis-of-the-sixth-assessment. 116 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, In: Global Warming of 1.5°C.:An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (2018) [Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.)], https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. 117 City of Long Beach, Recommendation from the Sustainable City Commission (March 15, 2022) at 19, https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/memos-to-the-mayor-tabbed-file-list-folders/2022/march-15--2022---recommendation-from-the-sustainable-city-commission; see also City of Long Beach, Recommendation from the Sustainable City Commission & Reducing Reliance on City Revenue from Oil Production (Jan. 2022 and Oct. 2021) at 4, http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10423777&GUID=CE2373C6-1897-4A8F-9FE8-858224EC882E. 118 City of Long Beach, Appx G, Proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Nov. 2020) at 1, https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/lb-cap/lb-caap-proposed-plan-app-g-_dec-14 (“Appx G Climate Plan”). 119 Appx G Climate Plan at 1. 120 See EPA, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator#results. 121 City of Long Beach, Recommendation from the Sustainable City Commission (March 15, 2022) at 5, https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/memos-to-the-mayor-tabbed-file-list-folders/2022/march-15--2022---recommendation-from-the-sustainable-city-commission. 122 Appx G Climate Plan at 1.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 21 when ranked lowest to highest.123 This suggests that even among other California oil fields, the majority have a lower carbon intensity value than Long Beach oil.124 The City cannot ignore the plain fact that its oil and gas drilling operations results in significant climate impacts. The current draft Program Plan projects that over the next five years, LBU expects to produce over 26.2 million barrels of oil and over 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas.125 Those are tremendously high numbers and represent an increase over what the Program Plan for 2021-26 anticipated.126 The City’s own report acknowledges that “[u]pstream emissions occur at the oil fields within the city boundary” and because “[t]he City issues well permits for petroleum operations, [it] has relatively more direct control over these emissions.”127 Even if oil and gas operations had no other environmental and public health impacts (which clearly is not the case), these massive GHG emissions would warrant analysis and mitigation under CEQA. Similarly, it is well-documented that oil field operations result in significant impacts to air quality and expose communities and sensitive receptors to substantial air pollution concentrations.128 Oil and gas operations emit large amounts of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and nitrous oxides (“NOX”).129 The oil and natural gas industry is the largest industrial source of emissions of VOCs, a group of chemicals that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog).130 Ozone exposure is linked to a wide range of health effects, including aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions, and premature death.131 The VOCs emitted include the BTEX compounds—benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene—which are Hazardous Air Pollutants.132 There is substantial evidence of the harm from 123 Id. at 8. 124 Id. 125 Draft Program Plan 2023-28, Exhibit C. 126 Program Plan 2021-26, Exhibit C (projecting just over 25.4 million barrels of oil produced over five years). Moreover, the City showed its discretion because it increased production numbers anticipated in 2023-26 over what it prescribed in the 2021 Program Plan for the time period. For example, the City expected 5,037,000 barrels per year in 2023/24 (2021-26 Program Plan) but increased that to 5,365,000 (2023-28 Program Plan). 127 Appx G Climate Plan at 2. 128 See, e.g., Stanford News, “Living near oil and gas wells increases air pollution exposure, according to Stanford research” (Oct. 21, 2021), https://news.stanford.edu/2021/10/12/living-near-oil-gas-wells-increases-air-pollution-exposure/. 129 Id. 130 EPA, “Basic Information about Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards,” https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/basic-information-about-oil-and-natural-gas#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20helping%20form,and%20other%20serious%20health%20effects. 131 Id. 132 Each has also been identified as a carcinogen. Mall, Amy, Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 6974(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Concerning the Regulation of Wastes Associated with the Exploration, Development, or Production of Crude Oil or Natural Gas or Geothermal Energy at 13 (Sep. 8, 2010); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 22 these pollutants, including cancer and other serious health effects.133 One analysis found that 37 percent of the chemicals used during natural gas drilling, fracturing, and production were volatile, and that of those volatile chemicals, 81 percent can harm the brain and nervous system, 71 percent can harm the cardiovascular system and blood, and 66 percent can harm the kidneys.134 Exposure to benzene has been associated with increased incidence of leukemia and other serious health conditions; exposure to toluene can damage the nervous system; and xylenes can cause dizziness, headaches, and loss of balance.135 Another study found that among known air contaminants, compounds of particular concern that are known to be emitted during the well-stimulation-enabled oil and gas development process are BTEX compounds, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, polycyclic aromatic, aliphatic, and aromatic hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds.136 Wastewater reinjection and disposal are among the potential pathways for these contaminants to escape into the air.137 The pressure and heat needed for EOR operations can lead to significantly larger quantities of air pollution. The California Air Resources Board itemized a number of sources associated with operational activities including steam generators, steam drive wells, cyclic steam wells, fugitive emissions from the wellhead, valves, fittings, and evaporation from sumps and pits.138 The air pollution from these operational activities will be a significant impact if the Plans authorize EOR. In a 14-year study of air quality across California, researchers observed higher levels of air pollutants within 2.5 miles of oil and gas wells, likely worsening negative health outcomes for nearby residents.139 Moreover, the cumulative impacts of oil and gas air pollution combined with Port pollution needs to be analyzed. The community in West Long Beach has extensive exposure to air pollution, heightened risks of pollution related health problems, and the South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment of ozone and particulate matter.140 Neither draft plans 133 Colborn, Theo et al., Natural Gas Operations for a Public Health Perspective, 17 Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1039 (2011) (“Colborn 2011”); McKenzie, Lisa et al., Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions form Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources, Sci Total Environ (2012), doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018; Food & Water Watch, The Case for a Ban on Fracking (2012). 134 Colborn 2011 at 8. 135 Mall, Amy, Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 6974(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Concerning the Regulation of Wastes Associated with the Exploration, Development, or Production of Crude Oil or Natural Gas or Geothermal Energy at 7 (Sep. 8, 2010). 136 CCST Report, Vol. II, p. 410. 137 Id. 138 Id. at p. 199, citing CARB (California Air Resources Board) (2013), Almanac Emission Projection Data: 2012 Estimated Annual Average Emissions by California Air District, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/statemap/dismap.htm. 139 Stanford News, “Living near oil and gas wells increases air pollution exposure, according to Stanford research” (Oct. 21, 2021), https://news.stanford.edu/2021/10/12/living-near-oil-gas-wells-increases-air-pollution-exposure/. 140 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES IV (2012), at 4-16, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic-studies/mates-iv/mates-iv-final-draft-report-4-1-15.pdf?sfvrsn=7.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 23 describe the impacts to air quality, which is all the more reason for analysis and disclosure of these likely impacts through CEQA analysis. G. Energy Use California’s grid is on “shaky ground,” with the 2022 heat wave pushing the grid “to the brink of collapse,” prompting the California legislature and Governor Newsom to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant despite a pre-planned closure.141 Yet with the crisis of electricity demand in the State, the LBU is one of Southern California Edison’s biggest electricity users, consuming approximately 683 million kWh per year in order to power its oilfield operations.142 This is unacceptable. Because CEQA require that environmental reviews discuss the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy,143 LBU’s massive energy use must be addressed under CEQA. Moreover, the Program Plan notes that the property lease for the Unit’s in-house, 45MW power plant expires in July 2024, and lease negotiations have “stalled.”144 Failure to renew the lease could mean even greater demand on the State’s power grid and/or “result in . . . relocating the plant or installing a sales pipeline to SoCal Gas.”145 Any of the potential scenarios above concerning the power plant could lead to significant concerns and environmental impacts and must be analyzed under CEQA. H. Amine Plant The City’s Program Plan refers to an amine plant located within the oil field that is used in conjunction with power plant operations.146 Amines are a class of chemicals that derive from ammonia147 and can have negative effects on human health (irritation, sensitization, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity), be toxic to animals and aquatic organisms, and cause eutrophication and acidification in marine environments.148 The Program Plan inadequately describes what having an “amine plant” means for the LBU and surrounding ecosystems and 141 See “California’s latest power grid problems are just the beginning,” Politico (Sept. 23, 2022), https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/23/californias-lofty-climate-goals-clash-with-reality-00058466; Nathan Rott, “California lawmakers extend the life of the state's last nuclear power plant,” NPR (Sept. 1, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1119778975/california-lawmakers-extend-the-life-of-the-states-last-nuclear-power-plant. 142 Program Plan 2023-28 at 12. 143 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); see also CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F: Energy Conservation (noting that environmental effects related to energy may include the project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies; the effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies; the effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy; the degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards; the effects of the project on energy resources). 144 Program Plan 2023-28 at 12. 145 Id. 146 Id. at 11. 147 Science Direct, Amine Overview, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/amine. 148 Bellona, Amines Used in CO2 Capture - Health and Environmental Impacts (2009), https://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/3/fil_Bellona_report_September_2009_-_Amines_used_in_CO2_capture.pdf (“Amine Report”).

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 24 communities. The public needs to know about chemical transport, storage, production, use, discharges, and disposal. Because of the likely environmental and health impacts from using (or producing) amines in the LBU, this component of operations triggers CEQA and must be subject to review. Amine use results in environmental and health impacts throughout its lifecycle. Amine gases that are released to the air could be dissolved in the rain droplets and ended up in water supplies such as rivers and lakes.149 Some emitted amines are unstable in the nature environment.150 The amines specifically used in natural gas capture are highly soluble in water and their reclaimer waste contains amine, ammonia, other degradation products, heat-stable salts, flue gas impurities, and also corrosion products.151 Amines used in natural gas operations also lead to metals corrosion, which can result in excess emissions and leaks.152 Discharged amines may degrade to some dangerous substances that are toxic and represents a risk for cancer, such as aldehydes, amides, nitrosamines, and nitramines.153 Amine spills are a “major problem[].”154 High concentration of amines in environment could leads to disruption of aquatic life and bioconcentration potential and can be toxic to humans.155 Amines used near saltwater (a concern for the LBU) is especially concerning and could lead to significant impacts, as studies have sown amine degradation in seawater is slower than in the freshwater system.156 I. Cumulative Impacts The public and other officials are entitled to know the cumulative impacts of LBU operations—including from drilling/redrilling activities, equipment updates and new technologies, power plant operations (including the associated amine plant), actions to reduce subsidence, and more. CEQA requires a cumulative project impacts analysis because “the full environmental impact of a proposed . . . action cannot be gauged in a vacuum.”157 Under CEQA, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.158 The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.159 In an EIR, the discussion of each type of cumulative 149 Salim, S.R.S., Treatment of amine wastes generated in industrial processes, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering (2021) at 2, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1092/1/012051/pdf (“Amine Treatment Study”). 150 Amine Report at 13. 151 Amine Treatment Study at 2. 152 Id. 153 Amine Report at 13. 154 Amine Treatment Study at 2. 155 Id. 156 Eide-Haugmo, Ingvild et al., Environmental impact of amines, Science Direct, Energy Procedia 1 (2009) at 1298, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610209001714. 157 Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408 (1979). 158 CEQA Guidelines § 15355. 159 Id.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 25 impact need only be proportional to the severity of the impact and the likelihood of its occurrence,160 but even an insignificant impact must be justified as such.161 An underinclusive cumulative impacts analysis “impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decision maker’s perspective concerning the environmental consequences of a project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval.”162 J. Health and Safety Buffer Zones The projections for oil and gas production in the Program Plan, and yearly maximums for redrills in FY 2025, assume that the 2022 legislation establishing 3200-foot health and safety setbacks from oil and gas operations—Senate Bill 1137 (SB 1137)—will not take effect and that CalGEM will issue permits for redrilling wells between now and 2028. While implementation of SB 1137 is currently paused because of a forced ballot referendum sponsored by the oil and gas industry that seeks to overturn the law, the City should not assume the absence of setbacks and instead should incorporate these necessary protections into its planning. Schedule 1B indicates that up to 22 redrills on Island Grissom and up to 6 redrills on Pier J for oil production will be completed in FY 2024 alone. All of these wells are within the buffer zone that will be in place if SB 1137 remains law. This zone represents areas where Long Beach residents and visitors live, work, and recreate. Ongoing operations in these areas already pose significant public health harms and these harms will be exacerbated by the expanded production proposed by the five-year Program Plan. There are an estimated 140,000 individuals living within 3200 feet of Long Beach oil and gas wells (a number that encompasses the entire oil field).163 Of those, 101,498 (72.4%) identify as non-white, including Latina/Hispanic origin, which is slightly higher than the citywide average (71.7% non-white).164 The map below depicts oil and gas operations from the LBU that are within the proposed setback zone.165 160 Id. § 15130(b). 161 Id. § 15130(a). 162 Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431 (1985); see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 108 Cal.App.4th 859 (2003). 163 FracTracker, City of Long Beach Oil and Gas Extraction (April 1, 2022) at 2. 164 Id. 165 FracTracker, California 3,200' Setbacks Analysis (zoomed in for LBU), https://ft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/SimpleViewer/index.html?appid=6f315303438045a09ebbcd9698e3518e.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 26 It is well-documented that there are adverse health outcomes for those living near oil and gas wells. In a 14-year analysis of air quality across California, Stanford researchers observed higher levels of air pollutants within 2.5 miles of oil and gas wells, likely worsening negative health outcomes for nearby residents.166 Their data aligned with other smaller-scale studies that measured emissions from a handful of wells.167 A panel of medical experts reported consistent findings of health impacts at distances less than one kilometer and recommended 3200-foot setbacks paired with pollution control measures on existing wells to account for significant impacts to perinatal and respiratory health in humans.168 The city manager’s hesitation to embrace the health and safety buffer zone is concerning and runs counter to the city’s 2030 strategic vision stating the intention to “improve the health of our environment and quality of life for all Long Beach residents and begin to remedy longstanding social, economic and environmental inequities . . . . All communities will have access to clean air, clean water, flourishing ecosystems, and protection from extreme weather events.”169 Fourteen organizations representing environmental justice, public health, business, and the environment have submitted a letter to the city manager expressing support for health and safety buffer zones and urging the city to reverse advocacy efforts casting doubt on the state law.170 166 Gonzalez, et al., Upstream oil and gas production and ambient air pollution in California, S. of the Total Envt., Vol. 806, Part 1, (Feb. 1, 2022), 150298, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721053754. 167 Id. 168 PSE Berkeley, Response to CalGEM Questions for the California Oil and Gas Public Health Rulemaking Scientific Advisory Panel (Oct. 1, 2021), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Public-Health-Panel-Memo.pdf. 169 City of Long Beach, 2030 Strategic Vision at 52, https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/2030-strategic-vision. 170 See Sign-on letter re: SB 1137 (March 21, 2023), attached herein.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments on the Long Beach Unit Program and Annual Plans March 2023 27 In order to protect the health of residents and to prepare for the implementation of SB 1137, Long Beach’s plans should not include any projects (including redrills) within setback zones, which includes on Island Grissom, Island White, or Pier J. And the city should move expeditiously to phase down operations within the 3200-foot health and safety buffer zone. K. Tribal consultation Several tribal entities of the Acjachemen and Tongva nations hold critical cultural information regarding the cultural sites affected by the continued development of oil infrastructure, continued extraction, and continued threat of oil spills that threaten to impact these cultural resources and sacred sites. Oil spill response efforts without consultation with these entities risk further impacting cultural resources. A new CEQA review should be conducted considering these impacts and incorporating revisions of the oil spill response plans to alert and consult with Tribes. CONCLUSION Thank you for considering our comments. All the references cited herein are available at https://centerforbiologicald-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/celkins_biologicaldiversity_org/EnKgnCor99lGuuLZ09VgLJEBe1qZCkB-L3ApueGIIPlwhQ?e=glc5NS. We will also hand-deliver a USB flash drive containing all references to the city clerk at tonight’s meeting. __________________________ Victoria Bogdan Tejeda Staff Attorney, Climate Law Institute Center for Biological Diversity [email protected] _______________________ Emily Jeffers Senior Attorney, Oceans Program Center for Biological Diversity [email protected]

C-8 Correspondence – Emily Jeffers

-EXTERNAL-

We were alerted that the below link to our cited references may not work for non-Microsoft users.

Please try this link -- Long Beach Unit Annual & Program Plans - References – and let me know if you are able to access and download the sources.

Best,
Emily Jeffers

Dear Clerk,

All sources cited in the comment letter are included in this public folder: Long Beach Unit Annual & Program Plans - References

Please confirm you can access and will download these references.

We will also hand-deliver a USB flash drive containing all cited references at tonight’s city council meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions. You can reach me at (408) 348-6958.

Thank you,

Emily Jeffers
Center for Biological Diversity

-EXTERNAL-

Dear Clerk,

All sources cited in the comment letter are included in this public folder: Long Beach Unit Annual & Program Plans - References

Please confirm you can access and will download these references.

We will also hand-deliver a USB flash drive containing all cited references at tonight’s city council meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions. You can reach me at (408) 348-6958.

Thank you,

Emily Jeffers
Center for Biological Diversity

C-8 Correspondence – Christine Jocoy

From: Christine Jocoy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:07 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: March 21 2023 Agenda item 8

-EXTERNAL-

I urge the City Council to deny the recommendation of the Long Beach Unit Annual Plan and Program Plan and direct Energy Resources to rewrite a plan in line with a 5-year phase out of oil drilling and 3200 feet health and safety setbacks immediately. This plan is not consistent with taking serious action on climate change.

Sincerely,
Christine Jocoy
C-8 Correspondence – Christine Jocoy

From: Christine Jocoy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:07 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: March 21 2023 Agenda item 8

-EXTERNAL-

Sincerely,
Christine Jocoy
To: City Council 3/21/23
From: Corliss Lee
Resident City of Long Beach
Regarding: City Council Agenda item 8 3/21/23

8. 23-0238
Recommendation to approve and adopt the Long Beach Unit Annual Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024) and Program Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2028). (Citywide) COMMENTS:

This item should be delayed and re-titled. The main subject of this line item (Oil) does not show up in the subject line and is therefore not visible to the public. Placing it on the consent calendar further obfuscates the line item. This appears to be a violation of the Brown Act.

Having read the staff report, I can appreciate the effort to do maintenance, save money and make the existing wells more efficient. I'm told that wells that are re-drilled are usually already idle because they are mechanically damaged or uneconomic to produce (depleted at their current location). As I understand it, there is intent is to use the current infrastructure to do an oil expansion, not just maintenance.

It is noted in the report that 3 of the sites (Island Grissom, Island White, and Pier J) would be affected by the new law SB1137. We need to respect that our State Legislature deemed it in the best interest of the people to abandon oil expansion close to residences. Our plan should specify maintenance only at those sites.

I would hope that our City intends to obey the new law SB 1137 close to public residences. Weaning ourselves off oil as an energy resource is good for the planet as well as for the residents of Long Beach. I can understand that it needs to be an orderly transition and without pulling the rug out from under ourselves. Our plans however should clearly indicate a move to solar and other sources of energy with haste.

Respectfully,
Corliss Lee/ Eastside Voice
Resident of the City of Long Beach

REFERENCES:

Taken from the staff report:
“SB 1137 prohibits most new or modified oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of specific locations. It also requires existing wells in these areas to meet specified health, safety, and environmental requirements.

The bill passed the California State - 6 - Assembly and California State Senate in late August and was signed into law in September. A referendum challenging the law collected enough signatures to stay the law until the next general election in 2024 where the public will vote on the bill. If the bill becomes a law, it will likely adversely affect the development plans and maintenance on wells that require permitted operations on wells in Island Grissom, Island White, and Pier J. Incremental operating costs are also anticipated due to the additional monitoring requirements of the law.” Staff report references indicating the intent for oil expansion:

2. Assess and deliver additional redevelopment investment opportunities via the drilling and investment well work programs. Redevelopment activities are currently focused on capturing bypassed, unswept oil and increasing waterflood throughput in less mature areas.

3. Implement new technologies to decrease costs, improve efficiencies, and develop unproven reserves.

Enhanced oil recovery applications will be considered for implementation if economically and technically viable.

--------------------------
Brown Act section 54954.2. (a) “(1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting . . .”

To: City Council 3/21/23
From: Corliss Lee
Resident City of Long Beach
Regarding: City Council Agenda item 8 3/21/23

8. 23-0238
Recommendation to approve and adopt the Long Beach Unit Annual Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024) and Program Plan (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2028). (Citywide) COMMENTS:

Respectfully,
Corliss Lee/ Eastside Voice
Resident of the City of Long Beach

REFERENCES:

3. Implement new technologies to decrease costs, improve efficiencies, and develop unproven reserves.

Enhanced oil recovery applications will be considered for implementation if economically and technically viable.

C-8 Correspondence – Nicole Levin
From: Nicole Levin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:10 AM
To: Tom Modica <[email protected]>; Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Suely Saro <[email protected]>; Cindy Allen <[email protected]>; Kristina Duggan <[email protected]>; Mary Zendejas <[email protected]>; Roberto Uranga <[email protected]>; Joni Ricks-Oddie <[email protected]>; Al Austin <[email protected]>
Cc: Dawn McIntosh <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]>; Connor Lock <[email protected]>; Paul Monge <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for Health and Safety Buffer Zones -EXTERNAL-

Similarly, on behalf of the Sierra Club, I am sending in this letter signed by 700 members asking decision makers to support setbacks, ban new oil drilling within 3200 feet. Furthermore, today we ask you to reject the five year plan for expanding oil drilling and instead create a new plan to phase out oil drilling under the same timeline.

Best,
Nicole Levin
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:55 AM Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Modica,
Please find the attached letter from 14 organizations representing membership in Long Beach in support of 2022 Senate Bill 1137. We request your office’s support for, and cooperation with, necessary 3200-foot health and safety buffer zones for the Long Beach community.

All the best,
Brady Bradshaw (he/el)
Senior Oceans Campaigner
Center for Biological Diversity
Living and working from sacred Chumash and Tongva lands Nicole Levin (Pronouns: they/them)
Campaign Representative
Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign
[email protected]
Long Beach City Council and Staff 411 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 March 21, 2023 Re: Long Beach’s “5 Year Plan” item #8 on today’s agenda Dear Long Beach Decisionmakers, I am writing in support of Senate Bill 1137 (SB 1137) and setbacks between oil and gas wells and sensitive sites. I am deeply disappointed to see your office's letter to Governor Newsom in defiance of SB 1137 and your continued public denouncement of these critical health and safety protection zones for your constituents. This stance runs contrary to well-established science and fails to accurately represent the voices of the Long Beach community. We encourage you to retract your statements on SB 1137 and prohibit new drilling and rework permits within the 3,200 foot setback zone while we await the results of the referendum. Neighborhood oil drilling exposes Long Beach residents to toxic chemicals and smog-forming gasses, which can cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, leukemia, lymphoma, lung cancer, nervous system damage, reproductive and endocrine disruption, birth defects, and premature death. Neighbors adjacent to urban oil drilling suffer the most from these health effects. Even once a well is no longer active, it can continue to leak oil, methane, and other gasses, leaving nearby communities at continued risk. An estimated 140,138 Long Beach residents live within 3,200 feet of an operational oil and gas well within the city limits. This amounts to about 30.2% of the population. Of those, 101,498 (72.4%) identify as non-white, including Latina/Hispanic origin. Communities of color and low-income households are most affected by neighborhood oil drilling. Many neighborhoods with urban oil drilling operations have already been identified as high-risk because of their exposure to other environmental hazards and pollution.

The stance on setbacks as currently set by your office is allowing for the expansion of an already catastrophic public health crisis. Instead of using city resources fighting these overdue protections, we urge you to use your time and resources to adapt to the health and safety standards that Long Beach residents need; standards that protect basic human health and the right to breathe clean air.

1. Lisa Atkinson Zip Code: 90230 Air Quality and Water quality in Los Angeles area including all surrounding counties is critical stage of needing to improve. The next generation needs more health than the last generation. 2. Allie Bussjaeger Zip Code: 90712 As a CSULB graduate and someone who works out of an office in Long Beach, I feel strongly that it is critical the City phase out oil drilling ASAP. 3. Amber Lara Zip Code: 90804 As a family medicine physician and a resident of Long Beach, I am very much aware of the environmental and health impacts of drilling in communities. End oil drilling now! 4. Christina Farnsworth Zip Code: 93950 As a former Long Beach resident and California native, it is important to me that we not elevate the desires of HUGELY profiting oil companies above the health and safety of the human and other community. 5. Steve Askin Zip Code: 90804 As a Long Beach resident I want our city to stop poisoning our planet. 6. Stephanie Felix Zip Code: 90815 As a new mom and new resident to Long Beach, I was super disappointed to hear our pediatrician say that our child has to acclimate to living in one of the most polluted cities in the country. I knew Long Beach air quality wasn?t great but I didn?t realize it?s that terrible. Beyond my personal experience what we do now to combat climate change matters so much and what we do now to right the wrongs against marginalized communities matters. I believe this city can and should rise to the occasion and be leaders for change and justice. 7. Lorenzo Gonzalez Zip Code: 90043 As a physician treating many Long Beach residents, We can no longer ignore the health ramifications of chronic exposure to oil drilling. It is time that we use government for its purpose of protecting the people. Therefore, facing out oil drilling can no longer wait. 8. Marilyn Eng Zip Code: 91765 As a resident of Southern California this is very important to me. Please begin transitioning away from fossil fuels and make Long Beach cleaner. Fight climate change NOW. 9. Linda Hernandez Zip Code: 90703 As a teacher in the area for the past 50+ years, I think it is time to stop exposing students and their families to these dangers! 10. Sadie Johnson Zip Code: 90802 As a voting resident of Long Beach, O want my city council members to being looking out for the wellbeing of my neighbors and myself! Please vote to start curbing and eliminating oil wells in our neighborhoods. 11. Varenka Lorenzi Zip Code: 90814 As both a Long Beach resident and an environmental toxicologist, I find it unacceptable that the City is still allowing oil drilling near urban areas. The toxic effects of chemicals leaking out are now clear and the health of residents should come before profit. We cannot wait any more, every day that goes by, is one more day breathing in carcinogenic compounds. 12. Barb Hensleigh Zip Code: 90027 Because we all live on one planet and what you do in Long Beach effects us all. Please do the right thing. 13. Norma Williamson Zip Code: 90703 Climate Change is a clear and present danger. We have renewable energy technologies that make it possible to live a comfortable modern lifestyle with oil or gas. Ban oil drilling! 14. Rachel Cristy Zip Code: 95670 Climate change is already causing deadly disasters around the world. If we are to have any chance of mitigating the damage, we must immediately stop the extraction of fossil fuels. 15. Ted Stolze Zip Code: 90815 Deal with the climate crisis now?and locally! 16. Scott Holmes Zip Code: 90815 Do need more harmful pollutants in Long Beach. Fossil fuels are going by the wayside.

17. Richard Ramirez Zip Code: 96143 Drilling for oil in Los Angles is not only anti-environmental, it's done in districts of color more than where Alien Euro-Americans reside, Environment racism is as real as it is wrong. 18. Tara Gilmaher Zip Code: 91020 Drilling in Long Beach has created neighborhoods of sick kids and families for too many years. Climate change, social & ecological justice mean we should stop drilling for fossil fuels, and especially in harmful ways that threaten BIPOC people and wildlife. 19. v and b Jones Zip Code: 90510 Enough carcinogenic fossil fuels. 20. Kayla Partridge Zip Code: 91342 Enough pollution, and poor drilling practices. 21. Tina Bowman Zip Code: 90803 For our health and the planet's health, it's time to move away from oil. 22. Daren Black Zip Code: 90066 Fossil fuel technology is ANTIQUE! It is past time to end all drilling for fossil fuels! 23. Jan Hansen Zip Code: 92122 Fossil fuels are the past; renewables are the future! 24. Danett Abbott-Wicker Zip Code: 92865 Global crop failures hit at 1.5-2 degrees C/Billions die at 3C/most humans dead at 4C/Earth uninhabitable at 6C/We're heading for 1.5 C by 2025/2C by 2035/4-6C by 2075 25. Diane Meyerson Zip Code: 90740 Health and wellness matters!!! 26. Chris Weidenbach Zip Code: 94611 Health over short-term profit EVERY TIME! 27. Louis Cangemi Zip Code: 90066 Here is your opportunity to conform to the phasing out of oil drilling in Southern California and help us live with cleaner air. 28. Cynthia Kameya Zip Code: 90808 I am a cancer survivor and I believe this can contribute to causing cancer in some individuals. 29. Ian Beavis Zip Code: 90803 I am a LB resident. The smell and noise is simply unacceptable. 30. Cory O?Neill Zip Code: 90804 I am a resident of Long Beach and want to live and raise my children in a healthy environment 31. Val Lopez Zip Code: 90808 I am against oil drilling in Long Beach, especially in areas close to public spaces- schools, parks, and residential areas.

32. Eugenie Lewis Zip Code: 90278 I am concerned about the adverse health impact of oil drilling on people who live nearby. Also we need to focus our efforts on renewable energy sources and phase out fossil fuels. 33. Louis Cangemi Zip Code: 90066 I am constantly coughing up mucus in my system due to chemicals in the air. It makes a difference to have cleaner air to breathe. 34. Jane Affonso Zip Code: 90278 I am involved with the South Coast Interfaith Council and we believe the drilling should be phased out to protect front line communities and to address climate change. 35. Christine Miller Zip Code: 92127 I can't believe this is still going on in beautiful Long Beach. Enough! Time to move forward on clean energy! 36. Laura and Paul Muenchow Zip Code: 90266 I care about the planet and all of the environmental issues caused by fossil fuels. We need to turn to alternatives now. Bye Bye oil drilling. It's not needed or wanted. thank you 37. Barbara Mais Zip Code: 90807 I don't know if this drilling benefits our community. 38. Jim Stewart Zip Code: 90813 I don't want our Long Beach officials opening wanting our residents to be poisoned! The science report is clear, people living withing 3200 feet of wells have MUCH higher illness rates! 39. Janice Sampson Zip Code: 90815 I feel it is very important to move forward on cleaning up our air, water, and land so our children have a happy and healthy life.. 40. Diana Parmeter Zip Code: 90805 I grew up in LB and moved back 15 years ago. Oil is what built LB and is why the city originally grew and prospered. But we need to stop polluting the air, water and ground which is the byproduct of the drilling/fracking process. Fossil fuels are finite and killing us and they need to be obsolete. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter! 41. George Bates Zip Code: 96052 I grew up surfing beautiful Southern California beaches. We must protect them as we also stop the burning of all fossil fuels and their terrible impact on global warming 42. Leo Olofsson Zip Code: 90804 I have a family here. The air gets polluted by drilling and the damages are seen much later. 43. Rachael Lehmberg Zip Code: 90740 I have seen the effects of our bad air on friends, family and even plants. Please protect us!! 44. Peggy Haught Zip Code: 92506 I haven't been to Long Beach in forever but when I did, I found it to be very dirty Beach, please don't drill there anymore. It is filthy enough, thank you, Peggy Haught 45. Serena Palmer Zip Code: 92801 I just want to ensure a safe, healthy environment for the future kids of this planet. Enough of the oil drilling near our schools, and pollution in our air. 46. Supun Edirisinghe Zip Code: 90746 I live close to Long Beach in Carson. The surrounding areas are affected by so much drilling and over developed infrastructure for gas and oil! I hope they also help clean up Signal Hill and especially the area from Wilmington to Carson that's been abused by drilling companies for decades. They have been ruining the environment and need to stop and help clean up and restore as well! 47. Antoinette Nolan Zip Code: 90710 I live in Harbor City and worry about the effects oil drilling sites have on my health. It's time for a change, to find solutions the protect health, to phase out oil drilling, and to help workers find jobs in climate-protecting rather than climate-destroying energy industry. Now is the time for the City Council to take a major first step into a clean future. 48. Melinda Cotton Zip Code: 90803 I live in Long Beach and care about my City and the people who live in it. We have more than 100 additional oil wells proposed for the Los Cerritos Wetlands just two miles east of where I live. Hundreds of new homes are proposed within a quarter of a mile of those new proposed wells. This is dangerous and unnecessary and with an earthquake fault running directly under the Wetlands, indeed an additional dangerous situation and destructive to the Wetlands we're trying to save. 49. Denis Berardo Zip Code: 90807 I live next to a oil pump 50. Jim Peugh Zip Code: 92106 I lived in Long Beach for much of my childhood. I can remember getting black oil stains on my legs when we went to the beach. Swimming in that oil tainted water was bad for my health. Stopping will also reduce global warming. It is way past time to stop, Jim Peugh 51. Merrill Bobele Zip Code: 92122 I lived near Long Beach for27 years before moving to San Diego, which is close. enough. I remember Long Beach a attending Long Beach City College I was benefited by the oil wells. But Global Warming and Climate Changed the benefits to be harmful ! Oil drilling and the use of petroleum must end and with to renewable energy sources. 52. debbie gibson Zip Code: 90405 I love the ocean and the amount of toxins we have already put into them is enough - it needs to stop. Not only that but drilling for new sources of a non renewable finite resource is just plain not healthy! We need to use our financial resources to discover new renewable resources and build up the ones we already know. 53. Sherrill Futrell Zip Code: 95618 I NEVER GO THERE ANYMORE. THE WATER'S FILTHY AND OIL CRAP'S EVERYWHERE. 54. Linda Stock Zip Code: 90630 I own half of an oil well and I believe this issue is so important that I am willing to forego the revenue from it to help curb the harmful effects on those who live near it. 55. Pete Marsh Zip Code: 90814 I realize that this action is largely symbolic, because the downstream consumers of oil drilled in Long Beach can - under present market conditions - procure their fossil products from many other sources. And yet, there are two tangible benefits: (1) The more rapidly the city phases down oil production, the more rapidly we will purge the effects of the oil industry's "dark money" on our local decision making. (2) If Long Beach phases down rapidly, AND other sources do also, the global supply of fossil fuels will tighten rapidly, which is exactly the outcome we need in order to provide a prosperous economy and safe, healthy life for our children and grandchildren. 56. Ashley Craig Zip Code: 90266 I recently purchased a house in Long Beach, and my husband and I plan to make Long Beach our permanent family home. We are avid environmentalists and are very concerned about the climate crisis. I urge the City Council to do the right thing and phase our oil drilling in Long Beach! 57. Jane Illades Zip Code: 92103 I remember seeing these as a child driving though Long Beach and thinking how ugly they were. Little did I realize at that age, the contamination and problems they caused their near neighbors: actual PEOPLE who were affected by them in so many ways. It IS time to phase them out and be rid of them forever! 58. Kayla Andersen Zip Code: 91101 I support the phase out of oil drilling in Long Beach county! Oil drilling is harmful to our vulnerable communities and the environment - we can do better. Follow in the historic footsteps of Culver City and Los Angeles and phase out oil drilling in Long Beach now! 59. Siena R Zip Code: 91377 I value the lives of our generations and future ones, and in order to ensure that we have a habitable planet to live on, we need to curb greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. Banning oil drilling in this important city is a crucial step in California?s clean energy transition. 60. Sara Hayes Zip Code: 90814 I was under the impression that this drilling was supposed to stop because of laws passed here in California. This has been needed for a very long time. This drilling negatively especially affects individuals with lung issues, both old and young. This should NOT be a big part of the budget. Our lives should take precedent.

61. Joshua Goldstein Zip Code: 90089 I write to encourage Long Beach leaders to take this necessary and historic step to phase out all oil drilling in Long Beach. As a life-long visitor to Long Beach's beautiful beaches and attractions, I know Long Beach to be a beautiful area. But Long Beach residents who live or go to school near oil wells experience a much less beautiful side of the city. Please let them live in a city as wonderful and healthy as I get to visit. 62. Thomas Chang Zip Code: 90808 If you love Long Beach a clean transition from an extractive economy is critical. Please be a leader in the energy field by moving forward with phasing out oil drilling in Long Beach. Precedent wells and refineries do not need additional developments. We need to shift our mindsets and focus for a sustainable future generation. Please research the hard done to families and children who reside near oil wells and understand the decisions you make today will affect future generations. Thank you! 63. Ashley Flynn Zip Code: 90802 I'm a long Beach resident and the air pollution, caused by the diesel trucks at the port and also from oil drilling, caused me to develop asthma. This led to me having a more difficult time when I contracted COVID. Now that we have a deadly respiratory virus running loose, as well as climate change underway, we need to move away from fossil fuels!! 64. Claire Broome Zip Code: 94708 I'm a public health physician. Please prioritize the health of your communities. 65. Diana Waters Zip Code: 90277 I'm fed up with breathing this noxious toxic and carcinogenic air. Fed up with the high and increasing rates of cancer in our communities. You wonder why Long Beach is considered a slum compared to other coastal cities in California? This is the major reason. BAN IT, RIP IT OUT. 66. Alexander Kurz Zip Code: 92867 It is time to change direction and phase out fossil fuels. California should be leading the world in renewables. 67. Andrew Milhan Zip Code: 90807 It is time to make true progress against climate change by stopping the use of fossil fuels. 68. Janice Graef Zip Code: 95746 It is time to phase out the oil drilling in Long Beach and see what can be done to take down those ugly oil drills. They are a blight to the community. 69. Marianne Buchanan Zip Code: 90814 It is well past time for Long Beach to face the harsh reality that drilling for oil and gas is harmful to the health and happiness of many Long Beach residents. When you take into account the drilling itself, the noxious air from oil truck emissions, freeway traffic and oil refineries, O&G is a public health hazard that must be addressed. Long Beach has a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan with goals that cannot be reached if we continue down this fossil fuel path! 70. Kenneth Giannotti Zip Code: 94550 It takes big and bold steps to save our planet. Please eliminate our dependence on oil. 71. Linda Engel Zip Code: 95407 It?s not healthy for the environment. 72. Adam Gomez Zip Code: 90805 It's time long beach focuses on new energy. We have no excuses to continue harming our communities. 73. Gwen Shaffer Zip Code: 90803 Just last Saturday, my son and I joined a guided a walk sponsored by the Los Cerritos Wetlands. It is so wrong that oil drilling continues to take place on this land that is critical for groundwater purification, migratory birds and other habitat. In addition, our reliance on fossil fuels is killing the planet. 74. Cherie Holcomb Zip Code: 94605 Keep it in the ground! The recent IPCC report shows that we MUST stop all new fossil fuel infrastructure development. In addition we MUST transition away from fossil fuels, , making significant progress on this in the next 2 years. We are out of "tomorrows". The time for action is today. 75. Jean Riehl Zip Code: 94533 Let Long Beach Breathe !

76. Ryan Malone Zip Code: 90035 Let us lead the country and the world through our actions in helping to do what?s right to save our planet. A renewable and sustainable energy solution is available and ready to be implemented. Let?s do it. 77. Jim Franzi Zip Code: 95629 Let's head in the right direction 78. Anna Christensen Zip Code: 90803 Long Beach has been an oil town for a century and shows no sign of abandoning this status even as its nothing to brag about anymore. As the seas rise due to the emissions from drilling, transporting, refining , and consuming oil fossil fuel, the City has yet to reduce our own dependency on oil and gas revenues. Instead we readily approve expanded drilling in sensitive wetlands and increased storage at our Port. We get to zero emissions by adding new bike lanes and green buildings to offset the deteriorating health of our most vulnerable residents exposed to toxic emissions from active and abandoned wells, refineries, and the import and export of fossil fuels through our port. The fact that elected officials and even the LBUSD continue to accept donations from fossil fuel companies and lobbyists means that residents have not been able to count on them to advocate for what is really needed most - to clean up 100 years of environmental damage, and stop making more. 79. Anne Proffit Zip Code: 90802 Long Beach is addicted to oil and this must stop now. No more drilling; no more health issues for the public that puts you in office.

Not only does oil drilling need to be phased out at our earliest convenience, but we must move forward with innovative ways to replace the Tidelands money that will run dry once oil is where it belongs. Underground. 80. Karen Jacques Zip Code: 95811 Long Beach is horribly polluted. The City Council needs to do everything in its power to phase out drilling immediately and protect and preserve the health of its constituents. 81. Mary Barton Mayes Zip Code: 90814 My entire family lives here--and we don't like the health or environmental implications of oil drilling here!! That's why we bought solar panels, and drive high-mileage vehicles, recycle anything possible, and avoid plastic. It's time our City takes a bold and brave step to help reduce carbon pollution by banning oil drilling NOW. 82. Chuck Barrick Zip Code: 90804 My family has been living, working, going to school, and running businesses in Long Beach for nearly 100 years. Although the city has made great strides in environmental cleanup and protection, we need to do more. Please ensure that LA County's second largest City is setting the important example of putting our people and our properties first with this important initiative. 83. Helene Whitson Zip Code: 94709 My husband grew up in Long Beach. I remember going there to visit his parents and going by what I think is called Oil Hill. It stank and was disgusting. The time for extracting fossil fuels is over. The drilling process exposes people living nearby to harmful chemicals, and it makes a total mess of the land on which the drilling takes place. It's time for green and renewable energy, as well as turning the oil drilling areas into something compatible with life, not the extinction of it. 84. V & B Jones Zip Code: 90508 No more carcinogenic, climate-hijacking fossil fuels please. 85. Edward Costello Zip Code: 90402 No more drilling for oil & gas 86. Allison Slay Zip Code: 90814 No more oil to decrease the world temperatures 87. Edward Costello Zip Code: 90402 No NEW oil drilling in Long Beach. 88. Linda Morgan Zip Code: 94806 Oil drilling doesn?t belong in a city. 89. Elizabeth Gonzalez Zip Code: 90805 Oil drilling in residential areas is toxic. It's long overdue to end it. 90. Jessie Gaskell Zip Code: 90042 Oil drilling is a public health crisis that disproportionately affects low-income residents. I support the City?s steps to expedite the phase out of drilling and strongly encourage the Council to act on this with the urgency it requires. 91. Ann Cantrell Zip Code: 90808 Oil drilling pollutes the air and water; many wells are on an earthquake fault; oil spills and pipeline leaks can destroy wetlands habitat. 92. Sara Bruce Zip Code: 95110 Oil is potentially ruining the future for all of us, and drilling is ruining the present for some of us. It is time for the oil industry to re-assess its values! 93. Susanna Marshland Zip Code: 94707 Oil is ruining the planet and our communities. 94. James Hines Zip Code: 90814 Oil Slicks like the recent one in Long Beach and last year's Orange County spills highlight the fact that fossil fuel production has no place, anywhere in California, but especially offshore and near our beaches. How many more oil spills and fossil fuel accidents do we need until the city and the state begins to prioritize public health and the environment? 95. Alice Nguyen Zip Code: 95136 On May 8, CA produced more than enough renewable electricity to power the entire state. We don't need or want dirty fossil fuels. 96. Sharon Fritsch Zip Code: 95928 Our beaches have suffered from too much pollution. 97. Susan Perez Zip Code: 90731 Our kids deserve clean air and water! Childhood asthma and toxic air and water are preventable. End this! 98. Jeffrey Wang Zip Code: 90012 Please act with urgency! 99. Patricia Essick Zip Code: 93023 Please do what is right for our environment and the health of your citizens. 100. Abbie Bernstein Zip Code: 90069 Please don't subject less affluent citizens to environmentally dangerous projects in their backyards. 101. Catherine Ronan Zip Code: 90066 Please help lead the way to phasing out oil drilling in our state. The climate crisis demands it. Thank you! 102. Christina Mancebo Zip Code: 90808 Please invest in clean energy that is sustainable. Oil drilling is neither. 103. Emily Canata Zip Code: 90814 Please phase out drilling in Long Beach and restore our natural environment. This will make Long Beach more beautiful and safer for everyone in our community. It will make the land more valuable and would be something we could brag about-look how we care about our environment and actually did something about it that everyone can understand and see. 104. Rachelle Sartini Garner Zip Code: 90802 Please phase out drilling in our communities, and stop valuing profit over the health of the people of Long Beach. Highly support transitioning workers into jobs that allow them to fully care for their families without putting themselves at risk, and that can set them up with crucial skills needed as we transition into sustainable forms of energy production. Climate change is already affecting our state drastically, please be leaders that work swiftly and proactively to improve and protect the lives of your residents. 105. Austin Rice Zip Code: 96130 Please reduce environmental & societal harm & risks by incrementally shutting down drilling in/near Long Beach, CA. Thank you. 106. Bruce Allen Zip Code: 92075 Please stop ALL oil drilling in Long Beach to stop contributing to carbon-dioxide emissions that occur when oil & gas are burned. It is critical that we stop these emissions and transfer our energy sources to clean energy like hydro dams, solar farms and wind farms!!! 107. Anna Hornick Zip Code: 94401 Please stop pollution from oil drilling. As a California resident, I find highly important that you pass this measure. Thank 108. Mindy Thomas Zip Code: 90803 Please think of the environment-by your wallets 109. Dalila Hardwick Zip Code: 90803 Please, please, please... stop the oil pumpjacks in Long Beach. Many are extremely close to homes and businesses, and some are not far from schools. The fumes are poisonous and fumes travel far and wide. We already have microplastic in our lungs, carcinogens from all kinds of poisons that should be illegal. Do contribute to making the air we breathe less noxious Hopefully, one day not too far most chemicals that are now "legal" will be banned and substituted by things that do not kill us. Thank you Dalila Hardwick 110. Lionel Mares Zip Code: 91352 Please, protect impoverished neighborhoods. 111. Madlyn Monchamp Zip Code: 93111 Protect our climate 112. Elizabeth Moreno Zip Code: 95117 Quickly phasing out (5 yr.) of oil drilling in Long Beach would be a win-win, for residents' health and the health of the planet. Do it, Long Beach! 113. Marti Roach Zip Code: 94556 Scientists in the lates IPCC report said that in order to prevent unimaginably challenging negative tipping points for our climate, we must not have new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must rapidly phase out burning fossil fuels. Wells release methane, a highly potent ghg that warms the planet fast. Even more importantly, the health benefits of using clean energy and avoiding health risks from air, water and soil contamination of wells are high. We have a healthy way for our energy future. Let's put our human energy into this transition to a clean energy economy that is fair to workers, communities and all. 114. Martin Holman Zip Code: 90806 So much wealth has been made removing oil from the ground in Long Beach, it's a shame that none of that wealth can stand up and say ENOUGH! 115. Sherrill Futrell Zip Code: 95618 SOMEONE MUST BE ON THE TAKE. THIS HAS GONE ON FOR DECADES. 116. Michael Wauschek Zip Code: 90703 Standing rock is everywhere 117. Eanthy Zeltman Zip Code: 92308 stop drillinmg where people live. 118. Kathleen Monteleone Zip Code: 92530 STOP oil drilling today! It truly saddens me on a daily basis that our precious Mother Earth has been destroyed, ravaged, and abused because of greedy, heartless, business men. Our planet, wildlife, and humanity take precedence over money! STOP corporate greed now! 119. Karl Eggers Zip Code: 90815 Stop selling Long Beach residents future for money today. The city is already on the hook for millions of dollars to properly abandon wells that their bankrupt commercial (private) partner is unwilling to fund. And are you using oil money to offset effects of climate change in the city, or just ongoing expenses (e.g., city employee retirement and health expenses). 120. Michael Mansfield Zip Code: 94702 Surely we can do better and think more long-term. More jobs and healthier communities await your leadership. Peace. Michael Mansfield 121. Kennedy Trawick Zip Code: 90503 The citizens of Long Beach, and quite frankly the world, don?t deserve to be subjected to the detriments cause by the oil industry. Please put lives over profit. 122. Martin Holman Zip Code: 90806 The City of Long Beach has long benefited from oil drilling. It really is past time to stop. 123. Cindy Koch Zip Code: 90807 The entire world needs to phase out oil drilling if we want to survive decades to come! This should be important to EVERYONE!! 124. Marie Gaillac Zip Code: 92868 The Long Beach community should become a model of a community that can transform itself from being an anti environment community to a model one. It is fortunate in its placement , climate .and potential.sgenic beauty. 125. Joshua Trotter Zip Code: 90026 The most recent IPCC reports make it clear that transitioning away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible is essential. Now is the time for action. 126. Deborah Weinrauch Zip Code: 90230 The oil fields are dangerous to everyone's health and safety and belong to a bygone era. 127. Aaron Valdespino Zip Code: 90806 The oil island's are a huge eye sore to our beautiful ocean. The capped oil wells are also leaking over time and are NEVER maintained. Pure disregard and negligence by the politicians agreeing to these oil wells and islands. Please do what's best for your stakeholders and protect the land and ocean we love. 128. Daniel Nakashima Zip Code: 90806 The tax per barrel is too low also. Raise the tax until it?s no longer profitable, then convert these sites to solar and wind. There is no time to wait for Long Beach?s children. 129. Tab Buckner Zip Code: 94117 The time to phase out Long Beach oil drilling is NOW!!! 130. Elizabeth Zenker Zip Code: 95501 There is far more than simple oil gain from this precious piece of Earth! 131. Lizann Keyes Zip Code: 95062 There is no acceptable place for oil drilling in California. I took part in the huge clean-up in the early 70s after the giant oil spill that spurred the Earth Day Movement. Now, over fifty years later, we should not be negotiating for fossil fuel rights. Protect our precious earth! Phase out drilling now! 132. Elen Lauper Zip Code: 90803 These are my beaches, my neighborhoods. Protect our waters. 133. G Friaz Zip Code: 95112 They've drilled long enough! 134. F. Michael Montgomery Zip Code: 95403 This affects the health of Americans, our environment, and our climate crisis! 135. John Candela Zip Code: 94121 This is unacceptable! Neighborhood oil drilling exposes Long Beach residents to toxic chemicals and smog-forming gasses, which can increase the risk of severe chronic conditions including respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. 136. Susan Brunelle Zip Code: 90807 This needs to be done for the health of our entire community. The health of residents must be protected by it's elected representatives. 137. Frederick Cliver Zip Code: 90815 To the best of my knowledge, the city and state aren't even getting severance fees. What is the upside of this for the populace, especially when we need to be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels? 138. Daryl Gale Zip Code: 90013 We all have to do our part to segue to cleaner energy! 139. Stacey Meinzen Zip Code: 95405 We are in a climate emergency and neighborhood drilling is not OK. It's time to stop sacrificing our communities' health for fossil fuel executive pocketbooks. We have clean energy options and we should be focused on accelerating those - electrifying everything, not creating more toxic liabilities. There are already too many abandoned oil wells that taxpayers are on the hook to clean up. Let's stop stranding more assets and invest in a climate-safe future. 140. Gary Charles Zip Code: 90813 WE AVE SO MUCH SOLAR AVAILABLE HERE AND THE PORTS FREE WIND ENERGY ALL DAY AND NIGHT I DON'T CARE IF THE OIL COMPANIES DON'T GET A BIG XMAS BONUS EVER AGAIN AFTER ALL THE SPILLS TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID FOR THE CLEAN UP. 141. Sydney Pitcher Zip Code: 91945 We cannot forget about the oil spill that happened off the California Coast in 2021. This is a wake up call once again, reminding us of the dangers of offshore drilling. We are in a climate crisis and we?re running out of time to save our health and the planet from irreversible, extremely catastrophic outcomes. 142. Sue Gupta Zip Code: 94556 We do not need oil drilling in this age of climate crisis and sea level rise that is threatening the future of our communities. People definitely do not want any more catastrophic oil spills. 143. Nancy Hubbs-Chang Zip Code: 91105 We don't need fossil fuels any more. This year is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt how damaging they are to our city, county, country, and planet. 144. Felix Mbuga Zip Code: 95035 We have a moral responsibility to our children and our grandchildren to not leave them a planet in worse condition than we received it that is devastated by climate pollution. The science is clear that this means: no more fossil fuel subsidies or expansion or investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, winding down existing fossil fuel production and consumption as quickly as possible, and rapidly expanding clean carbon-free energy production. 145. Kristie Guzman Zip Code: 90713 We have enough pollution 146. Stephanie Oliver Zip Code: 90803 We have the means to make this happen now. Let?s do it, we?re counting on you to make this wonderful community even better! 147. Gabriela Worrel Zip Code: 90016 We have waited too long for environmental Justice. Stop harmful drilling now! 148. Richard Lindemann Zip Code: 90804 We know that oil facilities are a harm to residents near or far from them. With the use of more electric means of transportation, OIL needs to be phased out in LB and SH as quickly as possible, within the next 5 to 7years. The time for this begins, NOW! Begin this process to better the health of generations to come. Clean up is MANDATORY for ALL OIL COMPANIES involved. 149. Paul Lewis Zip Code: 90807 We live within a few blocks of several oil rigs, and it's a terrible thing! How dare the city where we live allow such toxic pollution to take place in residential neighborhoods? Other cities have outlawed it--as well it should be--so what is the City of Long Beach waiting for? 150. Nishanga Bliss Zip Code: 94702 We must act now to keep oil in the ground and protect the climate! 151. Suzanna Byrne Zip Code: 92649 We MUST stop being so dependent on fossil fuels especially oil. I cannot afford to buy a hybrid or an electric car but support the effort to get rid of gasoline powered cars for the future. Therein lies some hope of less damage to the only home we have - EARTH1 152. Ann Dorsey Zip Code: 91325 We must stop extracting fossil fuels if we want a livable future. 153. Brady Bradshaw Zip Code: 91302 We need drastic reductions in climate pollution if we are to avoid exponentially more catastrophic wildfires, droughts, and intensified storms. My children's children will need a livable planet, and right now, people suffer at the hands of the oil industry's death-grip on our local, state, and federal governments. The misinformation campaign they are employing right now to lock in decades of further climate chaos and health impacts to our communities, is shameful. Big Oil's propaganda should be ignored outright as lies and deceit. Do what is needed- phase out oil and gas immediately. 154. Sarah Butler Zip Code: 94563 We need to ban new oil drilling now since oil wells are not healthy for people! 155. Paige Fordice Zip Code: 95018 We need to build infrastructure for alternative energy sources. Stop producing oil. 156. Peter Canavan Zip Code: 90803 We need to cut fossil fuels now! They are destroying our air our water our children and our lives! When are we going to wake up? 157. Denise Berringer-Wood Zip Code: 90807 We need to focus on the health of our community and a clean climate future, not corporate profits! 158. Patricia Williams Zip Code: 94571 We need to protect our beaches! 159. Kathleen Petricca Zip Code: 94553 We need to push faster to get solar technology and storage to more residents. It's a race against time. 160. Mary Rojeski Zip Code: 90405 What if it was next to Your home? 161. JB Jb Zip Code: 94603 What! This is STILL happening? It's got to go! 162. Susan Hathaway Zip Code: 90660 Why are you so eager to make people sick by putting more and more oil wells near their homes? 163. Dylan Michlin Zip Code: 90254 Why don?t you invest in EV infrastructure instead? 164. Jeannine Pearce Zip Code: 90814 You know why. Our kids are born and have infant asthma, Long Beach has a 17 year life expectancy difference due to health impacts of this climate crisis. You got this and the Community has your back. 165. A.J. Averett Zip Code: 91942 166. Ad Clayton Zip Code: 92081 167. Adam Bernstein Zip Code: 90012 168. Adam Resnick Zip Code: 90026 169. Adria Tenisson Zip Code: 93003 170. AIXA FIELDER Zip Code: 90028 171. AJ Cho Zip Code: 94579 172. Alan Chen Zip Code: 90025 173. Alan Gonzalez Zip Code: 90815 174. Alexis Georgiou Zip Code: 95054 175. Alice Neuhauser Zip Code: 90266 176. Allie Palmer Zip Code: 92672 177. Alyza Cornett Zip Code: 90056 178. Amaan Nabeel Zip Code: 91301 179. Amanda DeJesus Zip Code: 90806 180. Amira Mansour Zip Code: 92612 181. AmirAli Siassi Zip Code: 90049 182. Analisa Swan Zip Code: 91504 183. Anastasia FIANDACA Zip Code: 94901 184. Andarin Arvola Zip Code: 95437 185. Andrea Scott Zip Code: 94507 186. Andrea Milton Zip Code: 91304 187. Andrew Philpot Zip Code: 93463 188. Andy Lupenko Zip Code: 91945 189. Angela Carter Zip Code: 90731 190. Angela Gantos Zip Code: 94920 191. Angela Clayton Zip Code: 92081 192. Angie Klein Zip Code: 94501 193. Annamarie Jones Zip Code: 96101 194. Anne Mohr Zip Code: 92626 195. Annemarie Weibel Zip Code: 95410 196. Annette Benton Zip Code: 94565 197. Annette Pirrone Zip Code: 94960 198. Annie Hallatt Zip Code: 94703 199. Anthony Montapert Zip Code: 93455 200. Anthony Sandoval Zip Code: 90710 201. Anthony Ramirez Zip Code: 90802 202. Armando A. Garcia Zip Code: 92571 203. Audrey Higbee Zip Code: 90814 204. B Nemiroff Zip Code: 90035 205. B Sandow Zip Code: 94804 206. b edwards Zip Code: 94973 207. Barbara Lovejoy Zip Code: 94804 208. Barbara Mais Zip Code: 90807 209. Barbara M Zip Code: 90803 210. Barbara Marrs Zip Code: 92371 211. Barbara Scheinman Zip Code: 92691 212. Barbara Bellano Zip Code: 91107 213. barbara poland Zip Code: 91214 214. Barbara Mesney Zip Code: 90066 215. Barbara Lehman Zip Code: 91350 216. Barry & Tracy Kogen Zip Code: 90808 217. Baty Family Zip Code: 92373 218. Ben Keller Zip Code: 94608 219. Ben Ruwe Zip Code: 95005 220. Ben Hauck Zip Code: 90808 221. Berna Cliffe Zip Code: 90803 222. Bert Gfreenberg Zip Code: 95135 223. Bob Flagg Zip Code: 95436 224. Bonita Lacy Zip Code: 91724 225. Bonnie Arbuckle Zip Code: 95367 226. Bonny Davis Zip Code: 95949 227. Brandon Gallegos Zip Code: 92707 228. Brenda Haig Zip Code: 90803 229. Brenda Haig Zip Code: 90803 230. Brian Murphy Zip Code: 91423 231. Brian Boortz Zip Code: 95030 232. Bruce Burns Zip Code: 92108 233. Bryan Callejo Zip Code: 92114 234. Bryant Odega Zip Code: 90501 235. bud hoekstra Zip Code: 95232 236. Caephren Mckenna Zip Code: 94609 237. Candace Rocha Zip Code: 90032 238. Carol Drake Zip Code: 94536 239. Carol Ng Zip Code: 90026 240. Carol Lawson Zip Code: 95821 241. carol schaffer Zip Code: 94806 242. Carol Wiley Zip Code: 92394 243. Carolyn Anders Zip Code: 90230 244. Carolyn Leonard Zip Code: 92404 245. Carolyn Yee Zip Code: 95822 246. Carolyn Rosenstein Zip Code: 90067 247. Carrie Weil Zip Code: 90404 248. Caryn Cowin Zip Code: 93308 249. Catherine Loudis Zip Code: 94960 250. Cati Glasser Zip Code: 90038 251. Caylee Hong Zip Code: 90755 252. Celeste Anacker Zip Code: 93105 253. Charlene Kerchevall Zip Code: 92054 254. Charles Wieland Zip Code: 94583 255. Charles Modjeski Zip Code: 94555 256. Charles Heinrichs Zip Code: 96097 257. CHARLOTTE WILLIAMS Zip Code: 90302 258. Cheryl Albert Zip Code: 95019 259. Chris Loo Zip Code: 95037 260. Chris Geukens Zip Code: 91343 261. Chris Gilbert Zip Code: 94707 262. Christian Heinold Zip Code: 94612 263. Christina Nielsen Zip Code: 95120 264. Christina Medina Zip Code: 90744 265. Christine Brockman Zip Code: 92881 266. Christine Hayes Zip Code: 91786 267. Christopher Cusack Zip Code: 90016 268. Christopher Ware Zip Code: 94539 269. Christopher Lish Zip Code: 94903 270. Cindy Stein Zip Code: 91320 271. Claire Perricelli Zip Code: 95501 272. Claudia Monahan Zip Code: 92253 273. Clay Thibodeaux Zip Code: 90293 274. Consuelo Valenzuela Zip Code: 95917 275. Corey Vanderwouw Zip Code: 95949 276. Courtney Gartin Zip Code: 95120 277. curt sanders Zip Code: 93541 278. Damon Brown Zip Code: 90016 279. Dan Esposito Zip Code: 90266 280. Dana Kinonen Zip Code: 90505 281. Danijel Mikulja Zip Code: 90016 282. Darrell Neft Zip Code: 92626 283. David Dexter Zip Code: 94941 284. David Doering Zip Code: 94109 285. David Boyer Zip Code: 94304 286. David Hardy Zip Code: 93065 287. David Garfinkle Zip Code: 91356 288. David Peevers Zip Code: 90066 289. David Murillo Zip Code: 91351 290. Davin Peterson Zip Code: 95503 291. Dean Campbell Zip Code: 90807 292. Deborah Wardly Zip Code: 95726 293. Debra Wills Zip Code: 94610 294. Delores Yanko Zip Code: 92543 295. Denise Fidel Zip Code: 92007 296. Dennis Lynch Zip Code: 95018 297. Dennis Trembly Zip Code: 90275 298. Dennis Mcintyre Zip Code: 92677 299. Dennis Trembly Zip Code: 90275 300. Desendorf Mark Zip Code: 90066 301. Diana Koeck Zip Code: 92626 302. Diane Stotler Zip Code: 93940 303. Diane Cottrell Zip Code: 94803 304. Don Meehan Zip Code: 95124 305. Donna Davies Zip Code: 94040 306. Donna Mize Zip Code: 94805 307. Donna Sharee Zip Code: 94112 308. Donna Shellabarger Zip Code: 90505 309. donnal poppe Zip Code: 91325 310. Earl Frounfelter Zip Code: 93454 311. Edgar Flores Zip Code: 90808 312. Edward Landler Zip Code: 90065 313. Edward Macan Zip Code: 95501 314. Edwin and Jean Aiken Zip Code: 94087 315. Elaine Russell Zip Code: 90815 316. Elizabeth Levy Zip Code: 94805 317. Elizabeth Ramsey Zip Code: 95616 318. Elizabeth Estes Zip Code: 91107 319. elizabeth myrin shore Zip Code: 94979 320. Ellen Kaufman Zip Code: 91311 321. Ellen Koivisto Zip Code: 94122 322. Elliot Gonzales Zip Code: 90813 323. Elsa Tung Zip Code: 90807 324. Emmanuel Garcia-Rojas Zip Code: 90066 325. Eric Muller Zip Code: 94024 326. Eric Ericson Zip Code: 90210 327. Erica Brown Zip Code: 95602 328. Erin Suyehara Zip Code: 90503 329. Erin Foley Zip Code: 90813 330. Erin Mccune Zip Code: 93117 331. Erlinda Cortez Zip Code: 90807 332. Ernie Walters Zip Code: 94587 333. Esther Moreno Zip Code: 94505 334. Etta Robin Zip Code: 93312 335. Evette Andersen Zip Code: 95945 336. Fatima Iqbal-Zubair Zip Code: 90248 337. Fiorella Russo-Jang Zip Code: 94553 338. Flor Murray Zip Code: 94044 339. Flora Rosas Zip Code: 90038 340. Florence Litton Zip Code: 92082 341. Gabriel Vargas Zip Code: 90802 342. Gaille Heidemann Zip Code: 90024 343. Gary Cote Zip Code: 90803 344. Gary Goetz Zip Code: 93950 345. Gary Popejoy Zip Code: 96062 346. Gary Kuehn Zip Code: 91321 347. Gavin Ford Zip Code: 92104 348. Gavin0 Composer Zip Code: 92618 349. Genesis Delgado Zip Code: 90731 350. George Yenoki Zip Code: 91016 351. Gerald Shaia Zip Code: 91352 352. Gerard Ridella Zip Code: 94546 353. Gladys Delgadillo Zip Code: 92129 354. Gregg Lichtenstein Zip Code: 92131 355. Gregory Perkins Zip Code: 90814 356. Heather White Zip Code: 90275 357. Heidi Buech Zip Code: 90066 358. Helen Moncayo Zip Code: 91784 359. Henry Schlinger Zip Code: 91201 360. Henry Rosenfeld Zip Code: 92506 361. Hildy Meyers Zip Code: 92648 362. Howard Cohen Zip Code: 94306 363. Inger Acking Zip Code: 94710 364. Irene Hilgers Zip Code: 94582 365. Iris Edinger Zip Code: 91367 366. Iyela Palidine Zip Code: 92672 367. J Lasahn Zip Code: 94530 368. J P Zip Code: 95521 369. J.W. Oman Zip Code: 94618 370. Jack Cooper Zip Code: 90807 371. Jackson Casimiro Zip Code: 90731 372. Jacob Lang Zip Code: 90041 373. Jacoba Dolloff Zip Code: 91941 374. Jacqueline McVicar Zip Code: 92115 375. Jacquelyn Heitman Zip Code: 90814 376. Jaime Nahman Zip Code: 90290 377. James Dawson Zip Code: 95618 378. James Samis Zip Code: 90275 379. James Symington Zip Code: 90240 380. Jamie Le Zip Code: 94501 381. Jan Warren Zip Code: 94598 382. Jana Frazier Zip Code: 90731 383. jane drexler Zip Code: 93117 384. Jane Spini Zip Code: 95521 385. Janet Maker Zip Code: 90024 386. Jason Nolasco Zip Code: 90706 387. Javier Del Valle Zip Code: 90640 388. Jeanine Metildi Zip Code: 90806 389. Jeannette Hanna Zip Code: 95864 390. Jeff Slayton Zip Code: 90806 391. Jeffrey Hurwitz Zip Code: 94121 392. Jeffrey Streicher Zip Code: 90808 393. Jen Rund Zip Code: 94947 394. Jennifer Celio Zip Code: 90802 395. Jennifer Tomassi Zip Code: 90018 396. Jennifer Schmitz Zip Code: 94541 397. Jes Laufenberg Zip Code: 95819 398. jess zelniker Zip Code: 91601 399. Jessica Powers Zip Code: 91739 400. Jill Rhiannon Zip Code: 95991 401. Jillian Gallery Zip Code: 90740 402. Jim Cramer Zip Code: 95616 403. Jim Curland Zip Code: 95039 404. Jim Hartung Zip Code: 90402 405. Jo Williams Zip Code: 90814 406. Jo Ann Bollen Zip Code: 92284 407. Joan Smith Zip Code: 94904 408. Joanne Britton Zip Code: 92115 409. Joe Buhowsky Zip Code: 94582 410. Joe Smith Zip Code: 92020 411. Joel Olson Zip Code: 94063 412. Joel Kirschenstein Zip Code: 91361 413. John Bertaina Zip Code: 95139 414. John Cattarin Zip Code: 94002 415. JOHN CHRISTOPHER Zip Code: 90712 416. John Alexander Zip Code: 92057 417. john pasqua Zip Code: 92025 418. John Teevan Zip Code: 91914 419. Jonathan Jonathan Zip Code: 95037 420. Jonathan Peltz Zip Code: 90046 421. Jose Rodriguez Zip Code: 90604 422. Joseph Alvarado Zip Code: 94122 423. Joslyn Baxter Zip Code: 94110 424. Joy Zadaca Zip Code: 90807 425. Joyce Smith Zip Code: 95367 426. Juan Paulo Panaligan Zip Code: 90804 427. Judith Baker Zip Code: 91423 428. Judith Smith Zip Code: 94601 429. Judy Bradford Zip Code: 90275 430. Julia Dowell Zip Code: 94501 431. June Cancell Zip Code: 94025 432. Kaelan Shannon Zip Code: 92882 433. Kailee Caruso Zip Code: 90804 434. Kali Krishnan Zip Code: 92346 435. Karen Harper Zip Code: 90803 436. Karen Tandy Zip Code: 91750 437. Karen Kirschling Zip Code: 94117 438. Karl Pierce Zip Code: 95829 439. Karla Devine Zip Code: 90266 440. Kathleen Van Every Zip Code: 93422 441. Kathleen Gause Zip Code: 90815 442. Kathy Popoff Zip Code: 90732 443. Kay Gallin Zip Code: 90067 444. Kaylah Sterling Zip Code: 94608 445. Keith Rhinehart Zip Code: 95050 446. Kelly Fitzgerald Zip Code: 90807 447. KELLY KRAMER Zip Code: 92840 448. Ken Warfield Zip Code: 92807 449. Kent Grigg Zip Code: 94595 450. Kermit Cuff Zip Code: 94041 451. Kevin Forde Zip Code: 90814 452. Kim Floyd Zip Code: 92260 453. Kirstie Palmer Zip Code: 90277 454. Kobi Naseck Zip Code: 94609 455. Kris Montgomery Zip Code: 95405 456. Kristen Sandel Zip Code: 95005 457. Kristin Womack Zip Code: 94960 458. Kristina Fukuda Zip Code: 90034 459. L Nelson Zip Code: 95038 460. Laura Herndon Zip Code: 91505 461. Laura Herndon Zip Code: 91505 462. Laura Haider Zip Code: 93727 463. Laura Dill Zip Code: 94706 464. Lauren Linda Zip Code: 92637 465. Lauren Prust Zip Code: 92126 466. Lauren Ferree Bash Zip Code: 90405 467. Lawrence Abbott Zip Code: 94577 468. Leah Pressman Zip Code: 90232 469. Leah Berman Zip Code: 95003 470. LeAnn Bjelle Zip Code: 95003 471. lee jordan Zip Code: 90056 472. Lee Liddle Zip Code: 93720 473. Leonie Terfort Zip Code: 94941 474. Leslie Jones Zip Code: 90803 475. Leslie Nanasy Zip Code: 90808 476. Linda Ford Zip Code: 92648 477. Linda Barrientos Zip Code: 94015 478. Lindsay Mugglestone Zip Code: 94705 479. Lindsey Kalfsbeek Zip Code: 94509 480. Lisa Allowitz-Thompson Zip Code: 96148 481. Lisa Salazar Zip Code: 96089 482. Lisa Phenix Zip Code: 95608 483. Livia Ferguson Zip Code: 90266 484. Lori Kegler Zip Code: 90731 485. Lori Wilson-Hopkins Zip Code: 95603 486. Lucy Fried Zip Code: 90016 487. Lydia M. Villalobos-White Zip Code: 91345 488. Lynn Alley Zip Code: 92011 489. M Lynch Zip Code: 90405 490. M. C. Corvalan Zip Code: 90278 491. M. Virginia Leslie Zip Code: 95035 492. Marci Yellin Zip Code: 94114 493. Marcia Edelen Zip Code: 94704 494. Marcia Hackett Zip Code: 92637 495. Marcy Meadows Zip Code: 95444 496. Margaret Lirones Zip Code: 93212 497. Margaret Rainey Zip Code: 95519 498. Maria Mendez Zip Code: 90016 499. Maria Skilbred Zip Code: 90802 500. Marianne McDermott Zip Code: 95928 501. Marie Winter Zip Code: 92705 502. Marilyn Shepherd Zip Code: 95570 503. Marisa Landsberg Zip Code: 90266 504. Marjorie Hoskinson Zip Code: 91360 505. Marjorie Xavier Zip Code: 95409 506. Mark Feldman Zip Code: 95401 507. Mark Looney Zip Code: 94521 508. Mark Stannard Zip Code: 90056 509. Mark Cappetta Zip Code: 92270 510. Mark Skilbred Zip Code: 91784 511. Mark Bartleman Zip Code: 92651 512. Martin Horwitz Zip Code: 94122 513. Mary Ames Zip Code: 92592 514. Mary Hicklin Zip Code: 92040 515. Mary Stanistreet Zip Code: 93003 516. Mary Steele Zip Code: 92677 517. Mary Ann McDonald Zip Code: 95818 518. Marybeth Wall Zip Code: 90802 519. Matt Filler Zip Code: 90740 520. Matthew Reid Zip Code: 94515 521. Matthew Comer Zip Code: 92879 522. Meagan Wyllie Zip Code: 90016 523. Meg Brown Zip Code: 93252 524. Melinda Taylor Zip Code: 90814 525. Melissa Finley Zip Code: 95445 526. Melissa Hutchinson Zip Code: 93950 527. mercedes moreno Zip Code: 92057 528. michael bailey Zip Code: 90802 529. Michael richardson Zip Code: 90802 530. Michael Price Zip Code: 94109 531. Michael Schulte Zip Code: 90066 532. Michael Eichenholtz Zip Code: 94804 533. Michele Smith Zip Code: 90277 534. Michelle Lewis Zip Code: 90802 535. Michelle Hudson Zip Code: 94402 536. Michelle Palladine Zip Code: 92262 537. michelle geil Zip Code: 90292 538. Mignon Moskowitz Zip Code: 95425 539. Mike Evans Zip Code: 94720 540. Miles Aiello Zip Code: 90638 541. Miriam Leiseroff Zip Code: 95125 542. Mitch M Zip Code: 92262 543. Monica Abruzzo Zip Code: 94546 544. Monica Embrey Zip Code: 90026 545. Nadia Tushnet Zip Code: 90803 546. Nancy Nilssen Zip Code: 94568 547. Nancy Havassy Zip Code: 94611 548. Nancy Oliver Zip Code: 95818 549. Nancy Heck Zip Code: 93454 550. Nancy Tierney Zip Code: 94044 551. Nanlouise Wolfe Zip Code: 95060 552. Nareg Keshishian Zip Code: 91367 553. Natalija Sale Zip Code: 90740 554. Nicholas Cahill Zip Code: 93291 555. Nicholas Ratto Zip Code: 94501 556. nicole levin Zip Code: 90027 557. Nicole Leseigneur Zip Code: 95405 558. Nicolette Moore Zip Code: 92620 559. Nina MacDonald & Ted Wright Zip Code: 92676 560. Noah Tenney Zip Code: 94606 561. Nora Coyle Zip Code: 92807 562. Pamela Gaskill Zip Code: 95993 563. Pat Lang Zip Code: 94022 564. Patricia Depew Zip Code: 91106 565. Patricia McPherson Zip Code: 90066 566. Patricia Law Zip Code: 92102 567. Patrick McCarty Zip Code: 92128 568. Paul Shabazian Zip Code: 95311 569. Paul and Katherine Malchiodi Zip Code: 92110 570. Paula Cavagnaro Zip Code: 94550 571. Pauline Faye Zip Code: 92673 572. Philip Simon Zip Code: 94912 573. Phoenix Giffen Zip Code: 94952 574. Pol Hermes Zip Code: 92065 575. Priyanka Bhakta Zip Code: 92708 576. Querido Galdo Zip Code: 95445 577. R Kadden Zip Code: 91308 578. R D Harlowe Zip Code: 92549 579. R Lee Weir Zip Code: 93463 580. Rachel Ben-Menachem Zip Code: 90029 581. Ralph Penfield Zip Code: 92104 582. Randy Bueno Zip Code: 90720 583. Randy Baker Zip Code: 92870 584. Randy and Michelle Davis Zip Code: 95688 585. Ray Staar Zip Code: 94109 586. Raymond Plasse Zip Code: 91307 587. Raymond Vaczek Zip Code: 90023 588. Rebecca Hanna Zip Code: 90806 589. Rebecca Prewitt Zip Code: 91602 590. Renaldo Gonzalez Zip Code: 92284 591. Rene Maurice Zip Code: 94117 592. Renee Jeska Zip Code: 90740 593. Rich Goldberg Zip Code: 94951 594. Richard Gallo Zip Code: 95062 595. Richard Kornfeld Zip Code: 91101 596. Richard Robinson Zip Code: 90266 597. Rob Guilmette Zip Code: 90808 598. Rob Cherwink Zip Code: 95476 599. Rob Gallinger Zip Code: 92586 600. Robert Ortiz Zip Code: 94945 601. Roberta Stern Zip Code: 94618 602. Roland Leong Zip Code: 95842 603. ROMONA WILLIAMS Zip Code: 90746 604. Ronald Mohler Zip Code: 90804 605. Rosario Sandel Zip Code: 91335 606. Roy Jackson Zip Code: 90504 607. Rubén Becerra Zip Code: 90731 608. Ruselle Revenaugh Zip Code: 95060 609. Russell Weisz Zip Code: 95060 610. Ruth b Zip Code: 94070 611. Ryan Park Zip Code: 90503 612. S Barryte Zip Code: 90275 613. Sally Beer Zip Code: 91001 614. Sam Butler Zip Code: 90045 615. Sandra Gamble Zip Code: 93555 616. Sandy Rodgers Zip Code: 92223 617. Sandy Zelasko Zip Code: 92082 618. Sara C. Blunt Zip Code: 93067 619. Sarah Larson Zip Code: 90025 620. Sarah Harvey Zip Code: 94606 621. Sarah Pinsky Zip Code: 90803 622. Saran K. Zip Code: 90035 623. Scott Grinthal Zip Code: 94402 624. Seth Weisbord Zip Code: 90094 625. Sharon Nicodemus Zip Code: 95821 626. Sherry Marsh Zip Code: 92056 627. Shirley Rodda Zip Code: 95121 628. Shoshana Wechsler Zip Code: 94708 629. Sinthuja Nagalingam Zip Code: 90814 630. Skarlette Arvolkskaya Zip Code: 90815 631. Skye Van Raalte-Herzog Zip Code: 91042 632. Sofia Okolowicz Zip Code: 92592 633. Stacey Jones Zip Code: 95203 634. Stacy Rose Zip Code: 93442 635. Stephanie Nunez Zip Code: 91405 636. Stephanie Linam Zip Code: 94510 637. Steve Metzger Zip Code: 92647 638. Steve Robey Zip Code: 94708 639. Steve Sketo Zip Code: 93312 640. steve zelman Zip Code: 91367 641. Steven Stewart Zip Code: 92886 642. Steven Larky Zip Code: 92007 643. Steven Mazliach Zip Code: 94118 644. Stuart Greenburg Zip Code: 91381 645. Stuart Hartley Zip Code: 92106 646. Sue Cleereman Zip Code: 94556 647. Sujana Patel Zip Code: 90275 648. Suneun Reichert Zip Code: 90807 649. Sunnie Noellert Zip Code: 95519 650. Supporter Unknown Zip Code: 90731 651. Susan Hampton Zip Code: 94530 652. Susan Chung Zip Code: 90032 653. Susan Burns Zip Code: 91423 654. Susan Morales Zip Code: 90808 655. Susanne Cumming Zip Code: 90292 656. Susun Godwin Zip Code: 90814 657. Suzanne Cook Zip Code: 95519 658. Suzanne Torkar Zip Code: 92009 659. Sylvia De Baca Zip Code: 91773 660. Sylvia Ito Zip Code: 92648 661. Tamara Mccready Zip Code: 93063 662. Tara Ohta Zip Code: 91101 663. Tara Sanchez Zip Code: 90807 664. Ted Fishman Zip Code: 95123 665. Terrie Smith Zip Code: 91977 666. Theresa Bucher Zip Code: 91356 667. Theresa Smith Zip Code: 90806 668. Therese DeBing Zip Code: 93950 669. Thomas Sepko Zip Code: 90740 670. Thomas Whiting Zip Code: 94534 671. Thomas Russell Zip Code: 90731 672. Tim Maurer Zip Code: 92808 673. Todd Hack Zip Code: 91913 674. Tom Butler Zip Code: 95124 675. Tom Fray Zip Code: 92117 676. Tony Ramirez Zip Code: 90802 677. Tonya Cockrell Zip Code: 92882 678. Tree Wright Zip Code: 93022 679. Tristan Dunker Zip Code: 92845 680. Tyler FITZGERALD Zip Code: 92081 681. Utkarsh Nath Zip Code: 94555 682. Val Farrelly Zip Code: 94403 683. Valerie Kuo Zip Code: 91748 684. Veronica Michael Zip Code: 94533 685. Vicki Bookless Zip Code: 93405 686. Victoria Jensen Zip Code: 90405 687. Victoria Shepherd Zip Code: 91201 688. Virginia Turner Zip Code: 91367 689. Vonya Morris Zip Code: 94402 690. Wallace Rhine Zip Code: 95421 691. Walter Erhorn Zip Code: 91979 692. Warren Gold Zip Code: 94941 693. Warren M. Gold Zip Code: 94941 694. Wendy Brunell Zip Code: 91306 695. William Briggs Zip Code: 90254 696. Yvonne Olivares Zip Code: 91730 697. Zach Dietrich Zip Code: 91505 698. Zara Jaffe Zip Code: 94010 699. Zora Hollie Zip Code: 90043 C-8 Correspondence – Nicole Levin
From: Nicole Levin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:10 AM
To: Tom Modica <[email protected]>; Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Suely Saro <[email protected]>; Cindy Allen <[email protected]>; Kristina Duggan <[email protected]>; Mary Zendejas <[email protected]>; Roberto Uranga <[email protected]>; Joni Ricks-Oddie <[email protected]>; Al Austin <[email protected]>
Cc: Dawn McIntosh <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]>; Connor Lock <[email protected]>; Paul Monge <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Support for Health and Safety Buffer Zones -EXTERNAL-

Best,
Nicole Levin
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:55 AM Brady Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:

Not only does oil drilling need to be phased out at our earliest convenience, but we must move forward with innovative ways to replace the Tidelands money that will run dry once oil is where it belongs. Underground. 80. Karen Jacques Zip Code: 95811 Long Beach is horribly polluted. The City Council needs to do everything in its power to phase out drilling immediately and protect and preserve the health of its constituents. 81. Mary Barton Mayes Zip Code: 90814 My entire family lives here--and we don't like the health or environmental implications of oil drilling here!! That's why we bought solar panels, and drive high-mileage vehicles, recycle anything possible, and avoid plastic. It's time our City takes a bold and brave step to help reduce carbon pollution by banning oil drilling NOW. 82. Chuck Barrick Zip Code: 90804 My family has been living, working, going to school, and running businesses in Long Beach for nearly 100 years. Although the city has made great strides in environmental cleanup and protection, we need to do more. Please ensure that LA County's second largest City is setting the important example of putting our people and our properties first with this important initiative. 83. Helene Whitson Zip Code: 94709 My husband grew up in Long Beach. I remember going there to visit his parents and going by what I think is called Oil Hill. It stank and was disgusting. The time for extracting fossil fuels is over. The drilling process exposes people living nearby to harmful chemicals, and it makes a total mess of the land on which the drilling takes place. It's time for green and renewable energy, as well as turning the oil drilling areas into something compatible with life, not the extinction of it. 84. V & B Jones Zip Code: 90508 No more carcinogenic, climate-hijacking fossil fuels please. 85. Edward Costello Zip Code: 90402 No more drilling for oil & gas 86. Allison Slay Zip Code: 90814 No more oil to decrease the world temperatures 87. Edward Costello Zip Code: 90402 No NEW oil drilling in Long Beach. 88. Linda Morgan Zip Code: 94806 Oil drilling doesn?t belong in a city. 89. Elizabeth Gonzalez Zip Code: 90805 Oil drilling in residential areas is toxic. It's long overdue to end it. 90. Jessie Gaskell Zip Code: 90042 Oil drilling is a public health crisis that disproportionately affects low-income residents. I support the City?s steps to expedite the phase out of drilling and strongly encourage the Council to act on this with the urgency it requires. 91. Ann Cantrell Zip Code: 90808 Oil drilling pollutes the air and water; many wells are on an earthquake fault; oil spills and pipeline leaks can destroy wetlands habitat. 92. Sara Bruce Zip Code: 95110 Oil is potentially ruining the future for all of us, and drilling is ruining the present for some of us. It is time for the oil industry to re-assess its values! 93. Susanna Marshland Zip Code: 94707 Oil is ruining the planet and our communities. 94. James Hines Zip Code: 90814 Oil Slicks like the recent one in Long Beach and last year's Orange County spills highlight the fact that fossil fuel production has no place, anywhere in California, but especially offshore and near our beaches. How many more oil spills and fossil fuel accidents do we need until the city and the state begins to prioritize public health and the environment? 95. Alice Nguyen Zip Code: 95136 On May 8, CA produced more than enough renewable electricity to power the entire state. We don't need or want dirty fossil fuels. 96. Sharon Fritsch Zip Code: 95928 Our beaches have suffered from too much pollution. 97. Susan Perez Zip Code: 90731 Our kids deserve clean air and water! Childhood asthma and toxic air and water are preventable. End this! 98. Jeffrey Wang Zip Code: 90012 Please act with urgency! 99. Patricia Essick Zip Code: 93023 Please do what is right for our environment and the health of your citizens. 100. Abbie Bernstein Zip Code: 90069 Please don't subject less affluent citizens to environmentally dangerous projects in their backyards. 101. Catherine Ronan Zip Code: 90066 Please help lead the way to phasing out oil drilling in our state. The climate crisis demands it. Thank you! 102. Christina Mancebo Zip Code: 90808 Please invest in clean energy that is sustainable. Oil drilling is neither. 103. Emily Canata Zip Code: 90814 Please phase out drilling in Long Beach and restore our natural environment. This will make Long Beach more beautiful and safer for everyone in our community. It will make the land more valuable and would be something we could brag about-look how we care about our environment and actually did something about it that everyone can understand and see. 104. Rachelle Sartini Garner Zip Code: 90802 Please phase out drilling in our communities, and stop valuing profit over the health of the people of Long Beach. Highly support transitioning workers into jobs that allow them to fully care for their families without putting themselves at risk, and that can set them up with crucial skills needed as we transition into sustainable forms of energy production. Climate change is already affecting our state drastically, please be leaders that work swiftly and proactively to improve and protect the lives of your residents. 105. Austin Rice Zip Code: 96130 Please reduce environmental & societal harm & risks by incrementally shutting down drilling in/near Long Beach, CA. Thank you. 106. Bruce Allen Zip Code: 92075 Please stop ALL oil drilling in Long Beach to stop contributing to carbon-dioxide emissions that occur when oil & gas are burned. It is critical that we stop these emissions and transfer our energy sources to clean energy like hydro dams, solar farms and wind farms!!! 107. Anna Hornick Zip Code: 94401 Please stop pollution from oil drilling. As a California resident, I find highly important that you pass this measure. Thank 108. Mindy Thomas Zip Code: 90803 Please think of the environment-by your wallets 109. Dalila Hardwick Zip Code: 90803 Please, please, please... stop the oil pumpjacks in Long Beach. Many are extremely close to homes and businesses, and some are not far from schools. The fumes are poisonous and fumes travel far and wide. We already have microplastic in our lungs, carcinogens from all kinds of poisons that should be illegal. Do contribute to making the air we breathe less noxious Hopefully, one day not too far most chemicals that are now "legal" will be banned and substituted by things that do not kill us. Thank you Dalila Hardwick 110. Lionel Mares Zip Code: 91352 Please, protect impoverished neighborhoods. 111. Madlyn Monchamp Zip Code: 93111 Protect our climate 112. Elizabeth Moreno Zip Code: 95117 Quickly phasing out (5 yr.) of oil drilling in Long Beach would be a win-win, for residents' health and the health of the planet. Do it, Long Beach! 113. Marti Roach Zip Code: 94556 Scientists in the lates IPCC report said that in order to prevent unimaginably challenging negative tipping points for our climate, we must not have new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must rapidly phase out burning fossil fuels. Wells release methane, a highly potent ghg that warms the planet fast. Even more importantly, the health benefits of using clean energy and avoiding health risks from air, water and soil contamination of wells are high. We have a healthy way for our energy future. Let's put our human energy into this transition to a clean energy economy that is fair to workers, communities and all. 114. Martin Holman Zip Code: 90806 So much wealth has been made removing oil from the ground in Long Beach, it's a shame that none of that wealth can stand up and say ENOUGH! 115. Sherrill Futrell Zip Code: 95618 SOMEONE MUST BE ON THE TAKE. THIS HAS GONE ON FOR DECADES. 116. Michael Wauschek Zip Code: 90703 Standing rock is everywhere 117. Eanthy Zeltman Zip Code: 92308 stop drillinmg where people live. 118. Kathleen Monteleone Zip Code: 92530 STOP oil drilling today! It truly saddens me on a daily basis that our precious Mother Earth has been destroyed, ravaged, and abused because of greedy, heartless, business men. Our planet, wildlife, and humanity take precedence over money! STOP corporate greed now! 119. Karl Eggers Zip Code: 90815 Stop selling Long Beach residents future for money today. The city is already on the hook for millions of dollars to properly abandon wells that their bankrupt commercial (private) partner is unwilling to fund. And are you using oil money to offset effects of climate change in the city, or just ongoing expenses (e.g., city employee retirement and health expenses). 120. Michael Mansfield Zip Code: 94702 Surely we can do better and think more long-term. More jobs and healthier communities await your leadership. Peace. Michael Mansfield 121. Kennedy Trawick Zip Code: 90503 The citizens of Long Beach, and quite frankly the world, don?t deserve to be subjected to the detriments cause by the oil industry. Please put lives over profit. 122. Martin Holman Zip Code: 90806 The City of Long Beach has long benefited from oil drilling. It really is past time to stop. 123. Cindy Koch Zip Code: 90807 The entire world needs to phase out oil drilling if we want to survive decades to come! This should be important to EVERYONE!! 124. Marie Gaillac Zip Code: 92868 The Long Beach community should become a model of a community that can transform itself from being an anti environment community to a model one. It is fortunate in its placement , climate .and potential.sgenic beauty. 125. Joshua Trotter Zip Code: 90026 The most recent IPCC reports make it clear that transitioning away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible is essential. Now is the time for action. 126. Deborah Weinrauch Zip Code: 90230 The oil fields are dangerous to everyone's health and safety and belong to a bygone era. 127. Aaron Valdespino Zip Code: 90806 The oil island's are a huge eye sore to our beautiful ocean. The capped oil wells are also leaking over time and are NEVER maintained. Pure disregard and negligence by the politicians agreeing to these oil wells and islands. Please do what's best for your stakeholders and protect the land and ocean we love. 128. Daniel Nakashima Zip Code: 90806 The tax per barrel is too low also. Raise the tax until it?s no longer profitable, then convert these sites to solar and wind. There is no time to wait for Long Beach?s children. 129. Tab Buckner Zip Code: 94117 The time to phase out Long Beach oil drilling is NOW!!! 130. Elizabeth Zenker Zip Code: 95501 There is far more than simple oil gain from this precious piece of Earth! 131. Lizann Keyes Zip Code: 95062 There is no acceptable place for oil drilling in California. I took part in the huge clean-up in the early 70s after the giant oil spill that spurred the Earth Day Movement. Now, over fifty years later, we should not be negotiating for fossil fuel rights. Protect our precious earth! Phase out drilling now! 132. Elen Lauper Zip Code: 90803 These are my beaches, my neighborhoods. Protect our waters. 133. G Friaz Zip Code: 95112 They've drilled long enough! 134. F. Michael Montgomery Zip Code: 95403 This affects the health of Americans, our environment, and our climate crisis! 135. John Candela Zip Code: 94121 This is unacceptable! Neighborhood oil drilling exposes Long Beach residents to toxic chemicals and smog-forming gasses, which can increase the risk of severe chronic conditions including respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. 136. Susan Brunelle Zip Code: 90807 This needs to be done for the health of our entire community. The health of residents must be protected by it's elected representatives. 137. Frederick Cliver Zip Code: 90815 To the best of my knowledge, the city and state aren't even getting severance fees. What is the upside of this for the populace, especially when we need to be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels? 138. Daryl Gale Zip Code: 90013 We all have to do our part to segue to cleaner energy! 139. Stacey Meinzen Zip Code: 95405 We are in a climate emergency and neighborhood drilling is not OK. It's time to stop sacrificing our communities' health for fossil fuel executive pocketbooks. We have clean energy options and we should be focused on accelerating those - electrifying everything, not creating more toxic liabilities. There are already too many abandoned oil wells that taxpayers are on the hook to clean up. Let's stop stranding more assets and invest in a climate-safe future. 140. Gary Charles Zip Code: 90813 WE AVE SO MUCH SOLAR AVAILABLE HERE AND THE PORTS FREE WIND ENERGY ALL DAY AND NIGHT I DON'T CARE IF THE OIL COMPANIES DON'T GET A BIG XMAS BONUS EVER AGAIN AFTER ALL THE SPILLS TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID FOR THE CLEAN UP. 141. Sydney Pitcher Zip Code: 91945 We cannot forget about the oil spill that happened off the California Coast in 2021. This is a wake up call once again, reminding us of the dangers of offshore drilling. We are in a climate crisis and we?re running out of time to save our health and the planet from irreversible, extremely catastrophic outcomes. 142. Sue Gupta Zip Code: 94556 We do not need oil drilling in this age of climate crisis and sea level rise that is threatening the future of our communities. People definitely do not want any more catastrophic oil spills. 143. Nancy Hubbs-Chang Zip Code: 91105 We don't need fossil fuels any more. This year is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt how damaging they are to our city, county, country, and planet. 144. Felix Mbuga Zip Code: 95035 We have a moral responsibility to our children and our grandchildren to not leave them a planet in worse condition than we received it that is devastated by climate pollution. The science is clear that this means: no more fossil fuel subsidies or expansion or investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, winding down existing fossil fuel production and consumption as quickly as possible, and rapidly expanding clean carbon-free energy production. 145. Kristie Guzman Zip Code: 90713 We have enough pollution 146. Stephanie Oliver Zip Code: 90803 We have the means to make this happen now. Let?s do it, we?re counting on you to make this wonderful community even better! 147. Gabriela Worrel Zip Code: 90016 We have waited too long for environmental Justice. Stop harmful drilling now! 148. Richard Lindemann Zip Code: 90804 We know that oil facilities are a harm to residents near or far from them. With the use of more electric means of transportation, OIL needs to be phased out in LB and SH as quickly as possible, within the next 5 to 7years. The time for this begins, NOW! Begin this process to better the health of generations to come. Clean up is MANDATORY for ALL OIL COMPANIES involved. 149. Paul Lewis Zip Code: 90807 We live within a few blocks of several oil rigs, and it's a terrible thing! How dare the city where we live allow such toxic pollution to take place in residential neighborhoods? Other cities have outlawed it--as well it should be--so what is the City of Long Beach waiting for? 150. Nishanga Bliss Zip Code: 94702 We must act now to keep oil in the ground and protect the climate! 151. Suzanna Byrne Zip Code: 92649 We MUST stop being so dependent on fossil fuels especially oil. I cannot afford to buy a hybrid or an electric car but support the effort to get rid of gasoline powered cars for the future. Therein lies some hope of less damage to the only home we have - EARTH1 152. Ann Dorsey Zip Code: 91325 We must stop extracting fossil fuels if we want a livable future. 153. Brady Bradshaw Zip Code: 91302 We need drastic reductions in climate pollution if we are to avoid exponentially more catastrophic wildfires, droughts, and intensified storms. My children's children will need a livable planet, and right now, people suffer at the hands of the oil industry's death-grip on our local, state, and federal governments. The misinformation campaign they are employing right now to lock in decades of further climate chaos and health impacts to our communities, is shameful. Big Oil's propaganda should be ignored outright as lies and deceit. Do what is needed- phase out oil and gas immediately. 154. Sarah Butler Zip Code: 94563 We need to ban new oil drilling now since oil wells are not healthy for people! 155. Paige Fordice Zip Code: 95018 We need to build infrastructure for alternative energy sources. Stop producing oil. 156. Peter Canavan Zip Code: 90803 We need to cut fossil fuels now! They are destroying our air our water our children and our lives! When are we going to wake up? 157. Denise Berringer-Wood Zip Code: 90807 We need to focus on the health of our community and a clean climate future, not corporate profits! 158. Patricia Williams Zip Code: 94571 We need to protect our beaches! 159. Kathleen Petricca Zip Code: 94553 We need to push faster to get solar technology and storage to more residents. It's a race against time. 160. Mary Rojeski Zip Code: 90405 What if it was next to Your home? 161. JB Jb Zip Code: 94603 What! This is STILL happening? It's got to go! 162. Susan Hathaway Zip Code: 90660 Why are you so eager to make people sick by putting more and more oil wells near their homes? 163. Dylan Michlin Zip Code: 90254 Why don?t you invest in EV infrastructure instead? 164. Jeannine Pearce Zip Code: 90814 You know why. Our kids are born and have infant asthma, Long Beach has a 17 year life expectancy difference due to health impacts of this climate crisis. You got this and the Community has your back. 165. A.J. Averett Zip Code: 91942 166. Ad Clayton Zip Code: 92081 167. Adam Bernstein Zip Code: 90012 168. Adam Resnick Zip Code: 90026 169. Adria Tenisson Zip Code: 93003 170. AIXA FIELDER Zip Code: 90028 171. AJ Cho Zip Code: 94579 172. Alan Chen Zip Code: 90025 173. Alan Gonzalez Zip Code: 90815 174. Alexis Georgiou Zip Code: 95054 175. Alice Neuhauser Zip Code: 90266 176. Allie Palmer Zip Code: 92672 177. Alyza Cornett Zip Code: 90056 178. Amaan Nabeel Zip Code: 91301 179. Amanda DeJesus Zip Code: 90806 180. Amira Mansour Zip Code: 92612 181. AmirAli Siassi Zip Code: 90049 182. Analisa Swan Zip Code: 91504 183. Anastasia FIANDACA Zip Code: 94901 184. Andarin Arvola Zip Code: 95437 185. Andrea Scott Zip Code: 94507 186. Andrea Milton Zip Code: 91304 187. Andrew Philpot Zip Code: 93463 188. Andy Lupenko Zip Code: 91945 189. Angela Carter Zip Code: 90731 190. Angela Gantos Zip Code: 94920 191. Angela Clayton Zip Code: 92081 192. Angie Klein Zip Code: 94501 193. Annamarie Jones Zip Code: 96101 194. Anne Mohr Zip Code: 92626 195. Annemarie Weibel Zip Code: 95410 196. Annette Benton Zip Code: 94565 197. Annette Pirrone Zip Code: 94960 198. Annie Hallatt Zip Code: 94703 199. Anthony Montapert Zip Code: 93455 200. Anthony Sandoval Zip Code: 90710 201. Anthony Ramirez Zip Code: 90802 202. Armando A. Garcia Zip Code: 92571 203. Audrey Higbee Zip Code: 90814 204. B Nemiroff Zip Code: 90035 205. B Sandow Zip Code: 94804 206. b edwards Zip Code: 94973 207. Barbara Lovejoy Zip Code: 94804 208. Barbara Mais Zip Code: 90807 209. Barbara M Zip Code: 90803 210. Barbara Marrs Zip Code: 92371 211. Barbara Scheinman Zip Code: 92691 212. Barbara Bellano Zip Code: 91107 213. barbara poland Zip Code: 91214 214. Barbara Mesney Zip Code: 90066 215. Barbara Lehman Zip Code: 91350 216. Barry & Tracy Kogen Zip Code: 90808 217. Baty Family Zip Code: 92373 218. Ben Keller Zip Code: 94608 219. Ben Ruwe Zip Code: 95005 220. Ben Hauck Zip Code: 90808 221. Berna Cliffe Zip Code: 90803 222. Bert Gfreenberg Zip Code: 95135 223. Bob Flagg Zip Code: 95436 224. Bonita Lacy Zip Code: 91724 225. Bonnie Arbuckle Zip Code: 95367 226. Bonny Davis Zip Code: 95949 227. Brandon Gallegos Zip Code: 92707 228. Brenda Haig Zip Code: 90803 229. Brenda Haig Zip Code: 90803 230. Brian Murphy Zip Code: 91423 231. Brian Boortz Zip Code: 95030 232. Bruce Burns Zip Code: 92108 233. Bryan Callejo Zip Code: 92114 234. Bryant Odega Zip Code: 90501 235. bud hoekstra Zip Code: 95232 236. Caephren Mckenna Zip Code: 94609 237. Candace Rocha Zip Code: 90032 238. Carol Drake Zip Code: 94536 239. Carol Ng Zip Code: 90026 240. Carol Lawson Zip Code: 95821 241. carol schaffer Zip Code: 94806 242. Carol Wiley Zip Code: 92394 243. Carolyn Anders Zip Code: 90230 244. Carolyn Leonard Zip Code: 92404 245. Carolyn Yee Zip Code: 95822 246. Carolyn Rosenstein Zip Code: 90067 247. Carrie Weil Zip Code: 90404 248. Caryn Cowin Zip Code: 93308 249. Catherine Loudis Zip Code: 94960 250. Cati Glasser Zip Code: 90038 251. Caylee Hong Zip Code: 90755 252. Celeste Anacker Zip Code: 93105 253. Charlene Kerchevall Zip Code: 92054 254. Charles Wieland Zip Code: 94583 255. Charles Modjeski Zip Code: 94555 256. Charles Heinrichs Zip Code: 96097 257. CHARLOTTE WILLIAMS Zip Code: 90302 258. Cheryl Albert Zip Code: 95019 259. Chris Loo Zip Code: 95037 260. Chris Geukens Zip Code: 91343 261. Chris Gilbert Zip Code: 94707 262. Christian Heinold Zip Code: 94612 263. Christina Nielsen Zip Code: 95120 264. Christina Medina Zip Code: 90744 265. Christine Brockman Zip Code: 92881 266. Christine Hayes Zip Code: 91786 267. Christopher Cusack Zip Code: 90016 268. Christopher Ware Zip Code: 94539 269. Christopher Lish Zip Code: 94903 270. Cindy Stein Zip Code: 91320 271. Claire Perricelli Zip Code: 95501 272. Claudia Monahan Zip Code: 92253 273. Clay Thibodeaux Zip Code: 90293 274. Consuelo Valenzuela Zip Code: 95917 275. Corey Vanderwouw Zip Code: 95949 276. Courtney Gartin Zip Code: 95120 277. curt sanders Zip Code: 93541 278. Damon Brown Zip Code: 90016 279. Dan Esposito Zip Code: 90266 280. Dana Kinonen Zip Code: 90505 281. Danijel Mikulja Zip Code: 90016 282. Darrell Neft Zip Code: 92626 283. David Dexter Zip Code: 94941 284. David Doering Zip Code: 94109 285. David Boyer Zip Code: 94304 286. David Hardy Zip Code: 93065 287. David Garfinkle Zip Code: 91356 288. David Peevers Zip Code: 90066 289. David Murillo Zip Code: 91351 290. Davin Peterson Zip Code: 95503 291. Dean Campbell Zip Code: 90807 292. Deborah Wardly Zip Code: 95726 293. Debra Wills Zip Code: 94610 294. Delores Yanko Zip Code: 92543 295. Denise Fidel Zip Code: 92007 296. Dennis Lynch Zip Code: 95018 297. Dennis Trembly Zip Code: 90275 298. Dennis Mcintyre Zip Code: 92677 299. Dennis Trembly Zip Code: 90275 300. Desendorf Mark Zip Code: 90066 301. Diana Koeck Zip Code: 92626 302. Diane Stotler Zip Code: 93940 303. Diane Cottrell Zip Code: 94803 304. Don Meehan Zip Code: 95124 305. Donna Davies Zip Code: 94040 306. Donna Mize Zip Code: 94805 307. Donna Sharee Zip Code: 94112 308. Donna Shellabarger Zip Code: 90505 309. donnal poppe Zip Code: 91325 310. Earl Frounfelter Zip Code: 93454 311. Edgar Flores Zip Code: 90808 312. Edward Landler Zip Code: 90065 313. Edward Macan Zip Code: 95501 314. Edwin and Jean Aiken Zip Code: 94087 315. Elaine Russell Zip Code: 90815 316. Elizabeth Levy Zip Code: 94805 317. Elizabeth Ramsey Zip Code: 95616 318. Elizabeth Estes Zip Code: 91107 319. elizabeth myrin shore Zip Code: 94979 320. Ellen Kaufman Zip Code: 91311 321. Ellen Koivisto Zip Code: 94122 322. Elliot Gonzales Zip Code: 90813 323. Elsa Tung Zip Code: 90807 324. Emmanuel Garcia-Rojas Zip Code: 90066 325. Eric Muller Zip Code: 94024 326. Eric Ericson Zip Code: 90210 327. Erica Brown Zip Code: 95602 328. Erin Suyehara Zip Code: 90503 329. Erin Foley Zip Code: 90813 330. Erin Mccune Zip Code: 93117 331. Erlinda Cortez Zip Code: 90807 332. Ernie Walters Zip Code: 94587 333. Esther Moreno Zip Code: 94505 334. Etta Robin Zip Code: 93312 335. Evette Andersen Zip Code: 95945 336. Fatima Iqbal-Zubair Zip Code: 90248 337. Fiorella Russo-Jang Zip Code: 94553 338. Flor Murray Zip Code: 94044 339. Flora Rosas Zip Code: 90038 340. Florence Litton Zip Code: 92082 341. Gabriel Vargas Zip Code: 90802 342. Gaille Heidemann Zip Code: 90024 343. Gary Cote Zip Code: 90803 344. Gary Goetz Zip Code: 93950 345. Gary Popejoy Zip Code: 96062 346. Gary Kuehn Zip Code: 91321 347. Gavin Ford Zip Code: 92104 348. Gavin0 Composer Zip Code: 92618 349. Genesis Delgado Zip Code: 90731 350. George Yenoki Zip Code: 91016 351. Gerald Shaia Zip Code: 91352 352. Gerard Ridella Zip Code: 94546 353. Gladys Delgadillo Zip Code: 92129 354. Gregg Lichtenstein Zip Code: 92131 355. Gregory Perkins Zip Code: 90814 356. Heather White Zip Code: 90275 357. Heidi Buech Zip Code: 90066 358. Helen Moncayo Zip Code: 91784 359. Henry Schlinger Zip Code: 91201 360. Henry Rosenfeld Zip Code: 92506 361. Hildy Meyers Zip Code: 92648 362. Howard Cohen Zip Code: 94306 363. Inger Acking Zip Code: 94710 364. Irene Hilgers Zip Code: 94582 365. Iris Edinger Zip Code: 91367 366. Iyela Palidine Zip Code: 92672 367. J Lasahn Zip Code: 94530 368. J P Zip Code: 95521 369. J.W. Oman Zip Code: 94618 370. Jack Cooper Zip Code: 90807 371. Jackson Casimiro Zip Code: 90731 372. Jacob Lang Zip Code: 90041 373. Jacoba Dolloff Zip Code: 91941 374. Jacqueline McVicar Zip Code: 92115 375. Jacquelyn Heitman Zip Code: 90814 376. Jaime Nahman Zip Code: 90290 377. James Dawson Zip Code: 95618 378. James Samis Zip Code: 90275 379. James Symington Zip Code: 90240 380. Jamie Le Zip Code: 94501 381. Jan Warren Zip Code: 94598 382. Jana Frazier Zip Code: 90731 383. jane drexler Zip Code: 93117 384. Jane Spini Zip Code: 95521 385. Janet Maker Zip Code: 90024 386. Jason Nolasco Zip Code: 90706 387. Javier Del Valle Zip Code: 90640 388. Jeanine Metildi Zip Code: 90806 389. Jeannette Hanna Zip Code: 95864 390. Jeff Slayton Zip Code: 90806 391. Jeffrey Hurwitz Zip Code: 94121 392. Jeffrey Streicher Zip Code: 90808 393. Jen Rund Zip Code: 94947 394. Jennifer Celio Zip Code: 90802 395. Jennifer Tomassi Zip Code: 90018 396. Jennifer Schmitz Zip Code: 94541 397. Jes Laufenberg Zip Code: 95819 398. jess zelniker Zip Code: 91601 399. Jessica Powers Zip Code: 91739 400. Jill Rhiannon Zip Code: 95991 401. Jillian Gallery Zip Code: 90740 402. Jim Cramer Zip Code: 95616 403. Jim Curland Zip Code: 95039 404. Jim Hartung Zip Code: 90402 405. Jo Williams Zip Code: 90814 406. Jo Ann Bollen Zip Code: 92284 407. Joan Smith Zip Code: 94904 408. Joanne Britton Zip Code: 92115 409. Joe Buhowsky Zip Code: 94582 410. Joe Smith Zip Code: 92020 411. Joel Olson Zip Code: 94063 412. Joel Kirschenstein Zip Code: 91361 413. John Bertaina Zip Code: 95139 414. John Cattarin Zip Code: 94002 415. JOHN CHRISTOPHER Zip Code: 90712 416. John Alexander Zip Code: 92057 417. john pasqua Zip Code: 92025 418. John Teevan Zip Code: 91914 419. Jonathan Jonathan Zip Code: 95037 420. Jonathan Peltz Zip Code: 90046 421. Jose Rodriguez Zip Code: 90604 422. Joseph Alvarado Zip Code: 94122 423. Joslyn Baxter Zip Code: 94110 424. Joy Zadaca Zip Code: 90807 425. Joyce Smith Zip Code: 95367 426. Juan Paulo Panaligan Zip Code: 90804 427. Judith Baker Zip Code: 91423 428. Judith Smith Zip Code: 94601 429. Judy Bradford Zip Code: 90275 430. Julia Dowell Zip Code: 94501 431. June Cancell Zip Code: 94025 432. Kaelan Shannon Zip Code: 92882 433. Kailee Caruso Zip Code: 90804 434. Kali Krishnan Zip Code: 92346 435. Karen Harper Zip Code: 90803 436. Karen Tandy Zip Code: 91750 437. Karen Kirschling Zip Code: 94117 438. Karl Pierce Zip Code: 95829 439. Karla Devine Zip Code: 90266 440. Kathleen Van Every Zip Code: 93422 441. Kathleen Gause Zip Code: 90815 442. Kathy Popoff Zip Code: 90732 443. Kay Gallin Zip Code: 90067 444. Kaylah Sterling Zip Code: 94608 445. Keith Rhinehart Zip Code: 95050 446. Kelly Fitzgerald Zip Code: 90807 447. KELLY KRAMER Zip Code: 92840 448. Ken Warfield Zip Code: 92807 449. Kent Grigg Zip Code: 94595 450. Kermit Cuff Zip Code: 94041 451. Kevin Forde Zip Code: 90814 452. Kim Floyd Zip Code: 92260 453. Kirstie Palmer Zip Code: 90277 454. Kobi Naseck Zip Code: 94609 455. Kris Montgomery Zip Code: 95405 456. Kristen Sandel Zip Code: 95005 457. Kristin Womack Zip Code: 94960 458. Kristina Fukuda Zip Code: 90034 459. L Nelson Zip Code: 95038 460. Laura Herndon Zip Code: 91505 461. Laura Herndon Zip Code: 91505 462. Laura Haider Zip Code: 93727 463. Laura Dill Zip Code: 94706 464. Lauren Linda Zip Code: 92637 465. Lauren Prust Zip Code: 92126 466. Lauren Ferree Bash Zip Code: 90405 467. Lawrence Abbott Zip Code: 94577 468. Leah Pressman Zip Code: 90232 469. Leah Berman Zip Code: 95003 470. LeAnn Bjelle Zip Code: 95003 471. lee jordan Zip Code: 90056 472. Lee Liddle Zip Code: 93720 473. Leonie Terfort Zip Code: 94941 474. Leslie Jones Zip Code: 90803 475. Leslie Nanasy Zip Code: 90808 476. Linda Ford Zip Code: 92648 477. Linda Barrientos Zip Code: 94015 478. Lindsay Mugglestone Zip Code: 94705 479. Lindsey Kalfsbeek Zip Code: 94509 480. Lisa Allowitz-Thompson Zip Code: 96148 481. Lisa Salazar Zip Code: 96089 482. Lisa Phenix Zip Code: 95608 483. Livia Ferguson Zip Code: 90266 484. Lori Kegler Zip Code: 90731 485. Lori Wilson-Hopkins Zip Code: 95603 486. Lucy Fried Zip Code: 90016 487. Lydia M. Villalobos-White Zip Code: 91345 488. Lynn Alley Zip Code: 92011 489. M Lynch Zip Code: 90405 490. M. C. Corvalan Zip Code: 90278 491. M. Virginia Leslie Zip Code: 95035 492. Marci Yellin Zip Code: 94114 493. Marcia Edelen Zip Code: 94704 494. Marcia Hackett Zip Code: 92637 495. Marcy Meadows Zip Code: 95444 496. Margaret Lirones Zip Code: 93212 497. Margaret Rainey Zip Code: 95519 498. Maria Mendez Zip Code: 90016 499. Maria Skilbred Zip Code: 90802 500. Marianne McDermott Zip Code: 95928 501. Marie Winter Zip Code: 92705 502. Marilyn Shepherd Zip Code: 95570 503. Marisa Landsberg Zip Code: 90266 504. Marjorie Hoskinson Zip Code: 91360 505. Marjorie Xavier Zip Code: 95409 506. Mark Feldman Zip Code: 95401 507. Mark Looney Zip Code: 94521 508. Mark Stannard Zip Code: 90056 509. Mark Cappetta Zip Code: 92270 510. Mark Skilbred Zip Code: 91784 511. Mark Bartleman Zip Code: 92651 512. Martin Horwitz Zip Code: 94122 513. Mary Ames Zip Code: 92592 514. Mary Hicklin Zip Code: 92040 515. Mary Stanistreet Zip Code: 93003 516. Mary Steele Zip Code: 92677 517. Mary Ann McDonald Zip Code: 95818 518. Marybeth Wall Zip Code: 90802 519. Matt Filler Zip Code: 90740 520. Matthew Reid Zip Code: 94515 521. Matthew Comer Zip Code: 92879 522. Meagan Wyllie Zip Code: 90016 523. Meg Brown Zip Code: 93252 524. Melinda Taylor Zip Code: 90814 525. Melissa Finley Zip Code: 95445 526. Melissa Hutchinson Zip Code: 93950 527. mercedes moreno Zip Code: 92057 528. michael bailey Zip Code: 90802 529. Michael richardson Zip Code: 90802 530. Michael Price Zip Code: 94109 531. Michael Schulte Zip Code: 90066 532. Michael Eichenholtz Zip Code: 94804 533. Michele Smith Zip Code: 90277 534. Michelle Lewis Zip Code: 90802 535. Michelle Hudson Zip Code: 94402 536. Michelle Palladine Zip Code: 92262 537. michelle geil Zip Code: 90292 538. Mignon Moskowitz Zip Code: 95425 539. Mike Evans Zip Code: 94720 540. Miles Aiello Zip Code: 90638 541. Miriam Leiseroff Zip Code: 95125 542. Mitch M Zip Code: 92262 543. Monica Abruzzo Zip Code: 94546 544. Monica Embrey Zip Code: 90026 545. Nadia Tushnet Zip Code: 90803 546. Nancy Nilssen Zip Code: 94568 547. Nancy Havassy Zip Code: 94611 548. Nancy Oliver Zip Code: 95818 549. Nancy Heck Zip Code: 93454 550. Nancy Tierney Zip Code: 94044 551. Nanlouise Wolfe Zip Code: 95060 552. Nareg Keshishian Zip Code: 91367 553. Natalija Sale Zip Code: 90740 554. Nicholas Cahill Zip Code: 93291 555. Nicholas Ratto Zip Code: 94501 556. nicole levin Zip Code: 90027 557. Nicole Leseigneur Zip Code: 95405 558. Nicolette Moore Zip Code: 92620 559. Nina MacDonald & Ted Wright Zip Code: 92676 560. Noah Tenney Zip Code: 94606 561. Nora Coyle Zip Code: 92807 562. Pamela Gaskill Zip Code: 95993 563. Pat Lang Zip Code: 94022 564. Patricia Depew Zip Code: 91106 565. Patricia McPherson Zip Code: 90066 566. Patricia Law Zip Code: 92102 567. Patrick McCarty Zip Code: 92128 568. Paul Shabazian Zip Code: 95311 569. Paul and Katherine Malchiodi Zip Code: 92110 570. Paula Cavagnaro Zip Code: 94550 571. Pauline Faye Zip Code: 92673 572. Philip Simon Zip Code: 94912 573. Phoenix Giffen Zip Code: 94952 574. Pol Hermes Zip Code: 92065 575. Priyanka Bhakta Zip Code: 92708 576. Querido Galdo Zip Code: 95445 577. R Kadden Zip Code: 91308 578. R D Harlowe Zip Code: 92549 579. R Lee Weir Zip Code: 93463 580. Rachel Ben-Menachem Zip Code: 90029 581. Ralph Penfield Zip Code: 92104 582. Randy Bueno Zip Code: 90720 583. Randy Baker Zip Code: 92870 584. Randy and Michelle Davis Zip Code: 95688 585. Ray Staar Zip Code: 94109 586. Raymond Plasse Zip Code: 91307 587. Raymond Vaczek Zip Code: 90023 588. Rebecca Hanna Zip Code: 90806 589. Rebecca Prewitt Zip Code: 91602 590. Renaldo Gonzalez Zip Code: 92284 591. Rene Maurice Zip Code: 94117 592. Renee Jeska Zip Code: 90740 593. Rich Goldberg Zip Code: 94951 594. Richard Gallo Zip Code: 95062 595. Richard Kornfeld Zip Code: 91101 596. Richard Robinson Zip Code: 90266 597. Rob Guilmette Zip Code: 90808 598. Rob Cherwink Zip Code: 95476 599. Rob Gallinger Zip Code: 92586 600. Robert Ortiz Zip Code: 94945 601. Roberta Stern Zip Code: 94618 602. Roland Leong Zip Code: 95842 603. ROMONA WILLIAMS Zip Code: 90746 604. Ronald Mohler Zip Code: 90804 605. Rosario Sandel Zip Code: 91335 606. Roy Jackson Zip Code: 90504 607. Rubén Becerra Zip Code: 90731 608. Ruselle Revenaugh Zip Code: 95060 609. Russell Weisz Zip Code: 95060 610. Ruth b Zip Code: 94070 611. Ryan Park Zip Code: 90503 612. S Barryte Zip Code: 90275 613. Sally Beer Zip Code: 91001 614. Sam Butler Zip Code: 90045 615. Sandra Gamble Zip Code: 93555 616. Sandy Rodgers Zip Code: 92223 617. Sandy Zelasko Zip Code: 92082 618. Sara C. Blunt Zip Code: 93067 619. Sarah Larson Zip Code: 90025 620. Sarah Harvey Zip Code: 94606 621. Sarah Pinsky Zip Code: 90803 622. Saran K. Zip Code: 90035 623. Scott Grinthal Zip Code: 94402 624. Seth Weisbord Zip Code: 90094 625. Sharon Nicodemus Zip Code: 95821 626. Sherry Marsh Zip Code: 92056 627. Shirley Rodda Zip Code: 95121 628. Shoshana Wechsler Zip Code: 94708 629. Sinthuja Nagalingam Zip Code: 90814 630. Skarlette Arvolkskaya Zip Code: 90815 631. Skye Van Raalte-Herzog Zip Code: 91042 632. Sofia Okolowicz Zip Code: 92592 633. Stacey Jones Zip Code: 95203 634. Stacy Rose Zip Code: 93442 635. Stephanie Nunez Zip Code: 91405 636. Stephanie Linam Zip Code: 94510 637. Steve Metzger Zip Code: 92647 638. Steve Robey Zip Code: 94708 639. Steve Sketo Zip Code: 93312 640. steve zelman Zip Code: 91367 641. Steven Stewart Zip Code: 92886 642. Steven Larky Zip Code: 92007 643. Steven Mazliach Zip Code: 94118 644. Stuart Greenburg Zip Code: 91381 645. Stuart Hartley Zip Code: 92106 646. Sue Cleereman Zip Code: 94556 647. Sujana Patel Zip Code: 90275 648. Suneun Reichert Zip Code: 90807 649. Sunnie Noellert Zip Code: 95519 650. Supporter Unknown Zip Code: 90731 651. Susan Hampton Zip Code: 94530 652. Susan Chung Zip Code: 90032 653. Susan Burns Zip Code: 91423 654. Susan Morales Zip Code: 90808 655. Susanne Cumming Zip Code: 90292 656. Susun Godwin Zip Code: 90814 657. Suzanne Cook Zip Code: 95519 658. Suzanne Torkar Zip Code: 92009 659. Sylvia De Baca Zip Code: 91773 660. Sylvia Ito Zip Code: 92648 661. Tamara Mccready Zip Code: 93063 662. Tara Ohta Zip Code: 91101 663. Tara Sanchez Zip Code: 90807 664. Ted Fishman Zip Code: 95123 665. Terrie Smith Zip Code: 91977 666. Theresa Bucher Zip Code: 91356 667. Theresa Smith Zip Code: 90806 668. Therese DeBing Zip Code: 93950 669. Thomas Sepko Zip Code: 90740 670. Thomas Whiting Zip Code: 94534 671. Thomas Russell Zip Code: 90731 672. Tim Maurer Zip Code: 92808 673. Todd Hack Zip Code: 91913 674. Tom Butler Zip Code: 95124 675. Tom Fray Zip Code: 92117 676. Tony Ramirez Zip Code: 90802 677. Tonya Cockrell Zip Code: 92882 678. Tree Wright Zip Code: 93022 679. Tristan Dunker Zip Code: 92845 680. Tyler FITZGERALD Zip Code: 92081 681. Utkarsh Nath Zip Code: 94555 682. Val Farrelly Zip Code: 94403 683. Valerie Kuo Zip Code: 91748 684. Veronica Michael Zip Code: 94533 685. Vicki Bookless Zip Code: 93405 686. Victoria Jensen Zip Code: 90405 687. Victoria Shepherd Zip Code: 91201 688. Virginia Turner Zip Code: 91367 689. Vonya Morris Zip Code: 94402 690. Wallace Rhine Zip Code: 95421 691. Walter Erhorn Zip Code: 91979 692. Warren Gold Zip Code: 94941 693. Warren M. Gold Zip Code: 94941 694. Wendy Brunell Zip Code: 91306 695. William Briggs Zip Code: 90254 696. Yvonne Olivares Zip Code: 91730 697. Zach Dietrich Zip Code: 91505 698. Zara Jaffe Zip Code: 94010 699. Zora Hollie Zip Code: 90043 Fisheries Economics
of the United States
2017
Economics and Sociocultur
al
Status and
Trends Series
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-219
September 2021

This document is still undergoing web accessibility work to meet Section 508 compliance.

For assistance with this document, please contact NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology at (301) 427-8100 or visit https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/contact/office-sc ience-and- technology
Front cover: Commercial fishing vessel. Photo: Pacific Fishery Management Council Inside cover: Seward Boat Harbor in Alaska. Photo: NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology/Noelle Olsen Fisheries Economics
of the United States
2017
Economics and Social Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS)
1315 East-West Highway, 12th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910
NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NMFS-F/SPO-219
SEPTEMBER 2021
U.S. Department of Commerce
Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, NOAA Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
Janet Coit, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

ii
NOAA Fisheries Publications
Each year NOAA Fisheries produces three annual reports covering different aspects of the status of United States marine fisheries.

Status of Stocks is an annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries and is required by the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This report, which is published each spring, summarizes the number of stocks on the overfi
shed, overfishing, and rebuilt lists for U.S. federally managed fish stocks and stock complexes. The report also shows trends over time, discusses the value and contributions of our partners, and highlights how management actions taken by NOAA Fisheries have improved the status of U.S. federally managed stocks. For example, the 2017 report shows that the number of stocks on the overfished list just reached a new all-time low.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/fi shery-stock-status-updates#2018-quarterly-updates
Fisheries of the United States, published each fall, has been produced in its various forms for more than 100 years. It is the NOAA Fisheries yearbook of fishery statistics for the United States. It provides a snapshot of data, primarily at the national level, on U.S. recreational catch and commercial fisheries landings and value. In addition, data are reported on U.S. aquaculture production, the U.S. fishery processing industry, imports and exports of fi
shery-related products, and domestic supply and per capita consumption of fishery products. The focus is not on economic analysis, although value of landings, processed products, and foreign trade are included. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states Fisheries Economics of the United States, pub
lished each fall, provides a detailed look at the economic performance of commercial and recreational fisheries and other marine-related sectors on a state, regional, and national basis. The economic impact of commercial and recreational fishing activities in the United States is also reported in terms of employment, sales and value-added impacts. The report provides management highlights for each region that include a summary of stock status, updates on catch share programs, and other selected management issues.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-economics-united-states Suggested Citation:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2021. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2017. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-219, 246 p.

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Economics and Social Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS)
1315 East-West Highway, 12th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Or online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-economics-united-states iii
Contents
Preface ........................................................ v Key Terminology ........................................ vi National Overview ....................................... 1 United States Summary ..........................................2 United States Tables .............................................19 North Pacific Region .................................. 23 North Pacific Summary ..........................................24 Alaska Tables .......................................................33 Pacific Region ............................................ 37 Pacific Summary ...................................................38 Pacific Tables .......................................................47 California Tables ...................................................51 Oregon Tables ......................................................55 Washington Tables ................................................59 Western Pacific Region .............................. 63 Western Pacific Summary ......................................64 Hawaiʻi Tables ......................................................71 New England Region ................................. 75 New England Summary .........................................76 New England Tables ..............................................83 Connecticut Tables ................................................87 Maine Tables ........................................................91 Massachusetts Tables ............................................95 New Hampshire Tables ..........................................99 Rhode Island Tables ............................................ 103 Mid-Atlantic Region ................................. 107 Mid-Atlantic Summary ......................................... 108 Mid-Atlantic Tables .............................................. 115 Delaware Tables ................................................. 119 Maryland Tables ................................................. 123 New Jersey Tables .............................................. 127 New York Tables ................................................. 131 Virginia Tables .................................................... 135 South Atlantic Region .............................. 139 South Atlantic Summary ...................................... 140 South Atlantic Tables ........................................... 147 East Florida Tables .............................................. 151 Georgia Tables ................................................... 155 North Carolina Tables .......................................... 159 South Carolina Tables .......................................... 163 Gulf of Mexico Region .............................. 167 Gulf of Mexico Summary ...................................... 168 Gulf of Mexico Tables .......................................... 175 Alabama Tables .................................................. 179 West Florida Tables ............................................. 183 Louisiana Tables ................................................. 187 Mississippi Tables................................................ 191 Texas Tables ...................................................... 195 Data Sources ........................................... 199 Publications............................................. 203 Resources................................................ 233 Glossary .................................................. 237 iv
Measuring opilio crab with calipers.

Photo: North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Preface
Fisheries Economics of the
United States, 2017
Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2017, is
the twelfth volume in this annual series, which is
intended to provide the public with easily accessible
economic information about the nation’s commercial
and recreational fishing activities and fishing-related industries. Summary data is available online in the
FEUS tool, available from https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.
gov/data-and-tools/FEUS/explore-the-data.

This year’s report covers the years 2008 to 2017
and provides descriptive statistics for the following
categories: economic impacts of the commercial
fishing and seafood industry; commercial fisheries
landings, revenue, and price trends; saltwater
angler expenditures and economic impacts of marine
recreational fishing; recreational fishing catch, effort, and participation rates; and employer and non-
employer establishments, payroll, employees, and
annual receipt information for fishing-related industries.

The report also provides management highlights for
each region that include a summary of stock status,
updates on catch share programs, and other selected
management issues. Economic performance indicators
for catch share programs are reported.

Sources of Data
Information in this report came from many sources.

Commercial landings, revenue, and price data, as well
as recreational fishing effort and participation data,
were primarily obtained from the Fisheries Statistics
Division, Office of Science and Technology, NOAA
Fisheries. Other data sources included the NOAA
Alaska Fisheries Science Center; Alaska Department
of Fish and Game; California Department of Fish
and Game; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife;
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Pacific Coast Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN); Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department; and Western Pacific
Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN). Economic
impacts from the commercial fishing and seafood
industry and recreational fishing sectors are from two
separate national IMPLAN models of the Economics and
Sociocultural Analysis Division, Office of Science and
Technology, NOAA Fisheries. Fishing-related industry
information was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

Acknowledgments
Many people participated in the production of this report.

Shelley Arenas, Emily Markowitz, and Alex Richardson
are the editors of this report series; Rita Curtis, Sabrina Lovell, Emily Markowitz, and Alex Richardson were
primary authors and analysts on this edition of Fisheries Economics of the United States. Key collaborators include Ben Fissel, Molly Graham, Drew Kitts, Scott Miller, Noelle Olsen, David Tomberlin, Cara Mayo, Lauren Dolinger Few, Karen Greene, Stephen Kasperski, Emily Rollins, Jean
Lee, Michael Lewis, Alan Lowther, Cameron Speir, and
Mike Travis. The report’s design and layout was done by Avi Litwack and Jacqui Fenner.

Special thanks to Emily Markowitz, whose tireless work
in digitizing, automating, and improving this report
has made for a stronger product in these pages and
going forward. This work would not have been possible
without her.

NOAA Fisheries staff in the regional fisheries science
centers and regional offices provided expertise: Hing Ling Chan, Valerie Post, Jarad Makaiau, Abigail Harley, Scott Crosson, Alan Haynie, Justin Hospital, and Christopher
Liese. Other colleagues who provided information and
expertise included Mike Brown (California Department
of Fish and Wildlife), and Jason Edwards and Rob Ames
(Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission).

Address all comments and questions to:

Kathryn Cuff | [email protected]
Economics and Social Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS)
1315 East-West Highway, 12
th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Phone: 301-427-8121
v
• Ben Fissel -- yes or no?
• Add Cara Mayo
• Rethink intro acknowledgements text (Rita)
• add folks who contributed new pubs?
• doublecheck all names/affiliations
• doublecheck William Roberg spelling
vi
1 For full definitions, see the Glossary at the back of this publication.

Economic Impacts
The employment, personal income, and output
generated by the commercial harvest sector and other
major components of the U.S. seafood industry.

Landings Revenue
The price that fishermen are paid for their catch.

Landings
The poundage or number of fish unloaded by
commercial fishermen or brought to shore.

Ex-vessel Prices
The price received by a captain, at the point of
landing, for the catch.

Metrics Definitions1
Frequently Asked Questions
What are fish caught
with in commercial
fishing?
Fish can be caught using
a variety of gear, including
potts and traps, trawls and
seines, gillnets, dredges,
and hooks and lines.

What happens to seafood caught
by commercial fishermen?
Fish caught by commercial fishermen
are first processed and packaged. Then
they are sold to various establishments
for consumption, such as restaurants and
supermarkets. They can also be used as
animal food and for medical purposes
(such as fish oil pills).

Does the United States get
seafood from anywhere else?
Not all fish are caught by U.S.
commercial fishermen. A large
percent of the seafood the U.S.
receives is imported.

Commercial Fisheries
What Does the Term Mean?
Commercial fisheries, in this report, refers to fishing operations that sell their catch for profit. It does not include saltwater anglers who fish for sport or subsistence fishermen. It also excludes the for-hire sector, which earns its revenue from selling recreational fishing trips to saltwater anglers. The commercial fisheries section reports on economic impacts, landings revenue, landings, and ex-vessel prices of key species and species groups. vii
Metrics Definitions
Economic Impacts and
Expenditures
The employment, sales, and personal income
generated by expenditures on fishing trips and
fishing-related durable goods (i.e. equipment used
for recreational fishing).

Fishing Trips/ Effort
The number of fishing trips taken by recreational
fishermen (anglers).

Participation
The number of anglers who fish in a given state or
region. Anglers can be from in-state or out-of-state
and from a coastal county or non-coastal county.

Harvest and Release
The total number or fish either: 1) caught and kept
(harvested), or 2) caught and released, by
recreational anglers from an area over a period of
time. Total catch is the sum of the number of fish
harvested and released.

Frequently Asked Questions
How do anglers affect the fishing
economy?
When anglers participate in fishing activities, they
support sales and employment in recreational
fishing and other types of businesses. Anglers buy
fishing equipment from bait and tackle shops, rent
or buy boats, or pay to have others take them on
charter boats to fish. They may also pay for food
and drink at local restaurants, purchase gas for
their boat, and stay in hotels for overnight fishing
trips.

What do anglers spend their
money on?
Durable goods, such as fishing
tackle and boat, vehicle, and
second home expenses. Trips,
which can be taken in one of three
modes: as for-hire (charter or party
boat), private (or rental boat), and
shore (fishing from shore). Some
examples of trip expenditures
include fuel, bait, ice, and charter or
guide fees.

What do anglers do
with their catch?
Some anglers catch fish
to eat (i.e., harvest),
while others practice
catch and release. In
recreational fishing,
anglers do not sell the
fish they catch for profit.

Recreational Fisheries
What Does the Term Mean?
Recreational fisheries, or recreational fishing, refer to fishing for pleasure rather than selling the fish for profit (i.e., commercial fishing) or for subsistence. The recreational fisheries section of Fisheries Economics of the U.S. reports on angler trips, participation, expenditures and economic impacts, and catch of key species and species groups.

Only saltwater
, or marine, recreational fishing is included in FEUS.
viii
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the marine
economy include
commercial and
recreational
fisheries?
Yes, commercial
and recreational
fisheries contribute
to the overall marine
economy.

What marine economy sectors, featured
in the report, are related to commercial
and recreational fisheries?
The seafood product preparation & packaging,
wholesale, and retail seafood sales sectors are
major parts of the commercial fishing industry.

The Marinas, Navigational Services, Port &
Harbor operations, and Ship & Boat Building
sectors provide goods and services used in both
commercial and recreational fisheries.

Why does the report include
sectors that are independent
of the fishing economy?
Information on sectors that are
independent of the fishing economy,
like freight transportation, provides
context for how national and regional
economies are affected by the use of
ocean resources.

Marine Economy
What Does the Term Mean?
The “Marine Economy,” in this report, refers to the economic activity generated by sectors of the economy that depend directly on oceans (or Great Lakes). We report on two industry sectors within the marine economy: 1) seafood sales and processing; and 2) transport, support, and marine operations. Information such as the number of establishments, number of employees, and annual payroll for these fishing and marine-related industries is used to determine their relative levels of economic activity in a state.

Metrics Definitions
Seafood Sales and Processing
These sectors are a direct representation of the
Establishments, Employees, Sales, and Payroll for seafood processors, wholesalers, and retailers that buy fish from commercial fishermen and distribute to consumers.

Transport, Support, and Marine
Operations
The various sectors that contribute to the
overall marine economy that may or may
not support the fishing economy.

Recreational fishermen show off their latest catch.

Photo: NOAA Fisheries/Kristy Wallmo
National Overview
2 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 Fishery management plans and fishery ecosystem plans for each region covered in this report are listed in their respective sections. The four FMPs developed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species FMP developed by NOAA Fisheries are not included in this report.
2 Source: NOAA Fisheries Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Status of Stocks 2017. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/2017-report-congress-status- us-fisheries.
3 See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/international-affairs. Source: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/agreements/regional_agreements/intlagree.html.

National Overview | United States Summary

MANAGEMENT CONTEXT
The authority to manage federal fisheries in the United States was granted to the Secretary of Commerce by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (P.L. 94-265 as amended by P.L. 109-479). NOAA
Fisheries is the federal agency with delegated authori- ty from the Secretary of Commerce to oversee fishing
activities in federal waters. Federal fisheries are generally defined as fishing activities that take place in the U.S.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, between 3 and 200 nau-
tical miles from the coastline). Generally, individual states retain management authority over fishing activities within three nautical miles of their coasts.

Regional Fishery Management Councils
• North Pacific
• Pacific
• Western Pacific
• New England
• Mid-Atlantic
• South Atlantic
• Gulf of Mexico
• Caribbean
Nationwide, 46 fishery management plans (FMPs) pro-
vide a framework for managing the harvest of 474 fish
stocks and stock complexes.
1 These plans aim to man-
age the harvest of fish in U.S. and shared waters, using sound scientific research, to maximize fishing opportuni- ty while ensuring the sustainability of fisheries and fish- ing communities. Regional Fishery Management Councils
(FMCs) develop FMPs in eight regions nationwide: North
Pacific, Pacific, Western Pacific, New England, Mid-At- lantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean.

After an FMP is developed, the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with NOAA Fisheries must approve it before it is implemented.

Fishery management plans must specify objective and
measurable criteria to determine when a stock is over-
fished or subject to overfishing. Enough information ex- ists to determine the overfishing status for 317 (or 67%) of the 474 stocks and stock complexes. Of these 317, 30 stocks are subject to overfishing (or 9% of stocks with known status). The overfished status of 235 (or 50%) of the 474 stocks and stock complexes is known. Of these
235 stocks, 35 (or 15% of stocks with known status) are categorized as overfished.
2 Transboundary and International
Fisheries
NOAA Fisheries is also actively involved in negotiating conservation and management measures including total
allowable catch levels, fishery allocations, and monitoring and control schemes for internationally shared fisher-
ies resources. Shared fisheries resources include those in areas where the EEZ of the United States overlaps
with other nations (transboundary areas), and in areas
beyond the U.S. EEZ, i.e., international waters or the
high seas. The Gulf of Alaska and the Gulf of Maine are examples of these transboundary areas. An area in the
Bering Sea outside the EEZs of Canada, Japan, and Rus-
sia, called the Donut Hole, is an example of international waters. Loss of sea ice will create new transboundary
areas and international waters in the Arctic.

Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs)
are multinational organizations with interests in interna- tionally shared fish stocks and associated fishing activi- ties. Primary objectives of these RFMOs are to research, assess, and adopt measures for the conservation and co- ordinated management of target species, such as bigeye
tuna. Some RFMOs also collect data and evaluate and
adopt measures for the conservation and scientific as-
sessment of non-target species, also known as bycatch.

Non-target species include seabirds, marine mammals,
sea turtles, and fish species caught incidentally while fishing for target species. The commitment to conserving and protecting all species associated with, or affected by, fishing activities is outlined in the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries established in 1995.

Regional Fishery Management Organizations: NOAA
Fisheries participates in eight RFMOs globally. Each RMFO is listed by ocean basin on the following page.
3 3
National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 4 See NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources’s Endangered Species Conservation website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/endangered- species-conservation#conservation-and-management) for current and proposed ESA species listings. 5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protects walrus, manatees, otters, and polar bears.

National Overview | United States Summary
Pacific
• Pacific Salmon Commission
• International Pacific Halibut Commission
• Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
• Western and Central Pacific Fishery
Commission
Atlantic
• International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
• North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization
• Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Antarctic
• Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources
Another issue of particular concern for NOAA Fisheries is illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing activ- ities. IUU fishing generally refers to fishing that violates national laws or internationally agreed conservation and management measures in effect in oceans around the
world. IUU fishing can include fishing without a license or quota for certain species, unauthorized trans-shipments to cargo vessels, failing to report catches or making false reports, keeping undersized fish or fish that are other- wise protected by regulations, fishing in closed areas or during closed seasons, and using prohibited fishing gear.

NOAA Fisheries is actively collaborating with other feder- al agencies as part of the National Ocean Council Com-
mittee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud. This network
of agencies works together to implement measures
outlined in an action plan developed by the Presiden-
tial Task Force on Combatting IUU Fishing and Seafood
Fraud. As part of this effort, in December 2016 NOAA
Fisheries issued the final rule establishing the Seafood Import Monitoring Program to further combat IUU fishing practices and to identify misrepresented seafood imports before they enter the U.S. market. The data collected
under this program will allow certain priority species, identified as especially vulnerable to IUU fishing and sea- food fraud, to be traced from the point of entry into U.S. commerce back to the point of harvest or production to
verify whether it was lawfully harvested or produced. For 11 of the 13 species/species groups covered in the final rule, the rule went into effect January 1, 2018; shrimp and abalone compliance will be mandatory by Decem-
ber 31, 2018. By not allowing IUU fish products into the U.S., the Seafood Import Monitoring Program helps level the playing field for commercial fishermen by reducing
unfair competition in the marketplace.

Threatened and Endangered Species
NOAA Fisheries is also the lead agency for the conserva- tion and protection of marine and anadromous species
that fall within the purview of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). Currently, there are 160 threatened and en-
dangered marine species under the ESA (see Table 1).

Table 1. Endangered and Threatened Species under
NOAA Fisheries Jurisdiction4
Species Group Number of Species
Marine and Anadromous Fish 72
Marine Mammals 34
Reptiles and Sea Turtles 26
Marine Invertebrates 27
Plants 1
Total Threatened and
Endangered Marine Species 160
In addition to threatened and endangered marine and
anadromous species, NOAA Fisheries also helps identify
candidate and proposed species. Candidate species are
actively being considered for listing as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. These species also include
those for which NOAA Fisheries has initiated a status
review that it has announced in the Federal Register.

Proposed species are candidate species that were found
to warrant listing as either threatened or endangered.

These species were officially proposed as such in a
Federal Register notice after the completion of a status review and consideration of other protective measures.

Currently, 12 candidate species and no proposed species are under consideration for listing.

NOAA Fisheries is also responsible for protecting marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
5 In
authorizing this act in 1972, Congress recognized that
marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of
extinction or depletion as a result of human activities; marine mammal species or stocks should not be allowed
to fall below their optimum sustainable population levels; measures should be taken to replenish marine mammal
4 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
6 The Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Update is available at: https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/TMSPO181_0.pdf. 7 See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/catch-shares. 8 See Section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for more information on LAPP requirements. species or stocks; there is inadequate knowledge of the marine mammal ecology and population dynamics; and
marine mammals have proven to be resources of great
international significance. NOAA Fisheries engages in
activities such as preventing the harassment, capture, or killing of marine mammals; preparing marine mammal
stock assessments; and studying interactions between
marine mammals and fisheries.

Essential Fish Habitats
Sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries de-
pend on healthy habitats. These habitats include rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and the open ocean where
marine and anadromous species feed, grow, and repro-
duce. Consideration of these habitat areas is part of an ecosystem-based management approach for managing
fisheries in a more sustainable and holistic manner. Since 1996, federal fishery management plans are required to
identify and describe essential fish habitat (EFH) for all federally managed species. Habitat areas that are neces- sary for a fish species’ growth, reproduction, and devel- opment are considered EFH. To the extent practicable,
NOAA Fisheries and the FMCs must minimize adverse
effects to EFH caused by fishing.

Though not required, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) can be identified to help focus EFH conservation efforts. The HAPC designation alone does not confer
additional protection to or place restrictions on an area, but helps to focus EFH conservation, management, and
research priorities. HAPC designation is a valuable way to acknowledge areas based on their ecological importance, rarity, and/or vulnerability, indicating a greater need for conservation and management. To date, 229 HAPCs have
been designated, a combination of habitat types, discrete areas, and waterways. Some of these areas do overlap.

In order to help prioritize efforts related to EFH, NOAA Fisheries held an EFH Summit in 2016 and then pub-
lished an updated Marine Fisheries Habitat Assessment
Improvement Plan in 2018.
6 Both efforts focused on
identifying habitats that are most essential for sustain- ing federally managed species and supporting research
to understand how these habitats directly contribute to fisheries productivity. A continued priority is refining EFH and HAPC designations for habitat-limited species and
habitats that play a key role in offshore stock productiv- ity.

Catch Share Programs
Market-based management tools are used by fishery
managers to reduce over-capitalization, increase the
economic viability of fisheries, and promote individu-
al accountability for harvest and harvesting practices.

Catch share programs are one of these tools, and they
encompass a range of management strategies that share
a common feature: A secure share of fish is dedicated
to individual fishermen, cooperatives, fishing communi- ties, and other entities for their exclusive use. In 2010, the NOAA catch share policy was released to encourage
well-designed catch share programs to help maintain or
rebuild fisheries.
7 The policy also aims to sustain fish-
ermen, communities, and vibrant working waterfronts,
including the cultural and resource-access traditions that have been part of this country since its founding.

Currently, there are 17 federal catch share programs
nationwide. These programs include limited access privi- lege programs (LAPPs), individual fishing quota programs (IFQs), individual transferable quota programs (ITQs),
fishing community development quota programs (CDQs),
fishing cooperatives, and fishing sectors.
8 Implementa-
tion dates of these programs span three decades, with
five programs established in the 1990s and six estab-
lished since 2010 (see Table 2). Eleven programs man-
age a single species or, in some cases, two species but as separate management units; the other six programs
manage multiple species. Seven of the programs operate
in the North Pacific (Alaska) Region.
5 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
9 From 1996 to 2002 in the West Pacific, there was a congressional moratorium on the establishment of new IFQ programs. There are no catch share programs in the Caribbean.
10 In 2007, Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Section 303A with provisions for limited access privilege programs. 11 See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/catch-shares.

Table 2. Existing Catch Share Programs in Federal Fisheries9,10 Region Program Year Implemented
North Pacific
Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program 1992 Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program 1995
American Fisheries Act (AFA) Pollock Cooperatives 1998
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and Tanner Crab Rationalization 2005 Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery 2005
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (Amendment 80) 2008
Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Rockfish Program (pilot implemented in 2007) 2011 Pacific Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 2001 Pacific Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program (Whiting and Non-Whiting trawl) 2011 Northeast
Northeast Multispecies Sectors: Georges Bank Cod - Hook Gear (2004) and Georges Bank Cod - Fixed Gear (2007) 2010
Northeast General Category Sea Scallop IFQ Program 2010 Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog IFQ Program 1990 Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program 2009
Atlantic Highly
Migratory
Species
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Individual Bluefin Quota Program 2015 South Atlantic South Atlantic Wreckfish ITQ Program 1992 Gulf of Mexico

Red Snapper IFQ Program 2007
Grouper and Tilefish IFQ Program 2010

In 2010, NOAA Fisheries initiated an effort to track catch share program performance.11 Findings from the initial report show that existing catch share programs have ended the race to fish (in their respective fisheries) resulting in longer fishing seasons, safer working conditions, and improved management performance. The report also shows that existing catch share programs have resulted in reduced fishing capacity to better match stock size—a management objective in the majority of catch share programs evaluated. Economic performance for the vessels remaining in the program improved, as measured by such metrics as revenue per vessel and average price.

Updated information on selected performance indicators is provided in Table 3. Briefly, results show that inflation-ad- justed revenue from catch share species increased in 8 of the 16 programs and/or sub-components of the programs since their implementation. In addition, the number of active vessels decreased in all but one program (Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Rockfish program), while inflation-adjusted revenue per active vessel increased in all but two programs since their implementation (Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ program and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Individual Bluefin Quota Program). Further, the results show that no stocks exceeded the annual catch limit (ACL) in 2016. 6 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
12 The South Atlantic Wreckfish ITQ program and Aleutian Island Pollock Fishery are not included due to confidentiality restrictions. The Western Alaska CDQ program was excluded because CDQs are fundamentally different from the other programs. In addition, note that some programs did not have a catch quota prior to the catch share program. For these programs, “-” indicates that the question of whether the ACL was exceeded is not applicable. All values have been adjusted by the GDP deflator for 2013. BSAI Crab data for 2016/2017.

Table 3. Economic Performance Indicators for U.S. Federal Catch Share Programs (2016 dollars)12 Region Program ACL
Exceeded
Number of
Active Vessels
Total Revenue from
Catch Share Species
Revenue per
Active Vessel
Base-
line 2016 Base-
line 2016 Baseline 2016 Baseline 2016
North
Pacific
Alaska Halibut IFQ
Program Y N 3,432 863 $104,235,187 $108,551,827 $27,168 $122,867 Alaska Sablefish IFQ
Program Y N 1,139 304 $76,304,219 $73,724,937 $82,467 $236,892 American Fisheries
Act (AFA) Pollock
Cooperatives
Y N 147 102 $376,474,782 $344,219,874 $1,720,368 $3,296,437 Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands
(BSAI) King and
Tanner Crab Ratio-
nalization
Y N 264 72 $249,522,884 $190,513,888 $706,482 $2,511,131 Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands
(BSAI) Non-Pol-
lock Trawl Catcher/
Processor Ground-
fish Cooperatives
(Amendment 80)
N N 22 19 $88,806,736 $97,197,440 $4,187,808 $5,513,528 Central Gulf of Alas-
ka (GOA) Rockfish
Program
Y N 42 53 $6,828,753 $10,904,804 $162,589 $205,751
Pacific
Pacific Coast Sable-
fish Permit Stacking
Program
- N 135 85 $6,713,015 $9,125,751 $49,726 $107,361
Pacific Groundfish
Trawl Rationalization
Program (Whiting
and Non-Whiting
trawl)
- N 124 95 $40,047,400 $44,000,623 $322,962 $463,164
New
England
Northeast Multispe-
cies Sectors: Georg-
es Bank Cod - Hook
Gear (2004) and
Georges Bank Cod -
Fixed Gear (2007)
Y N 417 198 $86,411,185 $46,478,813 $207,221 $234,741
Northeast/Atlantic
General Category
Sea Scallop IFQ
Program
- - 271 161 $28,413,936 $43,986,489 $104,848 $273,208
Mid-At-
lantic
Mid-Atlantic Ocean
Quahog ITQ N N 67 16 $29,456,676 $24,067,464 $439,651 $1,504,216 Mid-Atlantic Surf-
clam ITQ N N 137 38 $39,692,251 $29,247,462 $289,724 $769,670 Mid-Atlantic Golden
Tilefish IFQ - N 14 12 $4,715,655 $3,962,827 $336,832 $330,235 Atlantic
Highly
Migratory
Species
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Individual Bluefin
Quota Program
- - 116 85 $976,646 $706,981 $8,419 $8,317
Gulf of
Mexico
Red Snapper IFQ
Program Y N 482 430 $13,982,161 $26,849,941 $29,008 $62,441 Grouper and Tilefish
IFQ Program Y N 630 441 $22,809,890 $28,248,052 $36,206 $64,054 7 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
13 Marine Stewardship Council Certifications as of December 31, 2017. For more information about these fisheries and the Marine Stewardship Council certification process, see https://www.msc.org/. The Gulf of Maine Lobster fishery certification was suspended in 2020.

Other Market-Based Management Tools
Vessel or permit buyback programs are another mar-
ket-based tool used by fishery managers. Under these
programs, the government purchases fishing vessels or
permits. Doing so permanently decreases the number
of participants in the fishery and eases fishing-related pressure on marine resources. Recent buyback programs
include BSAI Crab, Pacific Coast Groundfish, Longline CP Non-Pollock Groundfish, Southeast Alaska Purse Seine
Salmon, and AFA Pollock.

Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs), also known
as limited entry programs, are another management tool
available to fishery managers. In these programs, the
number of fishing vessels allowed to harvest a specific fish stock or stock complex is limited to fishermen or
vessels with permission to fish. LAPPs have been im-
plemented in almost all federally managed commercial
fisheries and in every region except the Caribbean.

Ecolabels are market-based tools offered by third-party entities. An eco-labeling program entitles a fishery prod- uct to bear a distinctive logo or statement that certifies the fishery resource was harvested in compliance with
specified conservation and sustainability standards. It allows the buyer to potentially influence the sustainable harvest of fishery resources through the purchase of such ecolabeled seafood products at a price premium. The
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has one of the most
recognizable ecolabeling programs in the world. Currently, nearly 300 fisheries worldwide meet MSC sustainability
standards, 20 of which are U.S. fisheries (see Table 4).

Fisheries obtaining MSC certification for the first time in 2016 include the U.S. Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Qua-
hog fishery and the Gulf of Maine Lobster fishery.
13 Table 4. U.S. Fisheries with MSC Certification13
Region Fishery Certified
North
Pacific
Alaska salmon 2000
Alaska pollock - Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands 2005
Alaska pollock - Gulf of Alaska 2005
Alaska North Pacific halibut 2006
Alaska North Pacific sablefish 2006
Alaska flatfish - Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands 2010
Alaska flatfish - Gulf of Alaska 2010
Alaska Pacific cod - Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands 2010
Alaska Pacific cod - Gulf of Alaska 2010
Annette Islands Reserve salmon 2011
Pacific
Oregon and Washington pink shrimp 2007
Pacific hake mid-water trawl 2010
West Coast limited entry groundfish trawl 2014
North-
east
Atlantic spiny dogfish, winter skate and
little skate 2012
Atlantic sea scallop 2013
North Atlantic swordfish, yellowfin, and
albacore tuna fishery 2013
Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock
otter trawl fishery 2016
Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery 2016
Gulf of Maine lobster fishery 2016
South-
east Louisiana blue crab 2012
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES —

NATIONAL OVERVIEW
In this report, commercial fisheries refer to fishing oper- ations that sell their catch for profit. The term does not include subsistence fishermen or saltwater anglers who
fish for sport. It also excludes the for-hire sector, which earns its revenue from selling recreational fishing trips to saltwater anglers. The commercial fisheries section reports on economic impacts, landings revenue, landings, and
ex-vessel prices of key species/species groups.

Key U.S. Commercial Species
• Alaska pollock
• American lobster
• Blue crab
• Menhaden
• Pacific halibut
• Pacific salmon
• Sablefish
• Sea scallop
• Shrimp
• Tunas
Regional Highlights
At the national level, this report includes landings reve- nue, landings, and prices for 10 key species or species 8 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
groups, which were selected so that each region has at
least one species in the top 10. Results show that com- mercial fishermen in Alaska caught the most salmon
(985.9 million pounds) and earned $645.7 million for their catch in 2017. Tunas were caught in large numbers in
Hawaiʻi (25 million pounds) and generated $87.3 million in landings revenue. Maine fishermen contributed the most
to American lobster landings (108 million pounds) and
earned $423 million for their catch in 2017. In Massa-
chusetts, sea scallopers harvested 32.4 million pounds of scallop and earned $330.2 million for their catch. More blue crabs were caught in Louisiana (43.9 million pounds) than in any other state, earning more than $54.2 million.

Louisiana accounted for the greatest quantity of menha- den landed in 2017, with fishermen landing 716.1 million pounds worth $60.9 million in dockside revenue. Sea
scallop garnered the highest average ex-vessel price per pound ($9.80) among the key species and species groups
in 2017, with state-specific prices ranging from $8.50 in New York to $13.12 in New Hampshire.

Economic Impacts
The premise behind economic impact modeling is that
every dollar spent in a regional economy (direct impact) is either saved or re-spent on additional goods or ser- vices. If those dollars are re-spent on other goods and services in the regional economy, this spending gener-
ates additional economic activity in the region.
14 Four different measures are commonly used to show how commercial fisheries landings affect the economy in a
region (state or nationwide): sales, income, value-added, and employment. The term sales refers to the gross value of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activity, such as commercial fishing. The category includes both
the direct sales of fish landed and sales made between
businesses and households resulting from the original
sale. Income includes personal income (wages and sala-
ries) and proprietors’ income (income from self-employ- ment). Value-added is the contribution made to the gross domestic product in a region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the sales of seafood or purchases of inputs to commercial fishing. The first three measures are cal- culated in terms of dollars, whereas employment impacts are measured in numbers of jobs. Note that these catego- ries are not additive. The U.S. seafood industry is defined here as the commercial fishing sector, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and distributors, import- ers, and seafood retailers.
15 This report provides estimates of total economic impacts for the nation and for each of the 23 coastal states. Total economic impacts for each state and the nation represent the sum of direct impacts; indirect impacts (in this case, the impact from suppliers to the seafood industry); and induced impacts (spending by employees on personal and
household expenditures, where employees of both the
seafood industry and its full supply chain are included).

That is, the total economic impact estimates reported
here measure jobs, sales, value-added, and income im-
pacts from the seafood industry as well as the economic activity generated throughout each region’s broader econ- omy from this industry.

In 2017, the seafood industry supported 1.2 million full- and part-time jobs and generated $170.3 billion in sales, $44.6 billion in income, and $69.2 billion in value-added impacts nationwide (Table 5). The retail sector generat- ed the largest employment impacts (549,922 jobs) and
income impacts ($13.3 billion). The importers sector
generated the largest sales impacts ($81.1 billion) and value-added impacts ($24.7 billion).

Graph 1. Jobs supported by the U.S. Seafood
Industry (Jobs with and without Imports), 2017
14 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool (Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states- interactive-tool).
15 The NMFS Commercial Fishing Industry Input/Output Model was used to generate the impact estimates (Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ documents/commercial_seafood_impacts_2007-2009.pdf).
9 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
Table 5. U.S. Seafood Industry Economic Impacts Trends (jobs, millions of dollars) Impacts 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Jobs 1,270,141 1,350,627 1,394,833 1,179,848 1,190,092 1,246,366 Sales $140,661 $142,249 $153,341 $144,194 $144,293 $170,314 Income $38,722 $39,747 $41,956 $39,744 $39,905 $44,595
Value Added $59,017 $60,309 $64,071 $60,566 $60,768 $69,177 Total Revenue $5,099 $5,547 $5,473 $5,184 $5,337 $5,409 Table 6. Sales, Income and Value-Added Impacts Generated by the U.S. Seafood Industry, 2017 (millions of dollars) State Sales Income Value
Added
U.S. Total $170,314 $44,595 $69,177
California $28,833 $6,158 $10,247
Florida $19,677 $3,676 $6,578
Massachusetts $14,144 $3,428 $5,367
Washington $9,291 $2,411 $3,708
New Jersey $7,328 $1,555 $2,589
New York $6,119 $1,308 $2,165
Alaska $4,398 $1,904 $2,377
Maine $3,630 $1,016 $1,539
Texas $3,254 $887 $1,352
New Hampshire $2,503 $553 $902
Georgia $2,193 $486 $800
Louisiana $1,813 $665 $909
Maryland $1,689 $417 $648
Rhode Island $1,661 $393 $628
Virginia $1,484 $455 $659
Oregon $1,357 $440 $631
Connecticut $1,087 $219 $372
North Carolina $969 $268 $402
Hawai‘i $901 $275 $402
Alabama $591 $235 $308
Delaware $335 $60 $108
Mississippi $234 $93 $121
South Carolina $159 $50 $72
Landings Revenue
Landings revenue in the United States totaled $5.4 billion in 2017 (Table 7). This represented a 24% increase in
nominal value from 2008 levels (an 8% increase in real
terms after adjusting for inflation) and, year-over-year, a 1% increase from 2016 (Graph 2). Finfish landings rev-
enue accounted for 47% of all landings revenue. Pacific salmon had the highest landings revenue in 2017.

Table 7. Commercial Fisheries Landings Revenue by
Region, 2017 (thousands of dollars)
Region Revenue
U.S. Total $5,409,361
North Pacific $1,764,462
New England $1,266,062
Gulf of Mexico $890,269
Pacific $670,651
Mid-Atlantic $508,063
South Atlantic $193,484
Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) $116,368
10 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
Graph 2. U.S. Commercial Fisheries Landings Revenue, 2008-2017 (nominal values, billions of dollars) From 2008 to 2017, Pacific salmon (74%, 52% in real
terms), American lobster (70%, 48% in real terms), and
tunas (43%, 25% in real terms) had the largest increas- es, while Pacific halibut (-43%, -50% in real terms) had the largest decrease. From 2016 to 2017, Pacific salmon (63%), sablefish (23%), and shrimp (7%) had the largest increases, while menhaden (-31%), American lobster
(-18%), and blue crab (-8%) had the largest decreases.

Commercial Revenue: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Pacific salmon (74%, 52% in real terms)
• American lobster (70%, 48% in real terms)
• Tunas (43%, 25% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Pacific salmon (63%)
• Sablefish (23%)
• Shrimp (7%)
Commercial Revenue: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Pacific halibut (-43%, -50% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Menhaden (-31%)
• American lobster (-18%)
• Blue crab (-8%)
The North Pacific Region earned the greatest share of
landings revenue in 2017 ($1.8 billion), contributing 33% of the national total (Table 7). Massachusetts ($508.8 mil- lion, or 18% of U.S. shellfish revenue) and Maine ($454.4 million, or 16% of U.S. shellfish revenue) earned the most ex-vessel revenue from shellfish landings.

Landings
Landings volume in the United States totaled 9.9 bil-
lion pounds in 2017 (Table 8). This represented a 19%
increase from 2008 levels and, year-over-year, a 3%
increase from 2016 (Graph 3). Finfish landings revenue
accounted for 89% of all landed weight. Alaska pollock
had the highest landings volume in 2017.

From 2008 to 2017, Pacific salmon (53%), American
lobster (52%), and Alaska pollock (49%) had the largest increases, while Pacific halibut (-61%), sablefish (-13%), and blue crab (-9%) had the largest decreases. From
2016 to 2017, Pacific salmon (80%), sea scallop (27%),
and sablefish (13%) had the largest increases, while men- haden (-20%), American lobster (-17%), and blue crab
(-10%) had the largest decreases.

Commercial Fisheries Landings Revenue
(billions of dollars)
Year
11 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
Graph 3. U.S. Commercial Fisheries Landings, 2008-2017 (billions of pounds) Table 8. Commercial Fisheries Landings by Region,
2017 (millions of pounds)
Region Landings Volume
U.S. Total 9,905,033
North Pacific 6,004,882
Gulf of Mexico 1,402,221
Pacific 1,177,043
Mid-Atlantic 620,317
New England 555,661
South Atlantic 107,747
Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) 37,162
Commercial Landings: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Pacific salmon (53%)
• American lobster (52%)
• Alaska pollock (49%)
From 2016:
• Pacific salmon (80%)
• Sea scallop (27%)
• Sablefish (13%)
Commercial Landings: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Pacific halibut (-61%)
• Sablefish (-13%)
• Blue crab (-9%)
From 2016:
• Menhaden (-20%)
• American lobster (-17%)
• Blue crab (-10%)
Prices
Of all key species or species groups, sea scallop ($9.84 per pound) had the highest national ex-vessel price.

Menhaden ($0.09 per pound) had the lowest ex-vessel
price of all key species nationally.

From 2008 to 2017, Pacific halibut (46%, 27% in real
terms), sea scallop (42%, 24% in real terms), and blue
crab (35%, 18% in real terms) had the largest increas-
es, while Alaska pollock (-14%, -25% in real terms)
had the largest decrease. From 2016 to 2017, sablefish
(9%), shrimp (6%), and blue crab (2%) had the largest
increases, while sea scallop (-18%), menhaden (-14%),
and Pacific salmon (-9%) had the largest decreases.

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES —

NATIONAL OVERVIEW
In this report, recreational fishing refers to fishing for leisure rather than to sell fish (commercial fishing) or for subsistence. The key species/species groups included in this report were chosen because they are caught in large numbers, highly prized by recreational anglers, associat- ed with federal fishery management plans, or a combi-
nation of one or more of these factors. The recreational fisheries section reports on angler participation, trips, economic impacts and expenditures, and catch of key
species/species groups.
16,17
Year
Commercial Fisheries Landings
(billions of pounds)
16 Atlantic and Gulf recreational catch and effort estimates are based upon the MRIP estimates released in 2018. 17 See data sources section for more information about where each region or state’s data comes from. 12 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
18 Atlantic Regions refer to those states within New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico. 19 Trip expenditure estimates were generated from the 2016/2017 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2020).

Durable goods expenditures were generated from the 2014 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2016). (For citations:

Publications-U.S. Coastal and Marine Recreation.)
20 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool. (Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states- interactive-tool.)
Key U.S. Recreational Species18
• Dolphinfish (West-
ern Pacific and
Atlantic)
• Drum (Atlantic
croaker and spot)
(Atlantic regions)
• Drum (seatrouts)
(Atlantic regions):
sand seatrout,
seatrout genus,
silver seatrout,
spotted seatrout,
and weakfish
• Pacific halibut
(North Pacific)
• Pacific salmon
(Pacific and North
Pacific): Chinook
salmon, chum
salmon, coho
salmon, and pink
salmon
• Rockfishes and
scorpionfishes
(Pacific and North
Pacific)
• Striped bass (At-
lantic regions)
• Summer flounder
(Atlantic regions)
• Tunas (Atlantic
regions): albacore,
bigeye tuna, black-
fin tuna, bluefin
tuna, tuna genus,
and yellowfin tuna
• Tunas (Pacific and
Western Pacific
regions): alba-
core, albacore and
other tunas, bigeye
tuna, bluefin tuna,
frigate mackerel,
mackerel family,
and yellowfin tuna
The economic contributions for both trip and durable
expenditures from recreational fishing in 2017 were
estimated using IMPLAN version 3, with base year data
from 2017. Models for each state and for the nation were created in IMPLAN using trip expenditures (based on
2016/2017 survey data on average trip expenditures and
total 2017 trips) and for durable expenditures (based on 2014 survey data on average durable expenditures and
2017 participants).

Regional Highlights
At the national level, the report includes fishing trips, par- ticipation, and the harvest and release numbers of 10 key species or species groups, which were selected so that
each region has at least one species in the top 10. Results show that in 2017, recreational anglers in West Florida took the most trips (41.8 million trips) and spent the most on trips ($87.5 million). Alabama spent the second most on trips ($724.7 million). West Florida also had the most recreational anglers participate in fishing in their state, with 3.8 million anglers.

Virginia caught the most Atlantic croaker and spot (35.4 million fish), West Florida caught the most seatrouts
(41 million fish), Massachusetts caught the most striped bass (13.3 million fish), and New York caught the most
summer flounder (13.5 million fish). Alaska caught the
most Pacific halibut (551,600 fish) and Pacific salmon (1 million fish).

Economic Impacts and Expenditures
The economic contributions or impacts of recreational
fishing activities in the United States is based on spend- ing by recreational anglers.
19 Total annual trip expendi-
tures were estimated at the state level by multiplying
mean trip expenditures by the estimated number of adult trips in each trip mode (for-hire, private boat, and shore) and adjusting by the CPI (consumer price index) to the
current year. Total annual durable expenditures were
estimated by multiplying mean durable expenditures by
the estimated annual number of adult participants in the United States and adjusting by the CPI (consumer price
index) to the current year.
20 Four different measures are commonly used to show how angler expenditures affect the economy in a region (state or nationwide): sales, income, value-added, and employ- ment. The term sales refers to the gross value of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activity, such as recreational fishing. It includes both the direct sales made to the angler and sales made between businesses and
households resulting from that original sale to the angler.

Income includes personal income (wages and salaries)
and proprietors’ income (income from self-employment).

Value-added is the contribution made to the gross domes- tic product in a region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the purchases made by anglers. The first three measures are calculated in terms of dollars, where- as employment impacts are measured in numbers of
jobs. Note that these categories are not additive. NOAA Fisheries uses a regional impact modeling software, called IMPLAN, to estimate these four types of impacts.

Economic impacts from recreational fishing activities
supported 487,024 jobs across the United States in 2017 (Table 9). Recreational fishing also generated about
13 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
$73.8 billion in sales impacts, $24.7 billion in income impacts, and $41.5 billion in value-added impacts.

Impacts from durable equipment expenditures (e.g.,
rods and reels, fishing-related equipment, boats, vehi- cles, and second homes) accounted for 66% of total job
impacts, 67% of sales impacts, 68% of income impacts,
and 66% of value added impacts. Of the three fishing
trip modes, shore-boat-based fishing trips had the great- est economic impact, accounting for 17% of employ-
ment, 16% of sales, 16% of income impacts, and 17%
of value-added impacts.

Table 9. Recreational Economic Impacts Trends for
the United States (millions of dollars)21
Impacts 2016 2017
Number of Jobs 486,164 487,024
Sales $72,757 $73,752
Income $24,377 $24,684
Value Added $40,885 $41,474
The grea
test employment impacts (Graph 4) and sales
impacts (Table 10) from saltwater recreational fishing
were both generated in West Florida, followed by East
Florida and North Carolina.

Graph 4. Jobs supported by the U.S. Recreational
Fishing Industry, 2017
21 Atlantic and Gulf recreational catch and effort estimates are based upon the MRIP estimates released in 2018.

Jobs
State
Table 10. Sales, Income, and Value-Added Impacts Generated by the Recreational Fishing Industry, 2017 (mil- lions of dollars)
State Jobs Sales Income Value Added
U.S. Total 487,024 $73,752 $24,684 $41,474
West Florida 79,498 $9,142 $3,271 $5,535
East Florida 45,267 $5,137 $1,840 $3,159
North Carolina 30,170 $3,086 $1,112 $1,869
Alabama 23,721 $2,209 $802 $1,442
California 19,750 $2,483 $976 $1,567
Louisiana 16,853 $1,899 $625 $1,136
New Jersey 14,478 $1,876 $804 $1,255
Texas 13,583 $1,720 $643 $1,080
New York 11,410 $1,154 $496 $849
South Carolina 9,803 $902 $310 $557
Washington 9,533 $1,198 $459 $766
Massachusetts 8,469 $1,005 $466 $686
Maryland 8,048 $847 $335 $559
Virginia 7,176 $764 $296 $499
Alaska 5,550 $567 $198 $331
Connecticut 5,259 $608 $264 $425
Mississippi 5,162 $505 $171 $314
Rhode Island 4,046 $419 $178 $276
Georgia 3,865 $341 $121 $219
Oregon 3,548 $364 $157 $238
Delaware 1,672 $182 $68 $121
Maine 1,616 $160 $60 $98
Hawai‘i 1,093 $146 $45 $81
New Hampshire 497 $49 $21 $33
14 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
In 2017, expenditures for fishing trips and durable goods equipment in the United States totaled $36.6 billion.

Approximately $10.5 billion of these expenditures were
related to trip expenses. Total trip expenditures were
composed of expenses on trips in the shore (47.9%),
private boat (40.2%), and for-hire (11.9%) sectors. Du- rable goods expenditures totaled $26.2 billion in 2017, with the largest portion coming from Boat Expenses
($15.1 billion) (Graph 5).

Graph 5. Recreational Fishing Trip and Durable
Goods Expenditures, 2017 (billions of dollars)
Participation
Nationwide, 9.1 million recreational saltwater anglers
fished in their home states in 2017. This number repre- sented a 27% decrease from 2008 and a 9% decrease
from 2016. Coastal county residents made up 86% of this total while non-coastal county residents made up 14%.

West Florida had the highest participation of anglers (3.8 million), followed by East Florida and North Carolina.

Fishing Trips
Nationwide, anglers took approximately 205.3 million
saltwater fishing trips around the country (Table 11). This number represented a 6% decrease from 2008 and a 3%
increase from 2016 (Graph 6). Approximately 62% of
fishing trips were taken via shore. West Florida anglers took the most fishing trips (41.8 million trips), followed by those in East Florida and North Carolina (Table 12).

Table 11. Recreational Fishing Trips by Region, 2017
(thousands of fishing trips)
Region Trips
U.S. Total 205,385
South Atlantic 76,869
Gulf of Mexico 58,638
Mid-Atlantic 46,005
New England 16,750
Pacific 5,843
Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) 1,280
Table 12. Recreational Fishing Trips by State, 2017
(thousands of trips)
State Trips
West Florida 41,840
East Florida 40,404
North Carolina 22,452
New York 16,634
New Jersey 12,288
South Carolina 9,389
Alabama 8,493
Maryland 8,343
Massachusetts 7,775
Virginia 6,749
Mississippi 4,852
Georgia 4,624
Connecticut 3,937
California 3,542
Rhode Island 2,318
Louisiana 2,308
Delaware 1,991
Maine 1,748
Washington 1,608
Hawai‘i 1,280
Texas 1,144
New Hampshire 972
Oregon 693

Harvest and Release
In 2017, drum (seatrouts) (85.9 million fish), drum (At- lantic croaker and spot) (81.3 million fish), and striped bass (44.7 million fish), were most frequently caught by recreational fishermen in the United States. The text box to the right shows the species with the largest percentage increases and decreases in the past 10 years and in the past year.

From 2008 to 2017, rockfishes and scorpionfishes (84%), tunas (Pacific and Western Pacific regions) (72%), and
striped bass (43%) had the largest increases, while Pacific halibut (-37%), tunas (Atlantic regions) (-29%), and
summer flounder (-29%) had the largest decreases. From
2016 to 2017, tunas (Pacific and Western Pacific regions) (84%), dolphinfish (47%), and Pacific salmon (41%) had
the largest increases, while Pacific halibut (-14%) and summer flounder (-10%) had the largest decreases.

Harvest and Release: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Rockfishes and scorpionfishes (84%)
• Tunas (Pacific and Western Pacific regions)
(72%)
• Striped bass (43%)
From 2016:
• Tunas (Pacific and Western Pacific regions)
(84%)
• Dolphinfish (47%)
• Pacific salmon (41%)
Harvest and Release: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Pacific halibut (-37%)
• Tunas (Atlantic regions) (-29%)
• Summer flounder (-29%)
From 2016:
• Pacific halibut (-14%)
• Summer flounder (-10%)
Graph 6. Recreational Fishing Trips, 2008-2017 (millions of angler trips) Year
Recreational Fishing Trips
(millions of angler trips)
MARINE ECONOMY — UNITED STATES
For this report, the marine economy refers to the economic activity generated by fishing and marine-related industries in a coastal state. The state marine economy consists of two industry sectors: 1) seafood sales and processing (em- ployer establishments and non-employer firms); and 2) transport, support, and marine operations (employer establish- ments). These sectors include several different marine-related industries.22 16 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
23 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product’ and ’Table SA6N Compensation of Employees by NAICS Industry (Available at:
https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0518gdpstate/). 24 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘Location Quotient Calculator’ (For more information: https://www.bls.gov/cew/about-data/location-quotients- explained.htm).

Note that Census Bureau data for the Marine Economy
section of this report are available only through 2016.

Percentage changes in inflation-adjusted (real dollar)
terms are calculated using the annual Gross Domestic
Product implicit price deflator published by the U.S. Bu- reau of Economic Analysis and the Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis.23
The Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ) mea-
sures the proportional size of this sector in a state’s economy relative to the size of the commercial fishing
sector in the national economy.24 The CFLQ is calculated as the ratio of the percentage of regional employment in the commercial fishing sector relative to the percentage of national employment in the commercial fishing sector. The U.S. CFLQ is 1. If a state CFLQ is less than 1, then less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the nation- al average. If a state CFLQ is greater than 1, then more commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average.

In 2016, 7.8 million employer establishments operated
throughout the entire United States (including marine
and non-marine related establishments). These establish- ments employed 126.8 million workers and had a total
annual payroll of $6.4 trillion. The nation’s gross domestic product was approximately $18.8 trillion in 2016.

Seafood Sales and Processing
Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging: In
2016, the United States had 2,208 non-employer firms in the seafood product preparation and packaging sector (re- mains unchanged from 2008). Annual receipts for these
firms totaled about $176.6 million (an 11% decrease in
real terms from 2008). There were 586 employer firms in the seafood product preparation and packaging sector (a 12% decrease from 2008). These establishments em-
ployed 30,554 workers (an 8% decrease from 2008) and
had a total annual payroll of $1.4 billion (a 6% increase in real terms from 2008).

Seafood Sales, Retail: In 2016, there were 2,392
non-employer firms engaged in retail sales of seafood
in the nation (remains unchanged from 2008). Annu-
al receipts for these firms totaled about $207.4 million (an 11% decrease in real terms from 2008). There were
2,067
employer firms in the retail sales of seafood sec-
tor (a 1% increase from 2008). These establishments
employed 12,114 workers (a 24% increase from 2008)
and had a total annual payroll of $312.2 million (a 35% increase in real terms from 2008).

Seafood Sales, Wholesale: There were 2,176 employer
firms in the wholesale sales of seafood sector in the nation in 2016 (a 5% increase from 2008). These establishments employed 22,273 workers (an 11% increase from 2008),
and had a total annual payroll of $1 billion (an 18% in- crease in real terms from 2008).

Transport, Support, and Marine
Operations
Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation:

There were 603 employer firms providing coastal and
Great Lakes freight transportation (an 18% increase from 2008). These establishments employed 19,004 workers (a
10% decrease from 2008) and had a total annual payroll
of about $1.7 billion (a 12% decrease in real terms from 2008). Louisiana (104), Alaska (79), and New York (73)
had the greatest number of these employer establish-
ments.

Deep Sea Freight Transportation: There were 313
employer firms providing deep sea freight transportation (a 14% decrease from 2008). These establishments em-
ployed 7,009 workers (a 31% decrease from 2008) and
had a total annual payroll of about $638.9 million. Florida (65), California (45), and Texas (36) had the greatest
number of these employer establishments.

Deep Sea Passenger Transportation: There were 62
employer firms in the deep sea passenger transportation sector (a 13% decrease from 2008). These establish-
ments employed 14,596 workers and had a total annual
payroll of about $1.2 billion. Florida (33), California (7), and Washington (4) had the greatest number of these
employer establishments.

Marinas: There were 3,826 employer firms classified as
marinas (a 4% decrease from 2008). These establish-
ments employed 27,471 workers (a 4% decrease from
2008) and had a total annual payroll of about $1.1 billion (a 1% increase in real terms from 2008). Florida (458), 17 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
New York (422), and California (243) had the greatest
number of these employer establishments.

Marine Cargo Handling: There were 492 employer
firms providing marine cargo handling services (an 8%
decrease from 2008). These establishments employed
62,680 workers (a 2% decrease from 2008) and had a
total annual payroll of about $4.4 billion (a 19% increase in real terms from 2008). California (70), Florida (63), and Texas (57) had the greatest number of these em-
ployer establishments.

Navigational Services to Shipping: There were 877
employer firms providing navigational services to the
shipping industry (a 1% increase from 2008). These
establishments employed 12,457 workers (a 7% decrease
from 2008) and had a total annual payroll of about $920.5 million (a 3% decrease in real terms from 2008). Florida (194), Louisiana (144), and Texas (80) had the greatest number of these employer establishments.

Port and Harbor Operations: There were 332 employ-
er firms in the port and harbor operations sector (a 24% increase from 2008). These establishments employed
8,003 workers (a 43% increase from 2008) and had a to-
tal annual payroll of about $424.4 million (a 34% increase in real terms from 2008). Florida (54), California (30), and Texas (26) had the greatest number of these employ- er establishments.

Ship and Boat Building: There were 1,508 employ-
er firms in the ship and boat building sector (a 15%
decrease from 2008). These establishments employed
140,179 workers (an 11% decrease from 2008) and had a
total annual payroll of about $8 billion (a 3% decrease in real terms from 2008). Florida (281), Washington (129), and Louisiana (105) had the greatest number of these
employer establishments.
18 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico National Overview | United States Summary
Tables | National Overview
20 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 The Pacific Region includes landings by Pacific at-sea processors. However, revenue from these landings are not included in the California, Oregon, and Washington information presented.

United States | Commercial Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of the United States Seafood Industry (jobs, thousands of dollars) With Imports Without Imports
#Jobs Sales Income Value
Added #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added
Total Impacts 1,246,366 170,314,474 44,594,835 69,177,123 708,388 53,568,226 19,679,153 27,888,194 Commercial Havesters 168,746 14,310,038 4,825,989 7,471,652 168,746 14,310,038 4,825,989 7,471,652 Seafood Processors
and Dealers 201,273 31,539,936 9,953,798 13,836,893 53,765 8,425,141 2,658,920 3,696,196 Importers 257,503 81,098,206 12,997,535 24,722,284 0 0 0 0 Seafood Wholesalers
and Distributors 68,922 10,701,815 3,516,691 5,031,905 24,932 3,871,311 1,272,140 1,820,258 Retail 549,922 32,664,480 13,300,822 18,114,389 460,945 26,961,737 10,922,104 14,900,088 Total Landings Revenue and Landings Revenue of Key Species/Species Groups (millions of dollars) 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total 4,377 3,913 4,507 5,357 5,139 5,509 5,517 5,275 5,332 5,409 Finfish and Other 2,242 1,863 2,153 2,572 2,396 2,621 2,413 2,391 2,291 2,524 Shellfish 2,135 2,051 2,354 2,785 2,743 2,888 3,104 2,885 3,041 2,885 Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Alaska pollock 323 271 282 363 343 406 400 442 417 413
American lobster 325 311 404 423 431 461 567 622 670 552 Blue crab 161 163 205 184 193 192 215 220 214 197
Menhaden 91 90 93 133 126 125 114 179 181 125
Pacific halibut 217 140 207 213 152 117 115 118 125 124 Pacific salmon 396 370 555 619 489 757 617 461 421 688
Sablefish 125 129 124 184 141 102 111 114 117 143
Sea scallop 370 376 456 585 559 467 424 440 487 507
Shrimp 445 379 409 538 510 597 702 503 511 546
Tunas 107 96 108 137 164 146 135 137 154 153
Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (millions of pounds)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Landings 8,342 7,883 8,027 9,888 9,472 9,748 9,518 9,742 9,604 9,905 Finfish and
Other 7,287 6,613 6,719 8,514 8,150 8,481 8,249 8,613 8,487 8,783 Shellfish 1,056 1,270 1,308 1,373 1,322 1,267 1,269 1,129 1,117 1,122 Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Alaska pollock 2,276 1,866 1,948 2,811 2,872 3,003 3,146 3,263 3,355 3,389 American lobster 88 101 118 126 151 151 148 147 159 133 Blue crab 162 176 199 202 185 136 140 161 164 148
Menhaden 1,344 1,407 1,260 1,899 1,598 1,341 1,232 1,631 1,756 1,413 Pacific halibut 67 60 56 43 34 30 23 24 25 26
Pacific salmon 660 705 788 780 636 1,070 721 1,067 561 1,008 Sablefish 43 43 40 41 41 39 35 35 34 38
Sea scallop 53 58 58 59 57 41 34 36 41 51
Shrimp 249 305 249 312 309 293 326 339 289 291
Tunas 48 49 48 50 60 56 58 57 56 55
Average Annual Ex-Vessel Price of Key Species/Species Groups (dollars per pound)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Alaska pollock 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 American lobster 3.71 3.09 3.44 3.35 2.86 3.06 3.83 4.23 4.20 4.15 Blue crab 0.99 0.93 1.03 0.91 1.05 1.41 1.53 1.36 1.31 1.34 Menhaden 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.09 Pacific halibut 3.25 2.35 3.67 4.98 4.48 3.92 4.97 4.88 5.03 4.74 Pacific salmon 0.60 0.52 0.70 0.79 0.77 0.71 0.86 0.43 0.75 0.68 Sablefish 2.88 3.01 3.09 4.46 3.41 2.58 3.13 3.23 3.48 3.80 Sea scallop 6.93 6.48 7.92 9.89 9.83 11.40 12.54 12.32 12.00 9.84 Shrimp 1.79 1.24 1.64 1.72 1.65 2.04 2.16 1.48 1.77 1.88 Tunas 2.23 1.96 2.26 2.74 2.75 2.62 2.30 2.40 2.76 2.81 21 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 All anglers reported in this table are U.S. residents. 2 Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, West Florida, and East Florida anglers estimates are not available for the non-coastal mode. Hawai‘i and Texas anglers estimates are not available by mode.
3 Effort for 2014-2017 is estimated using data from a state creel survey and does not capture shore-based effort separately from private boat effort. 4 Hawai‘i trip estimates are not available for the for-hire mode. Texas trip estimates are not available for the shore mode. 5 Atlantic Regions refer to those states within New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico. 6 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 7 Salmon harvest estimates exclude release mortality.

United States | Recreational Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of Recreational Fishing Expenditures (thousands of dollars) #Jobs Sales Income Value Added
Trip Impacts by
Fishing Mode
For-Hire 24,221 2,948,145 981,981 1,678,969
Private Boat 59,362 9,654,003 3,029,178 5,480,283
Shore 83,535 11,821,369 3,924,656 6,863,200
Total Durable Expenditures 319,906 49,328,910 16,748,277 27,451,473 Total Impacts 487,024 73,752,427 24,684,092 41,473,925
Recreational Anglers by Residential Area (thousands of anglers)1,2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Coastal 10,898 9,571 9,839 9,446 9,461 9,821 9,593 8,491 8,752 7,899 Non-Coastal 1,564 1,445 1,489 1,420 1,436 1,419 1,373 1,319 1,326 1,247 Total Anglers 12,462 11,016 11,328 10,866 10,896 11,240 10,966 9,809 10,079 9,146 Recreational Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of angler trips)3,4 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
For-Hire 3,464 3,377 2,731 3,359 3,529 4,024 4,262 4,216 3,459 3,660 Private 86,494 87,561 92,313 88,468 87,684 84,259 78,292 73,480 73,280 74,403 Shore 129,535 129,906 134,069 131,902 130,631 129,575 124,779 120,663 122,822 127,322 Total Trips 219,493 220,844 229,113 223,729 221,844 217,858 207,333 198,359 199,560 205,385 Harvest (H) and Release (R) of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of fish)5,6 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Dolphinfish H 2,386 2,424 1,851 3,080 2,509 2,460 2,586 4,080 1,963 2,546 R 1,025 340 496 1,356 496 3,372 1,338 1,952 341 839
Drum (Atlantic
croaker and spot)
H 46,357 42,568 40,953 43,579 42,048 53,580 56,250 35,598 29,356 38,128 R 50,582 53,837 47,751 56,743 63,520 81,918 56,454 41,335 41,899 43,208 Drum (seatrouts) H 37,437 40,051 37,342 43,229 45,404 36,529 17,051 19,386 25,143 27,322 R 66,106 61,616 64,045 72,817 78,095 64,490 38,680 41,357 56,323 58,564 Pacific halibut H 516 440 398 394 388 454 408 420 400 352 R 359 321 304 311 324 324 251 271 244 199
Pacific salmon
7 H 622 889 632 708 639 948 937 902 562 809
R 349 448 280 357 273 484 291 444 276 370
Rockfishes and
scorpionfishes
H 2,162 2,439 2,448 3,116
3,677 4,160 4,380 4,215 3,830 3,943
R 537 534 617 698 773 1,024 986 931 891 1,021
Striped bass H 4,415 4,746 5,430 5,049 4,077 5,217 4,055 3,141 3,528 3,008 R 26,948 21,880 19,850 17,032 21,049 26,985 24,521 25,991 34,183 41,718 Summer flounder H 3,804 3,715 3,540 4,366 5,758 6,625 5,373 4,051 4,306 3,228 R 35,704 47,039 55,389 51,722 38,969 38,362 39,214 30,141 26,951 24,878 Tunas (Atlantic
regions)
H 429 247 225 302 386 383 209 224 280 312
R 93 46 50 116 55 26 52 22 71 58
Tunas (Pacific
and Western
Pacific regions)
H 701 530 646 424 853 889 962 953 556 992
R 28 89 47 98 32 38 216 150 124 264
2017 Angler Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Fishing Mode Trip Expenditures
For-Hire 1,243,022
Private Boat 4,199,394
Shore 5,009,745
Total 10,452,161
Equipment Durable Goods Expenditures
Fishing Tackle 3,660,934
Other Equipment 1,898,847
Boat Expenses 15,091,348
Vehicle Expenses 3,397,285
Second Home Expenses 2,120,768
Total Durable Expenditures 26,169,183
Total State Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures 36,621,344 22 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 The U.S. Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ) is 1. A CFLQ greater than 1 indicates that more commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. A CFLQ less than 1 indicates that less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. 2 ds = Data are suppressed.

United States | Marine Economy
2016 United States Economy
#Non-Employer
Firms
(millions)
#Establishments
(millions)
#Employees
(millions)
Annual
Payroll
($ trillions)
Employee
Compensation
($ trillions)
Gross Domestic
Product
($ trillions)
Commercial
Location
Quotient1

24.8 7.8 127 6.4 10.0 18.8 1
Seafood Sales and Processing — Non-Employer Firms (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. and
packaging
Firms 1,308 1,395 1,617 1,757 1,766 1,812 1,947 2,108 2,208 Receipts 89,670 95,219 104,990 110,745 115,167 128,927 146,626 163,625 176,593 Seafood sales,
retail
Firms 2,522 2,455 2,513 2,514 2,657 2,497 2,557 2,471 2,392 Receipts 233,002 207,139 199,810 212,679 217,702 205,555 203,459 206,676 207,428 Seafood Sales and Processing — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. and
packaging
Establishments 663 645 638 620 589 604 640 618 586
Employees 33,323 30,894 31,789 31,261 30,988 31,390 32,180 30,708 30,554 Payroll 1,161,6371,091,7271,116,3051,200,2631,196,2071,228,8261,311,9101,354,5721,380,087 Seafood sales,
wholesale
Establishments 2,063 2,099 2,183 2,287 1,954 2,098 2,100 2,132 2,176 Employees 20,116 19,290 19,386 20,622 20,030 20,367 21,155 22,060 22,273 Payroll 782,178 758,332 798,794 848,454 867,179 884,645 910,527 999,264 1,036,051 Seafood sales,
retail
Establishments 2,044 1,967 1,982 1,972 1,957 1,995 2,015 2,059 2,067 Employees 9,732 9,439 9,857 10,006 10,293 10,631 11,037 11,443 12,114 Payroll 205,423 211,264 219,045 222,508 237,619 253,490 271,732 292,726 312,224 Transport, Support, and Marine Operations — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ship and Boat
Building
Establishments 1,782 1,615 1,540 1,497 1,560 1,514 1,524 1,541 1,508 Employees 157,512 137,759 127,691 127,522 136,365 135,287 138,687 143,287 140,179 Payroll 7,269,3066,674,1876,529,5236,845,3227,543,4027,556,3737,882,8468,030,9837,951,338 Deep Sea
Freight Trans-
portation
Establishments 365 376 372 378 375 305 332 350 313
Employees 10,231 11,180 10,288 10,362 12,375 8,704 8,646 8,014 7,009 Payroll 852,063 863,363 867,797 921,990 1,073,529 703,003 683,281 671,624 638,900 Deep Sea Pas-
senger Trans-
portation
Establishments 71 78 56 55 58 62 56 61 62
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 15,157 14,596
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 1,246,3841,155,308
Coastal and
Great Lakes
Freight Trans-
portation
Establishments 513 513 547 549 496 497 598 593 603
Employees 21,019 20,919 17,528 18,590 19,099 18,659 20,884 19,983 19,004
Payroll 1,694,6131,470,1591,288,0011,400,2671,467,7091,512,0531,835,0241,746,6121,677,305 Port and Harbor
Operations
Establishments 268 258 287 255 525 383 351 337 332
Employees 5,608 5,100 4,844 4,933 25,396 7,000 6,769 7,855 8,003 Payroll 282,671 250,358 290,467 306,8821,345,857 420,664 399,502 434,209 424,370 Marine Cargo
Handling
Establishments 532 541 507 545 343 458 482 492 492
Employees 63,736 56,386 57,275 59,517 43,824 66,301 69,830 66,414 62,680 Payroll 3,272,7232,776,7913,026,8613,159,9642,601,1464,086,1824,406,5254,334,9584,392,350 Navigational
Services to
Shipping
Establishments 868 846 847 836 850 847 881 889 877
Employees 13,419 12,689 13,529 13,441 12,532 12,485 12,148 11,864 12,457 Payroll 847,938 826,384 937,980 893,889 838,959 929,419 907,763 923,303 920,450 Marinas
Establishments 3,972 3,891 3,937 3,896 3,782 3,844 3,811 3,881 3,826 Employees 28,686 26,643 26,657 26,557 25,764 26,373 26,709 26,999 27,471 Payroll 954,032 905,488 927,499 953,497
913,140 951,123 995,2481,036,2531,081,496
North Pacific Region
• Alaska
Recreational fishing charter in South Central Alaska.

MANAGEMENT CONTEXT
The North Pacific Region includes the fisheries in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the state of Alaska.

Federal fisheries in this region are managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and NOAA
Fisheries under six fishery management plans (FMPs).

North Pacific Region FMPs
• Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands
(BSAI)
groundfish
• Gulf of Alaska
(GOA) groundfish
• BSAI king and
tanner crabs
• Alaska scallop
• Salmon in the EEZ
• Arctic
Of the stocks or stock complexes covered in these
FMPs, only the blue king crab (Pribilof Islands stock) is listed as overfished. No stocks were listed as subject to overfishing. In 2017, the blue king crab (Pribilof Islands stock) was removed from the overfishing list. Enough
information was acquired to determine, for the first
time, that the golden king crab (Aleutian Islands stock) is not being overfished.

Catch Share Programs
The North Pacific Region has seven catch share pro-
grams, more than any other region. These are the: 1)
Western Alaska CDQ Program; 2) Alaska Halibut and
Sablefish IFQ Program; 3) American Fisheries Act (AFA)
Pollock Cooperatives; 4) Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and Tanner Crab Rationalization Program; 5) Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery; 6) Bering Sea and Aleu- tian Islands (BSAI) Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (Amendment 80); and 7) Cen-
tral Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program (pilot implemented in 2007). The landings revenues for these programs totaled $810.5 million in 2016, exceeding the total landings rev- enue of any other state. The following are descriptions of these catch share programs and their performance.

Western Alaska Community Development Quota
(CDQ) Program: The program was originally imple-
mented in 1992 as part of a restructuring of the BSAI
groundfish fishery. Under this program, a percentage of the total allowable catch for groundfish, prohibited spe- cies, halibut, and crab is apportioned to 65 eligible vil- lages in Western Alaska that are organized into six CDQ groups. The program has the following goals: 1) Provide eligible Western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; 2) Support economic
development in Western Alaska; 3) Alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits to residents; and 4) Achieve a sustainable and diversified local economy.

Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program: The pro-
gram was implemented in 1995. The primary objectives of this IFQ program include the following: 1) Eliminate gear conflicts; 2) Address safety concerns; and 3) Improve
product quality. The 2016 key performance indicators of the halibut program show that relative to the baseline
period, quota, landings, and the number of active vessels decreased, while inflation-adjusted landings revenue and inflation-adjusted revenue per active vessel increased.

The 2016 key performance indicators of the sablefish
program show that relative to the baseline period, quota, landings, the number of active vessels and inflation-ad- justed landings revenue decreased while inflation-adjust- ed landings revenue per active vessel increased.

American Fisheries Act (AFA) Pollock Coopera-
tives: The program was established in 1999 and 2000
with the goals of settling allocation disputes between
inshore (catcher vessels), offshore (catcher/processors), and mothership sectors and ending the race for fish. The 2016 key performance indicators of the program show
that relative to the baseline period the number of active vessels and inflation-adjusted revenue decreased, while quota, landings, inflation-adjusted landings revenue, and inflation-adjusted revenue per active vessel increased.

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and
Tanner Crab Rationalization Program: The pro-
gram was implemented for the 2005–2006 crab fishing
season to address the race to harvest; high bycatch
and discard mortality; and product quality issues. The
program also aims to balance the interests of those who depend on crab fisheries. This program includes share
allocations to harvesters and processors. Processor
quota was incorporated to preserve the viability of pro- cessing facilities in dependent communities and, partic- 25 1 “Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan.” Federal Register. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/16/2016-05948/pa- cific-halibut-fisheries-catch-sharing-plan [accessed on July 7, 2021] 2 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Modifications to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.” Federal Register. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/13/2016-24457/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-modifications-to-recordkeep- ing-and-reporting#p-1 [accessed July 7, 2021]
3 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program.” Federal Register. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/20/2016-30068/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-bering-sea-and-aleutian-is- lands-crab#p-1 [accessed July 7, 2021]
National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
ularly, to maintain competitive conditions in ex-vessel markets. The CDQ and Adak Community allocations, re-
gional landings and processing requirements, and sev-
eral community protection measures protect community
interests. The 2016/2017 key performance indicators of
the program show that relative to the baseline period,
quota, landings, and the number of active vessels de-
creased, while inflation-adjusted landings revenue and
inflation-adjusted revenue per active vessel increased.

Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery: In 2005, Amend-
ment 82 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Man-
agement Area established a framework for the man-
agement of the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) directed
pollock fishery. The FMP Amendment was proposed by
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to imple-
ment a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–199, Sec. 803), which requires
that the AI directed pollock fishery be allocated to the Aleut Corporation for the purpose of economic develop-
ment in Adak, Alaska.

BSAI Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Ground-
fish Cooperatives (Amendment 80): The program,
commonly referred to as the Amendment 80 Program,
was implemented in 2008 to create economic incentives
that would improve retention of all fish caught. The coop- eratives also seek to reduce bycatch by commercial fish- ing vessels using trawl gear in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries. The 2016 key performance indicators of the pro- gram show that relative to the baseline period the num- ber of active vessels decreased, while quota, landings, inflation-adjusted landings revenue, and inflation-adjusted revenue per active vessel increased.

Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program: The pro-
gram was initially established as a 2-year (2007–2008)
pilot program by the U.S. Congress and was later
extended to 5 years. NOAA Fisheries implemented this
catch share program in 2012. The objectives of this
program are to reduce bycatch and discards, encourage
conservation-minded practices, improve product quality
and value, and provide stability to the processing labor force. The 2016 key performance indicators for the pro- gram show that relative to the baseline period, quota,
landings, the number of active vessels, inflation-adjust- ed landings revenue and inflation-adjusted revenue per
vessel all increased.

Policy Updates
In March of 2016, the Assistant Administrator for Fish- eries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), on behalf of the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC), published annual management mea-
sures governing the Pacific halibut fishery recommended as regulations by the IPHC and accepted by the Secretary of State.
1 This action was intended to enhance the conser-
vation of Pacific halibut and further the goals and objec- tives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). This
rule was effective until superseded by an interim final rule published in 2018 and the new management measures
final rule in 2019. Thus, this rule was effective in 2017.

NMFS issued a final rule, effective January 1, 2017 to
modify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands management areas.
2 This
rule is organized into four actions. Under the first ac- tion, NMFS implemented a requirement for tender ves-
sel operators to use the applications software “tLand-
ings” to prepare electronic landing reports. Under the
second action, NMFS modified the definition of a buying station. Under the third action, NMFS removed the
requirement for buying stations to complete the buying
station report because this report is no longer neces-
sary. Under the fourth action, NMFS revised the defini- tion of a mothership to remove unnecessary formatting
without changing the substance of the definition.

Effective January 19, 2017, NMFS issued regulations to
implement Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management
Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs (Crab FMP) and to make minor clarifications to
regulations implementing the Crab FMP.
3 This final rule
addressed how individual processing quota (IPQ) use
caps apply to the Bering Sea Chionoecetes bairdi (Tan-
26 4 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101.” Federal Register. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31057/fisheries-of-the-exclu- sive-economic-zone-off-alaska-allow-the-use-of-longline-pot-gear-in-the-gulf#p-1 [accessed July 7, 2021] 5 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibited Species Donation Program.” Federal Register. Available at https://www.federalregis- ter.gov/documents/2017/06/14/2017-12313/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-prohibited-species-donation-program [accessed July 7, 2021]
6 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Integrating Electronic Monitoring Into the North Pacific Observer Program.” Federal Register.

Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/08/2017-16703/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-integrat- ing-electronic-monitoring-into-the-north#p-1 [accessed July 7, 2021] 7 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish.” Fed- eral Register. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03698/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska- bering-sea-and-aleutian-islands-2017-and-2018 [accessed July 7, 2021] 8 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/sustainable-fisheries/2017-2018-alaska-groundfish-harvest-specifications 9 “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program.” Federal Register. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/09/2017-24403/ fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-bering-sea-and-aleutian-islands-management-area#p-1 [accessed July 7, 2021] National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
ner crab) fisheries: the eastern C. bairdi Tanner (EBT) and the western C. bairdi Tanner (WBT).

Amendment 101 to the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish FMP
took effect in January 2017, authorizing the use of long- line pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.4 The same rule established measures to minimize conflict between
gear types in the sablefish fishery and to authorize har- vest of halibut caught incidentally in the sablefish fishery.

NMFS renewed two prohibited species donation (PSD)
permits to SeaShare, authorizing this organization to
distribute Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut to economi- cally disadvantaged individuals under the PSD program.
5 Salmon and halibut are caught incidentally during direct- ed fishing for groundfish with trawl gear off Alaska. This action is necessary to comply with provisions of the PSD program and is intended to promote the goals and ob-
jectives of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

These permits are valid through June 15, 2020.

NMFS issued a rule in September 2017 to implement
amendments to the Groundfish FMPs for the Bering
Sea / Aleutian Islands (A114) and the Gulf of Alaska
(A104).
6 The amendments integrated electronic moni-
toring into these FMPs. The rule specified processes by which owners or operators using non-trawl gear request
participation in the electronic monitoring selection pool.

In February 2017, NMFS announced final 2017 and
2018 harvest specifications and prohibited species catch allowances for the groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI).
7 This
action is necessary to establish harvest limits for ground- fish during the 2017 and 2018 fishing years, and to ac- complish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Manage- ment Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The intended effect
of this action is to conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the BSAI in accordance with the Magnu-
son-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). [Specification Tables]
8 In December 2017, NMFS issued a rule to implement
Amendment 48 to the Crab Fishery Management Plan
and to revise regulations implementing the American
Fisheries Act (AFA) Program and the Crab Rationaliza-
tion (CR) Program.9 In particular, the rule revised the Crab FMP and associated regulations that govern how
NMFS determines the amount of limited access privileg-
es held and used by groups in the Western Alaska Com-
munity Development Quota Program for the purposes of
monitoring excessive share limits under the AFA Pro-
gram and CR Program.

COMMERCIAL FISHERIES —

NORTH PACIFIC REGION
In this report, commercial fisheries refer to fishing oper- ations that sell their catch for profit. The term does not include subsistence fishermen or saltwater anglers who
fish for sport. It also excludes the for-hire sector, which earns its revenue from selling recreational fishing trips to saltwater anglers. The commercial fisheries section re- ports on economic impacts, landings revenue, landings,
and ex-vessel prices of key species/species groups.

Key North Pacific Commercial Species
• Alaska pollock
• Atka mackerel
• Crab
• Flatfish
• Pacific cod
• Pacific halibut
• Pacific herring
• Rockfish
• Sablefish
• Salmon
The North Pacific groundfish fishery is different from
27 10 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool. [Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states-inter- active-tool.]
11 The NMFS Commercial Fishing Industry Input/Output Model was used to generate the impact estimates. [Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ documents/commercial_seafood_impacts_2007-2009.pdf.]
most other United States fisheries in that a large por- tion of the fishery is processed at sea and, therefore, no landings revenues are reported. The landings revenue
for the species landed and processed at sea is estimat- ed by using prices obtained from the shore-side sector.

These species include Atka mackerel, flatfish, Pacific
cod, rockfish, sablefish, and Alaska pollock. When data from the shore-side sector are inadequate, historical
information about the relationship between the ex-ves-
sel price and the wholesale price of finished products
is used to estimate ex-vessel prices and revenue for
portions of the fishery mostly processed at sea.

Economic Impacts
The premise behind economic impact modeling is that
every dollar spent in a regional economy (direct impact) is either saved or re-spent on additional goods or ser- vices. If those dollars are re-spent on other goods and services in the regional economy, this spending gener-
ates additional economic activity in the region.
10 Four different measures are commonly used to show
how commercial fisheries landings affect the econo-
my in a region (state or nationwide): sales, income,
value-added, and employment. The term sales refers
to the gross value of all sales by regional businesses
affected by an activity, such as commercial fishing. The category includes both the direct sales of fish landed
and sales made between businesses and households re-
sulting from the original sale. Income includes personal income (wages and salaries) and proprietors’ income
(income from self-employment). Value-added is the
contribution made to the gross domestic product in a
region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by
the sales of seafood or purchases of inputs to com-
mercial fishing. The first three measures are calculated in terms of dollars, whereas employment impacts are
measured in numbers of jobs. Note that these catego-
ries are not additive. The United States seafood indus- try is defined here as the commercial fishing sector,
seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers
and distributors, importers, and seafood retailers.
11 This report provides estimates of total economic im- pacts for the nation and for each of the 23 coastal
states. Total economic impacts for each state and the
nation represent the sum of direct impacts; indirect
impacts (in this case, the impact from suppliers to the seafood industry); and induced impacts (spending by
employees on personal and household expenditures,
where employees of both the seafood industry and its
full supply chain are included). That is, the total eco- nomic impact estimates reported here measure jobs,
sales, value-added, and income impacts from the sea-
food industry as well as the economic activity generated throughout each region’s broader economy from this
industry.

In 2017, the commercial fishing and seafood industry
supported 53,543 full- and part-time jobs and gener-
ated $4.4 billion in sales, $1.9 billion in income, and $2.4 billion in value-added impacts in the North Pacific Region. Commercial harvesters generated the largest
sales impacts ($3.1 billion), value-added impacts ($1.7 billion), income impacts ($1.3 billion), and employment impacts (38,272 jobs).

Landings Trends
Alaska landings in 2017 increased 8% to 6 billion
pounds. Among Alaska’s key species: Alaska pollock
landings, which accounted for 56% of Alaska’s landings
volume, were at a decadal high (3.4 billion pounds)
with high abundance. Salmon catches were strong (986
million pounds) as pink salmon landings are typically
higher in “odd years” due to their biennial cycle. Pacific cod landings (657 million pounds) were down with a
prominent decrease in the Gulf of Alaska landings from
poor fishing conditions and low abundance. Crab land-
ings (39 million pounds) were down due to a closure
in the Bering Sea tanner crab fishery and lower than
average landing of Bering Sea snow crab.

Landings revenues increased 14% to $1.76 billion in
2017, which was the combined effect of the increase in
landings and a 6% increase in the average price across
species. Alaska pollock revenues decreased marginally
to $413 million but remained strong with high landings, though ex-vessel prices have been low compared to the
last 10 years. Low pollock fillet and head and gut prices were contributing factors in the low ex-vessel price.

Salmon revenues increased 70%, which was largely the
National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
28 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-A tlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
result of the increased landings from the biennial cycle as ex-vessel prices were down 7%. Pacific cod reve-
nues decreased 9% to $156 million with the decrease in
landings, as ex-vessel prices were stable. Crab reve-
nues decreased 30% to $152 million, as the decrease
in landings was partially offset by the 24% increase
in crab ex-vessel prices as reduced supply put upward
pressure on prices. Other species with notable percent
changes in revenues were Pacific herring (up 48%),
sablefish (up 28%), and rockfish (down 17%).

In contrast to ex-vessel value, first-wholesale value of the 2017 groundfish catch was $2.52 billion, an increase of 3.4% in real terms from 2016. This change was
primarily the result of an increase in the real aggregate 2017 fi rst-wholesale price, up 5.6% to $1.20 per pound while aggregate production volumes decreased 1.4% to
959 thousand mt. In the BSAI, aggregate first-wholesale value increased 6.1% and value was increasing for all
species with the exception of pollock, where aggregate
value, price, and volume showed little change. In the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA), aggregate first-wholesale value
increased only slightly (1.5%). First-wholesale value in the GOA was increasing for flatfish and sablefish with
increases in both fi rst-wholesale prices and production volume. The decrease in GOA cod value was the result of decreased production volume. The decrease in the value
of GOA pollock was largely the result of a decrease in the average price of products.

Landings Revenue
In 2017, landings revenue in North Pacific totaled $1.8 billion, a 4% increase from 2008 (a 9% decrease in real terms after adjusting for inflation) and a 14% increase from 2016.

Finfish and other landings revenue accounted for 91%
of all landings revenue. In 2017, salmon ($645.7 mil-
lion), Alaska pollock ($413.3 million), and Pacific cod ($156 million) had the highest landings revenue in this region. Together, these top three species accounted for 69% of total landings revenue.

From 2008 to 2017, salmon (75%, 53% in real terms),
Atka mackerel (74%, 52% in real terms), and Alas-
ka pollock (28%, 12% in real terms) had the largest
increases, while Pacific herring (-65%, -70% in real
terms), Pacific halibut (-44%, -51% in real terms), and Pacific cod (-43%, -50% in real terms) had the largest
decreases. From 2016 to 2017, salmon (70%), Pacific
herring (48%), and sablefish (28%) had the largest in-
creases, while crab (-30%), rockfish (-17%), and Pacific cod (-9%) had the largest decreases.

Commercial Revenue: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Salmon (75%, 53% in real terms)
• Atka mackerel (74%, 52% in real terms)
• Alaska pollock (28%, 12% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Salmon (70%)
• Pacific herring (48%)
• Sablefish (28%)
Commercial Revenue: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Pacific herring (-65%, -70% in real terms)
• Pacific halibut (-44%, -51% in real terms)
• Pacific cod (-43%, -50% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Crab (-30%)
• Rockfish (-17%)
• Pacific cod (-9%)
Landings
In 2017, North Pacific Region commercial fishermen
landed over 6 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish. This represents a 32% increase from 2008 and an 8% in-
crease from 2016. Alaska pollock contributed the highest landings volume in the region, accounting for 56% of
total landing weight.

From 2008 to 2017, rockfish (54%), salmon (54%), and
Alaska pollock (49%) had the largest increases, while
Pacific halibut (-62%), crab (-61%), and Pacific herring (-18%) had the largest decreases. From 2016 to 2017,
salmon (82%), Pacific herring (32%), and Atka macker-
el (18%) had the largest increases, while crab (-44%),
Pacific cod (-7%), and rockfish (-6%) had the largest
decreases.
29 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
Commercial Landings: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Rockfish (54%)
• Salmon (54%)
• Alaska pollock (49%)
From 2016:
• Salmon (82%)
• Pacific herring (32%)
• Atka mackerel (18%)
Commercial Landings: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Pacific halibut (-62%)
• Crab (-61%)
• Pacific herring (-18%)
From 2016:
• Crab (-44%)
• Pacific cod (-7%)
• Rockfish (-6%)
Prices
In 2017, Pacific halibut ($4.74 per pound) received the highest ex-vessel price in the region. Landings of Pa-
cific herring ($0.12 per pound) had the lowest ex-ves-
sel price. From 2008 to 2017, crab (63%, 42% in real
terms), Atka mackerel (55%, 35% in real terms), and
Pacific halibut (47%, 28% in real terms) had the larg-
est increases, while Pacific herring (-58%, -63% in real terms), Pacific cod (-57%, -63% in real terms), and
flatfish (-24%, -33% in real terms) had the largest de- creases. From 2016 to 2017, crab (24%), Pacific herring (12%), and sablefish (9%) had the largest increases,
while rockfish (-12%), Atka mackerel (-9%), and salmon
(-7%) had the largest decreases.

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES —

NORTH PACIFIC REGION
In this report, recreational fishing refers to fishing for leisure rather than to sell fish (commercial fishing) or for subsistence. This recreational fisheries section reports on economic impacts and expenditures, angler participation, fishing trips, and catch of key species/species groups.12 Key North Pacific Recreational Species13
• Chinook salmon
• Chum salmon
• Coho salmon
• Lingcod
• Pacific cod
• Pacific halibut
• Pink salmon
• Razor clams
• Rockfish species
• Shark species
• Sockeye salmon
Economic Impacts and Expenditures
The economic contribution of recreational fishing activ- ities in the North Pacific Region is based on spending
by recreational anglers.
14 Total annual trip expenditures
are estimated at the state level by multiplying mean
trip expenditures by the estimated number of adult trips in each trip mode (for-hire, private boat, and shore)
and adjusting by the CPI (consumer price index) to the
current year. Total annual durable expenditures are esti- mated by multiplying mean durable expenditures in each
state by the estimated annual number of adult partici-
pants for each state and adjusting by the CPI (consumer price index) to the current year.
15 Four different measures are commonly used to show
how angler expenditures affect the economy in a region
(state or nationwide): sales, income, value-added, and
employment. The term sales refers to the gross value
of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activ- ity, such as recreational fishing. The category includes both the direct sales made to the angler and sales made between businesses and households resulting from that
original sale to the angler. Income includes personal
income (wages and salaries) and proprietors’ income
(income from self-employment). Value-added is the
contribution made to the gross domestic product in a
region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the purchases made by anglers. The first three measures
are calculated in terms of dollars, whereas employment
impacts are measured in number of jobs. Note that
these categories are not additive. NOAA Fisheries uses
a regional impact modeling software, called IMPLAN, to
estimate these four types of impacts.
12 Information reported in this table is from the Sport Fish Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for saltwater fishing activities. 13 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for manage- ment. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 14 Trip expenditure estimates were generated from the 2016/2017 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2020). Durable goods expenditures were generated from the 2014 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2016). (For citations: Publica- tions-U.S. Coastal and Marine Recreation.)
15 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool. (Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states-inter- active-tool.)
30 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western P acific | New England | Mid-A tlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
16 Crozier, L. 2016. Impacts of Climate Change on Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: A review of the scientific literature published in 2015. North- west Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Seattle, Washington. 32 p. [Available at https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/as- sets/4/9042_02102017_105951_Crozier.2016-BIOP-Lit-Rev-Salmon-Climate-Effects-2015.pdf].

The economic contributions for both trip and durable
expenditures from recreational fishing in 2017 were
estimated using IMPLAN version 3, with base year data
from 2017. Models for each state and for the nation were created in IMPLAN using trip expenditures (based on
2016/2017 survey data on average trip expenditures and
total 2017 trips) and for durable expenditures (based on 2014 survey data on average durable expenditures and
2017 participants).

In 2017, economic impacts from recreational fishing
activities in the North Pacific Region generated 5,550
jobs, $566.7 million in sales, $197.7 million in income, and $330.8 million in value-added impacts. Impacts from durable equipment expenditures (e.g., rods and reels,
fishing-related equipment, boats, vehicles, and second
homes) accounted for 28% of employment, 21% of
sales, 24% of income, and 22% of value-added impacts.

Expenditures for fishing trips and durable equipment
across the North Pacific Region in 2017 totaled $467.5
million. This total included $126.2 million in durable
goods expenditures, with the largest portion coming
from boat expenses ($57.7 million).

Participation
In 2017, there were 295,247 recreational anglers who
fished in the North Pacific Region. This number rep-
resented a 4% decrease from 2008 and remains un-
changed from 2016. The anglers are categorized as
either out-of-state anglers (60%) or residents of coastal/ non-coastal county (40%).

Days Fished
The state of Alaska records recreational fishing effort in terms of the number of days fished, rather than the
number of fishing trips. Anglers who fished in Alaska
spent approximately 896,749 days fishing in 2017. This
number represented a 4% decrease from the days spent
fishing in 2008. From 2016 to 2017, there was a 4%
increase in the number of days fished.

Harvest and Release Trends
Of the North Pacific Region’s key species and species
groups, Pacific halibut (551,600 fish), coho salmon
(539,119 fish), and rockfish species (407,200 fish), were most frequently caught by recreational fishermen.

The text box below shows the species with the largest
percentage increases and decreases in the past 10 years and in the past year.

Harvest and Release: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Chinook salmon (27%)
• Sockeye salmon (18%)
• Pink salmon (13%)
From 2016:
• Pink salmon (19%)
• Sockeye salmon (12%)
• Lingcod (2%)
Harvest and Release: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Razor clams (-97%)
• Shark species (-82%)
• Lingcod (-52%)
From 2016:
• Razor clams (-80%)
• Pacific cod (-50%)
• Shark species (-41%)
From 2008 to 2017, Chinook salmon (27%), sockeye
salmon (18%), and pink salmon (13%) had the larg-
est increases, while razor clams (-97%), shark species
(-82%), and lingcod (-52%) had the largest decreases.

From 2016 to 2017, pink salmon (19%), sockeye salm-
on (12%), and lingcod (2%) had the largest increases,
while razor clams (-80%), Pacific cod (-50%), and shark species (-41%) had the largest decreases.

There was approximately a 50% decrease in the amount
of Pacific cod harvested and released from 2016 to 2017.

There is no bag, possession, size, or seasonal limit for recreational Pacific cod fisheries in the North Pacific Region. Low population abundances and small sized
individuals may be a result of an expanse of exceptional- ly warm water, commonly referred to as the “blob,” that was first detected in 2013 and persisted through 2016.
16 Despite no policy changes, the amount of coho salm-
on harvested and released in the North Pacific Region
increased from 2016 to 2017. Run forecasts and harvest
31 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico North Pacific Region | Regional Summary
17 Brenner, Richard E., and Andrew R. Munro (editors). 2017. Run Forecasts and Harvest Projections for 2017 Alaska Salmon Fisheries and Review of the 2016 Season. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, Alaska. Special Publication 17-08, 104 p. [Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/Fed- AidPDFs/SP17-08.pdf].
18 Unless otherwise stated, data are from the U.S. Census Bureau. [For more information: www.census.gov.] 19 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product’ and ’Table SA6N Compensation of Employees by NAICS Industry. [Available at:
https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0518gdpstate/.] 20 Percentage changes in inflation adjusted (real dollar) terms are calculated using the annual Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. [Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF.] 21 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘Location Quotient Calculator.’ [For more information: www.bls.gov/cew/cewlq.htm.] projections conducted by ADFG showed that coho salmon
abundances were projected to increase in the year 2017
based on the review of the 2016 season.17
MARINE ECONOMY — NORTH

PACIFIC REGION
For this report, the marine economy refers to the eco-
nomic activity generated by fishing and marine-related
industries in a coastal state. The national marine econo- my consists of two industry sectors: 1) seafood sales and processing (employer establishments and non-employer
firms); and 2) transport, support, and marine operations (employer establishments). These sectors include several different marine-related industries.
18,19
To measure the size of the commercial fishing sector in a state’s economy relative to the size of the commercial fishing sector in the national economy, researchers use an index called the Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ).
20,21 The CFLQ is calculated as the ratio of the per-
centage of regional employment in the commercial fishing sector relative to the percentage of national employment in the commercial fishing sector. The United States CFLQ is 1. If a state CFLQ is less than 1, then less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. If a state CFLQ is greater than 1, then more commercial fish- ing occurs in this state than the national average.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics suppressed the CFLQ val- ue for Alaska for 2016.

In 2016, 21,077 employer establishments operated
throughout the entire North Pacific Region (including
marine and non-marine related establishments). These
establishments employed 266,072 workers and had a
total annual payroll of $15.2 billion. The combined gross state product of Alaska, was approximately $51.3 billion in 2016.

Seafood Sales and Processing
Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging: In
2016, the North Pacific Region had 22 non-employer
firms in the seafood product preparation and packaging
sector (a 29% decrease from 2008). Annual receipts for
these firms totaled about $1.7 million (a 7% increase in real terms from 2008). There were 104 employer firms
in the seafood product preparation and packaging sector (a 15% decrease from 2008). These establishments
employed 8,654 workers (a 12% increase from 2008)
and had a total annual payroll of $355.1 million (a 24% increase in real terms from 2008).

Seafood Sales, Retail: In 2016, there were 13 non-em-
ployer firms engaged in retail sales of seafood in the
North Pacific region (remains unchanged from 2008).

Annual receipts for these firms totaled about $1.5 million (an 8% decrease in real terms from 2008). There were
16 employer firms in the retail sales of seafood sector (a 78% increase from 2008). These establishments em-
ployed 77 workers (a 108% increase from 2008) and had
a total annual payroll of $2.5 million (a 23% increase in real terms from 2008).

Seafood Sales, Wholesale: There were 33 employer
firms in the wholesale sales of seafood sector in the North Pacific Region in 2016 (a 42% decrease from 2008).

These establishments employed 79 workers (a 45% de-
crease from 2008), and had a total annual payroll of $6 million (a 36% decrease in real terms from 2008).

Transport, Support, and Marine
Operations
Data for the transport, support, and marine operations
sector of North Pacific Region’s economy were largely
suppressed for confidentiality reasons. It is clear, how- ever, that these sectors play an important role in the
regional economy. For example, in 2016, the coastal and Great Lakes freight transportation sector in the North
Pacific Region accounted for $86.8 million in payroll (a 128% increase in real terms from 2008).

Tables | Alaska
34 National Overview | North P acific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico Alaska | Commercial Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of the Alaska Seafood Industry (thousands of dollars) With Imports Without Imports
#Jobs Sales Income Value
Added #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added
Total Impacts 53,543 4,398,212 1,904,219 2,376,629 53,418 4,373,511 1,898,777 2,367,828 Commercial Harvesters 38,272 3,083,903 1,339,107 1,670,140 38,272 3,083,903 1,339,107 1,670,140 Seafood Processors
& Dealers 11,972 1,100,912 480,414 595,635 11,935 1,097,443 478,897 593,757 Importers 60 18,980 3,042 5,786 0 0 0 0
Seafood Wholesalers
& Distributors 366 43,729 14,973 19,552 355 42,410 14,521 18,962 Retail 2,873 150,687 66,684 85,517 2,857 149,755 66,252 84,970 Total Landings Revenue and Landings Revenue of Key Species/Species Groups (millions of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Revenue 1,701 1,334 1,584 1,893 1,692 1,878 1,712 1,763 1,551 1,764 Finfish & Other 1,449 1,138 1,377 1,626 1,406 1,638 1,464 1,470 1,321 1,598 Shellfish 252 196 207 267 286 240 248 294 230 166
Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Alaska pollock 323 271 282 363 343 406 400 442 417 413
Atka mackerel 20 27 28 23 15 15 22 42 32 34
Crab 241 180 190 249 276 230 238 284 219 153
Flatfish 110 83 78 85 95 122 99 69 68 71
Pacific cod 274 133 147 203 186 156 153 257 171 156
Pacific halibut 209 135 200 205 145 111 107 111 117 116 Pacific herring 23 29 23 12 19 16 11 7 5 8
Rockfish 20 16 20 24 27 35 28 33 30 25
Sablefish 97 94 88 139 113 82 86 85 86 110
Salmon 368 345 506 565 441 680 546 413 381 646
Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (millions of pounds) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Landings 4,534 4,064 4,347 5,353 5,344 5,792 5,671 6,038 5,586 6,005 Finfish & Other 4,427 3,968 4,262 5,267 5,228 5,701 5,580 5,909 5,513 5,961 Shellfish 107 96 86 86 116 91 91 129 73 44
Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Alaska pollock 2,276 1,866 1,948 2,811 2,872 3,003 3,146 3,263 3,355 3,388 Atka mackerel 127 157 145 113 104 51 70 118 121 143
Crab 99 90 80 80 112 87 85 121 69 39
Flatfish 595 493 551 640 635 657 661 506 517 499
Pacific cod 494 491 539 663 717 681 717 697 707 657
Pacific halibut 65 58 55 41 32 29 22 23 23 25
Pacific herring 84 87 108 99 75 85 97 68 52 68
Rockfish 89 84 100 106 114 123 133 142 146 138
Sablefish 30 27 25 27 30 30 26 24 22 26
Salmon 640 671 757 738 611 1,013 683 1,041 543 986
Average Annual Ex-Vessel Price of Key Species/Species Groups (dollars per pound) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Alaska pollock 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 Atka mackerel 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.30 0.32 0.36 0.26 0.24 Crab 2.42 2.01 2.37 3.09 2.46 2.64 2.79 2.35 3.19 3.95
Flatfish 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 Pacific cod 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.37 0.24 0.24 Pacific halibut 3.23 2.33 3.65 4.97 4.47 3.89 4.93 4.85 5.03 4.74 Pacific herring 0.27 0.34 0.21 0.12 0.26 0.19 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.12 Rockfish 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.28 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.18 Sablefish 3.21 3.49 3.50 5.13 3.79 2.72 3.37 3.57 3.93 4.29 Salmon 0.58 0.51 0.67 0.77 0.72 0.67 0.80 0.40 0.70 0.65 35 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 All data reported in this table are from saltwater fishing activities. 2 Information reported in this table is from the Sport Fish Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for saltwater fishing activities. 3 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for man- agement. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 4 In this table, ‘<1’ = 0-999 fish, and ‘1’ = 1,000-1,499 fish.

Alaska | Recreational Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of Alaska Recreational Fishing Expenditures (thousands of dollars) #Jobs Sales Income Value Added
Trip Impacts by
Fishing Mode
For-Hire 3,040 301,617 104,574 169,395
Private Boat 901 137,271 42,124 83,530
Shore 68 9,096 3,045 5,654
Total Durable Expenditures 1,541 118,749 47,954 72,183
Total State Economic Impacts 5,550 566,733 197,697 330,762 Recreational Anglers by Residential Area (thousands of anglers) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Out-of-State 119 127 122 124 118 129 122 128 115 117
Coastal/Non-Coastal 190 158 159 161 160 178 170 181 181 178 Total Anglers 309 284 281 286 278 307 292 309 296 295
Recreational Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of angler fishing days) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Days Fished 935 914 811 812 808 980 960 975 864 897 Harvest (H) and Release (R) of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of fish)2,3,4 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Chinook
salmon
H 71 89 78 85 63 81 111 111 101 85
R 80 96 66 95 62 120 94 116 87 106
Chum
salmon
H 12 22 11 21 11 25 12 13 10 10
R 28 34 19 38 20 39 19 25 22 22
Coho
salmon
H 404 418 350 386 263 493 390 479 263 468
R 89 94 74 88 50 122 60 99 41 71
Lingcod H 37 32 32 33 33 34 32 28 26 22
R 65 46 39 36 36 33 29 27 23 27
Pacific cod H 25 36 37 48 42 38 61 58 44 20
R 39 63 81 76 50 48 73 75 43 24
Pacific
halibut
H 516 440 398
394 388 454 408 420 400 352
R 359 321 304 311 324 324 251 271 244 199
Pink
salmon
H 88 117 82 72 78 113 69 110 103 102
R 152 224 121 135 141 203 118 204 126 170
Razor
clams
H 593 556 357 436 324 291 90 39 77 15
R 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 < 1
Rockfish
species
H 226 209 224 211 230 256 335 332 347 279
R 171 149 151 122 121 121 148 143 157 129
Shark
species
H < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1
R 52 33 29 14 13 11 28 20 16 10
Sockeye
salmon
H 29 34 28 31 28 40 35 33 34 36
R 10 10 6 10 8 13
12 9 7 10
2017 Angler Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures (thousands of dollars)1 Fishing Mode Trip Expenditures
For-Hire 209,465
Private Boat 123,861
Shore 7,957
Total 341,283
Equipment Durable Goods Expenditures
Fishing Tackle 27,578
Other Equipment 36,172
Boat Expenses 57,675
Vehicle Expenses 4,768
Second Home Expenses 0
Total Durable Expenditures 126,194
Total State Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures 467,477 36 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 ds = Data are suppressed.
2 The U.S. Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ) is 1. A CFLQ greater than 1 indicates that more commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. A CFLQ less than 1 indicates that less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average.

Alaska | Marine Economy
2016 Alaska State Economy (% of national total)1
#Non-Employer
Firms #Establishments #Employees
Annual
Payroll
($ billions)
Employee
Compensation
($ billions)
Gross State
Product
($ billions)
Commercial
Fishing
Location
Quotient2
56,946 (0.2%) 21,077 (0.3%) 266,072 (0.2%) 15.2 (0.2%) 27.2 (0.3%) 51.3 ds Seafood Sales and Processing — Non-Employer Firms (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Firms 31 32 28 26 25 35 31 30 22
Receipts 1,455 1,693 2,482 2,882 2,708 3,268 2,472 4,091 1,743 Seafood sales,
retail
Firms 13 16 23 15 15 11 17 11 13
Receipts 1,431 1,350 1,595 903 1,626 1,458 1,539 761 1,483 Seafood Sales and Processing — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Establishments 122 121 119 122 116 115 108 109 104
Employees 7,707 7,572 8,074 8,578 8,289 8,638 9,115 8,472 8,654 Payroll 254,894 255,403 268,208 296,851 297,284 308,961 337,171 356,855 355,129 Seafood sales,
wholesale
Establishments 57 54 52 48 47 43 43 37 33
Employees 143 ds ds 159 143 102 120 94 79
Payroll 8,389 8,445 9,141 9,985 10,943 7,205 7,024 7,306 6,037 Seafood sales,
retail
Establishments 9 10 10 10 15 14 14 15 16
Employees 37 44 ds ds ds ds ds 64 77
Payroll 1,839 1,824 1,986 2,487 2,019 2,337 2,687 2,498 2,549 Transport, Support and Marine Operations — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ship and Boat
Building
Establishments 17 21 22 23 23 20 27 23 23
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds 335 344 394
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds 15,845 17,748 18,762
Deep Sea Freight
Transportation
Establishments 3 3 3 1 2 3 6 5 5
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Deep Sea Pas-
senger Transpor-
tation
Establishments 1 1 NA 1 1 2 1 1 1
Employees ds ds NA ds ds ds ds 0 0
Payroll ds ds NA ds ds ds ds 0 0
Coastal and Great
Lakes Freight
Transportation
Establishments 49 50 55 63 47 53 72 74 79
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 1,067 966
Payroll 33,888 33,132
ds ds ds 82,692 89,020 89,281 86,849
Port and Harbor
Operations
Establishments 7 8 9 8 18 13 12 11 11
Employees ds ds ds ds 582 ds ds 0 14
Payroll ds ds ds 1,790 25,545 ds ds 0 904
Marine Cargo
Handling
Establishments 12 13 13 14 8 9 9 9 8
Employees ds ds ds ds 334 ds ds 437 410
Payroll ds ds ds ds 26,481 ds ds 32,326 32,171
Navigational Ser-
vices to Shipping
Establishments 25 23 25 22 21 22 25 24 23
Employees 296 312 303 321 97 103 138 140 126
Payroll 23,233 25,630 27,543 27,156 9,938 10,805 13,015 13,596 14,221 Marinas
Establishments 14 13 14 14 13 12 11 11 10
Employees 66 56 ds ds ds ds ds 30 33
Payroll 2,303 2,181 1,932 2,053 1,613 1,449 ds 1,423
1,568
Pacific Region
• California
• Oregon
• Washington
The crew of the fishing vessel Sea Storm fishing for hake off of Washington and Oregon. Arctic Storm, the catcher- processor vessel, is in the background. Photo: Sea Storm crew member/Franco Cruz 38 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 This stock is fished by U.S. and international fleets. 2 The geographic boundary of this stock extends from Mexico south and west to the Palmyra Atoll.

Pacific Region | Regional Summary

MANAGEMENT CONTEXT
The Pacific Region includes California, Oregon, and Wash- ington. Federal fisheries in this region are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and NOAA
Fisheries under four fishery management plans (FMPs).

Pacific Region FMPs
• Coastal pelagic
species
• Pacific coast
salmon
• Pacific coast
groundfish
• West Coast highly
migratory species
In 2017, the only stock/complex managed under these
FMPs remaining on the overfished list was Pacific bluefin tuna (Pacific stock).1 Pacific ocean perch (Pacific Coast stock) and yelloweye rockfish (Pacific Coast stock) were removed from the overfished list. Three stocks/complex- es were subject to overfishing in 2017: Coho salmon
(Puget Sound: Stillaguamish stock, newly added to the
list in 2017);1 Pacific bluefin tuna (Pacific stock);1 and swordfish (Eastern Pacific stock).1,2 Coho salmon (Puget Sound: Hood Canal stock)1 was removed from the over-
fishing list. Additionally, for the first time, spiny dogfish (Pacific coast stock) stock status was determined to be not subject to overfishing.

Also in 2017, three groundfish stocks were declared
rebuilt—bocaccio (Southern Pacific Coast stock), dark-
blotched rockfish (Pacific Coast stock), and Pacific ocean perch (Pacific Coast stock). Pacific ocean perch has been overfished since the mid-1960s when foreign fleets tar- geted groundfish stocks off the U.S. West Coast. Under
its rebuilding plan, Pacific ocean perch was not projected to be rebuilt until 2051; achieving rebuilt status in 2017 puts this achievement 34 years ahead of schedule.

Overall, management strategies have been used to suc-
cessfully rebuild eight groundfish stocks, including Pacific whiting, lingcod, canary rockfish, widow rockfish, petrale sole, and, in 2017, bocaccio (Southern Pacific Coast
stock), darkblotched rockfish (Pacific Coast stock), and Pacific ocean perch (Pacific Coast stock). Only two over- fished groundfish stocks—cowcod and yelloweye rock-
fish—continue to be managed under rebuilding plans.

Cowcod is projected to be rebuilt by 2019 and yelloweye rockfish as soon as 2027.

Conservative management techniques are employed in
the Pacific Region’s fisheries. For example, the Pacific groundfish and salmon fisheries are subject to “weak
stock management” where access to the surplus of
healthier stocks that can be harvested is often restricted to protect weaker stocks with which they commingle in
the ocean. These weaker stocks include seven rebuilding groundfish stocks, salmon (listed under the Endangered
Species Act), and other non-listed stocks that constrain the fishery.

Salmon management is further complicated by the need
to ensure equal allocation of harvest among diverse user groups and coordination with other entities that have
jurisdiction over various aspects of salmon management.

Decades of habitat modification, hatchery practices, har- vest, and growing competition for water have affected the viability of salmon stocks and made them more vulnerable to adverse environmental conditions. These conditions in- clude the prolonged drought and adverse ocean conditions experienced in recent years. Low returns of salmon to
the Klamath River in 2006, and to the Sacramento River
in 2008 and 2009, resulted in unprecedented closures of ocean and in-river fisheries, leading to federal disaster relief for affected entities.

Coastal pelagic species (CPS) are highly variable, envi- ronmentally sensitive stocks that provide food for marine mammals, birds, and fish. These species include Pacific sardine, northern anchovy, Pacific and jack mackerel,
and market squid. Of these species, Pacific sardine is the most commonly targeted CPS finfish and is managed
according to an innovative harvest control rule: Allowable harvest varies with sea surface temperature. Because
the geographic range of sardine tends to expand with
abundance, harvest allocation between the California and Pacific Northwest fisheries is an ongoing and dynamic
issue. The annual guideline for sardine harvest is allocat- ed coast-wide on a seasonal basis. Recent decreases in
harvest guideline limits have contributed to the develop- ment of an intense derby fishery.

Catch limits for Pacific halibut, a transboundary fish
stock, are set in January by the International Pacific
39 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 3 Pfeiffer, Lisa and Trevor Gratz. The effect of rights-based fisheries management on risk taking and fishing safety (March 8, 2016). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (10) 2615-2620; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1509456113. 4 PFMC and NMFS. 2017. West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program: Five-year review. Approved by the Pacific Fishery Management Council November 16th 2017, Costa Mesa, CA.

Pacific Region | Regional Summary
Halibut Commission (IPHC). This bilateral commission
between the United States and Canada determines total
allowable catch levels (TACs) for Pacific halibut that will be caught in the United States and Canadian exclusive
economic zones (EEZs). After catch levels are deter-
mined, the PFMC develops a catch-sharing plan for tribal and non-tribal (i.e., commercial and recreational) fisher- ies in the federal waters of California, Oregon, and Wash- ington. Pacific Halibut is targeted only with hook gear, but there are allocations to the trawl sector for bycatch, including individual bycatch quotas, in the Pacific ground- fish trawl IFQ.

The Highly Migratory Species (HMS) FMP includes tunas,
billfish, and pelagic sharks as managed species. The alba- core surface hook-and-line fishery is by far the most eco- nomically important commercial HMS fishery, followed by the drift gillnet fishery for swordfish and thresher shark.

HMS is also a very important component of the catch for the Pacific Region’s commercial passenger fishing vessel fleet and the private recreational boat fleet.

Catch Share Programs
The Pacific Region has two catch share programs: 1) the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program; and
2) the Pacific Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program (Whiting and Non-Whiting trawl). The landings revenues
for these programs totaled more than $53.1 million in
2016. The following are descriptions of these catch share programs and their performance.

Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program:

This program was implemented in 2001 and allows
vessels to stack multiple vessel permits on a single
vessel. The goal of this approach is to improve economic efficiency through rationalization of the fixed gear fleet, increase benefits for fishing communities, promote equi- ty, lessen reallocation effects of previous harvest regula- tions, promote safety, and improve product quality and
value. The 2016 key performance indicators of the pro-
gram show that relative to the baseline period, landings and the number of active vessels decreased, while in-
flation-adjusted landings revenue and inflation-adjusted revenue per active vessel increased. Baselines for quota were not calculated and therefore cannot be compared.

A recent study3 of this fleet demonstrated that after the catch share program was implemented, the probability
of fishermen taking a fishing trip in high wind conditions decreased 82%. This provides evidence that institutional changes can significantly reduce risk taking behavior and result in safer fisheries.

Pacific Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program
(Whiting and Non-Whiting trawl): This program was
implemented by the PFMC in January 2011. This program
involves individual fishing quotas (IFQs) for non-whiting groundfish and whiting trawlers delivering to shoreside plants, and cooperatives for whiting mothership and
catcher processor sectors. The objectives of this program are to provide a mechanism for total catch accounting;
provide a viable, profitable, and efficient groundfish
fishery; promote practices that reduce bycatch and dis- card mortality and minimize ecological impacts; increase operational flexibility; minimize adverse effects from the IFQ program on fishing communities and other fisheries; promote measurable economic and employment benefits
through the seafood catching, processing, distribution, and support sectors of the industry; provide quality prod- uct for the consumer; and increase safety in the fishery.

In 2017, the Council review of the Program4 found that
overall average annual net revenue for all sectors of the fishery from 2011 through 2015 was $54 million, which
was over twice the 2009-2010 average of $25 million.

Shorebased processors saw the greatest increase in net
benefits between the pre-catch share and catch share
periods (over $13 million) while net benefits nearly tri- pled in the shoreside catcher vessel sector and increased by a lesser percentage for the catcher-processor sector.

The at-sea mothership sector, however, saw a slight de- crease in net benefits during this period.

Expanded observer coverage and dockside monitoring,
which were implemented with the catch share program,
coupled with long-term adherence to catch targets and
improved stock assessment models, have to varying de-
grees also contributed to improved fishery performance.

For example, in the first three years of catch shares, the total catch of rebuilding stocks (of which two—canary
rockfish and petrale sole—are now declared rebuilt) was 50% lower than in the previous three years.
40 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
5 This rebuilding summary is drawn directly from Pacific Fishery Management Council documents available at https://www.pcouncil.org/ documents/2017/12/pacific-ocean-perch-rebuilt.pdf/ and https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2017/06/bocaccio-and-darkblotched-rockfish-rebuilt.pdf/ 6 Under the terms of the Agreement with Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement) and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, the Joint Management Committee is the decision-making body tasked with making TAC recommendations to the two parties, the United States and Canada. 7 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/08/2017-09288/magnuson-stevens-act-provisions-fisheries-off-west-coast-states-pacific-coast- groundfish-fishery
8 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-28/html/2017-18146.htm 9 For historical background as well as additional information on the new 10-year agreement see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/sustainable- fisheries/salmon-and-steelhead-fisheries-west-coast-united-states-v-oregon 10 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01947
11 Salmon Technical Team. 2018. Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries; Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Portland, OR. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 335 p. [Available at https://www.pcouncil.org/ documents/2018/02/review-of-2017-ocean-salmon-fisheries.pdf/].

Policy Updates
In June 2017, bocaccio and darkblotched rockfish were
declared rebuilt, both well before their original target dates. Later in the year, Pacific ocean perch, which
has been overfished since the mid-1960s when foreign
fleets targeted groundfish stocks, was also declared
rebuilt. This follows on the heels of two other import- ant West Coast groundfish stocks—canary rockfish and
petrale sole—being declared rebuilt in June 2015. These stocks had been subject to strict rebuilding plans that severely constrained West Coast fisheries for more than a decade: bocaccio was declared overfished in 1999,
darkblotched rockfish and canary rockfish were declared overfished in 2000, and petrale sole was declared over- fished in 2010. Overall, these strategies were success- fully used to rebuild eight groundfish stocks by 2017,
including Pacific whiting, lingcod, and widow rockfish in addition to the five stocks cited here.5
Another bright spot in 2017, the Pacific whiting stock
assessment estimated that the stock was at its highest
level since the 1980s. Based on this assessment and rec- ommendations of the Joint Management Committee,6 the
U.S. and Canada unadjusted total allowable catch (TAC)
for 2017 Pacific whiting fisheries was set at 531,501
metric tons (mt). The unadjusted U.S. share of the TAC
(392,673 mt) is 6.8 percent greater than in 2016.7
An emerging success story is the use of deep-set buoy
gear in the swordfish fishery to reduce bycatch. In 2014, the Council approved a preliminary exempted fishing
permit to test the efficacy of alternative gear types at reducing bycatch in the swordfish fishery relative to the drift gillnet gear type. Only a limited number of per-
mits were issued in 2015 and 2016 but in 2017, having
proved successful at minimizing bycatch, the number of
deep set buoy gear EFPs was significantly expanded.8
At the April 2017 Council meeting, the PFMC recom-
mended closing the directed commercial sardine fishery
for the third year in a row based upon an estimated a
biomass of 86,586 metric tons, an 18% decline from the
previous year. The fishery was first closed in 2015 as a result of the biomass declining below a precautionary
biomass threshold that automatically results in the clo- sure of the fishery well in advance of population reaching an overfished condition.

In July 2017, the United States and the 20 other mem-
ber nations of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis- sion (IATTC) adopted new science-based conservation
and management measures for tropical tuna (bigeye,
yellowfin, and skipjack tuna) from 2018 to 2020 to sup- port continued conservation of these tuna stocks.

In December 2017, parties of the United States v. Ore-
gon agreement, which provides the framework for fisher- ies and hatchery programs on the Columbia River Basin,
agreed on a new ten-year framework.9 NMFS, Washing-
ton State, and tribal co-managers began development of
a comprehensive ten-year management plan for Puget
Sound chinook salmon.10
There were a number of changes affecting California
recreational fisheries in 2017. California regulations for chinook salmon divide the state into five areas, each
of which can have different season lengths.11 In 2017,
the two regions that encompass most of the coastline
north of San Francisco had significantly shorter seasons or were closed entirely compared to 2016. The north-
ernmost of these two regions were completely closed
in 2017 but was open for 68 days in 2016 between May
and September and accounted for 10% of all open days
in 2016 across the state. The other area saw a 33% de-
crease in season length in 2017 and accounted for 34%
of the 2016 open dates across the state. The central and southern areas saw minor changes in season lengths
from 2016 to 2017.

For the California recreational groundfish fishery, the canary rockfish daily sub-bag limit changed from zero
to one and the bocaccio sub-bag limit went from 3 to 10 fish as a result of canary rockfish being declared rebuilt in 2015 and bocaccio rockfish declared rebuilt in 2017. 41 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
12 Monk, M. Research Statistician, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. May 29, 2019. Personal Communication. 13 Salmon Technical Team. 2018. Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries; Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Portland, OR. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 345. [Available at https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2018/02/review-of- 2017-ocean-salmon-fisheries.pdf/].
14 Salmon Technical Team. 2018. Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries; Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Portland, OR. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 345. [Available at https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2018/02/review-of- 2017-ocean-salmon-fisheries.pdf/].
15 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool. [Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states- interactive-tool.]
16 The NMFS Commercial Fishing Industry Input/Output Model was used to generate the impact estimates. [Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ documents/commercial_seafood_impacts_2007-2009.pdf.]
Anglers had not been able to retain canary rockfish since 2003, and the bocaccio bag limit had been three or less since 1999. Additionally, recreational fishing depth limits increased by 10 fathoms along a large part of the north and central coast. The extra 10 fathoms of fishable waters had not been open to recreational anglers since 2003.

However, due to high catches of yelloweye rockfish during the summer, depth restrictions were reverted to the 2016 depths in October 2017.12
In Oregon, the 2017 Chinook and coho salmon seasons
were largely unchanged from 2016, except for the com-
plete closure of one of the five management areas. For
Chinook, the season was open for 75 days in 2016 in this area and accounted for 19% of all open season dates in
the state in 2016; for coho, the season was open 44 days in 2016 and represented 22% of the open dates in 2016.13 In Washington, the 2017 Chinook salmon season was
open for an additional 21 days in the two most north-
ern management areas compared to 2016, whereas the
other two management regions had very minor changes.

However, for coho, three out of four management areas
that were closed in 2016 were open in 2017. The season
was open for 73 days in each of two areas and 53 days
in the third area.14
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES —

PACIFIC REGION
In this report, commercial fisheries refer to fishing oper- ations that sell their catch for profit. The term does not include subsistence fishermen or saltwater anglers who
fish for sport. It also excludes the for-hire sector, which earns its revenue from selling recreational fishing trips to saltwater anglers. The commercial fisheries section re- ports on economic impacts, landings revenue, landings,
and ex-vessel prices of key species/species groups.

Key Pacific Region Commercial Species
• Albacore tuna
• Crab
• Flatfish
• Other shellfish
• Pacific hake
(whiting)
• Rockfish
• Sablefish
• Salmon
• Shrimp
• Squid
Economic Impacts
The premise behind economic impact modeling is that
every dollar spent in a regional economy (direct impact) is either saved or re-spent on additional goods or ser- vices. If those dollars are re-spent on other goods and services in the regional economy, this spending gener-
ates additional economic activity in the region.15
Four different measures are commonly used to show how
commercial fisheries landings affect the economy in a
region (state or nationwide): sales, income, value-added, and employment. The term sales refers to the gross value of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activity, such as commercial fishing. The category includes both
the direct sales of fish landed and sales made between
businesses and households resulting from the original
sale. Income includes personal income (wages and sala-
ries) and proprietors’ income (income from self-employ- ment). Value-added is the contribution made to the gross domestic product in a region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the sales of seafood or purchases of inputs to commercial fishing. The first three measures are cal- culated in terms of dollars, whereas employment impacts are measured in numbers of jobs. Note that these catego- ries are not additive. The United States seafood industry is defined here as the commercial fishing sector, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and distribu- tors, importers, and seafood retailers.16
This report provides estimates of total economic impacts for the nation and for each of the 23 coastal states. Total economic impacts for each state and the nation represent the sum of direct impacts; indirect impacts (in this case, 42 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
17 See NOAA Fisheries US Trade in Fishery Products web query tool; data accessed January 15, 2021. 18 https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-02/newsletter_2018.pdf and https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/scientists-oregon-dodges- %E2%80%98dead-zone%E2%80%99-bullet-2017-hypoxia-season-similar-wildfire the impact from suppliers to the seafood industry); and induced impacts (spending by employees on personal and
household expenditures, where employees of both the
seafood industry and its full supply chain are included).

In 2017, the commercial fishing and seafood industry
in California generated the largest employment impacts
in the Pacific region with 152,508 full- and part-time
jobs. California also generated the largest sales impacts ($28.8 billion), value-added impacts ($10.2 billion), and income impacts ($6.2 billion).

Landings Trends
Landings revenue in the Pacific Region declined $18.3
million (-3%) from 2016 to 2017, with each state de-
clining 3%. In California, the sizable increase in squid landings revenue (up $29.4 million year over year) was
more than offset by the decline in crab landings rev-
enue (down $36.1 million, largely due to Dungeness
crab landings revenue decline of $21.0 million). Squid is California’s largest fishery by both value and volume and represented 67% of U.S. squid harvest in 2017. Squid
landings increased 64% following two El Niño years,
which significantly depressed landings. Strong global and domestic demand for squid buoyed prices, which were
up 5% despite the increase in production and a 22%
increase in squid imports. Nationally, squid exports in- creased 24% from 2016 to 2017. China’s import of squid
from the United States increased 46% in 2017 relative to the previous year. Overall, China purchased 54% of U.S. squid exports in 2017.17
In Oregon and Washington, the increase in Pacific hake
(whiting) landings revenue from 2016 to 2017 could not
offset the decline in pink shrimp landings revenue in Or- egon and the decline in pink shrimp and oyster landings revenue in Washington for this time period. The decline in pink shrimp landings revenue has been attributed
to a decline in landings during the latter portion of the season, which coincided with a hypoxic event off of these two states.18
Rockfish landings revenue was up $17.2 million (164%)
in 2017 relative to 2016 levels. The recently rebuilt rock- fish stocks—bocaccio, darkblotched, and canary rock-
fish—all showed sizable gains.

Landings Revenue
In 2017, landings revenue in the Pacific region totaled $670.7 million, a 34% increase from 2008 (a 17% in-
crease in real terms after adjusting for inflation) and a 3% decrease from 2016. Landings revenue was highest
in Washington ($277.7 million), followed by California
($209.8 million).

Shellfish landings revenue accounted for 63% of all
landings revenue. In 2017, crab ($208.8 million), other shellfish ($113.6 million), and squid ($68.6 million) had the highest landings revenue in this region. Together,
these top three species accounted for 58% of total land- ings revenue.

From 2008 to 2017, squid (158%, 125% in real terms),
crab (95%, 70% in real terms), and rockfish (62%, 42%
in real terms) had the largest increases, while other
shellfish (-8%, -19% in real terms) and flatfish (-4%,
-16% in real terms) had the largest decreases. From
2016 to 2017, squid (70%), rockfish (58%), and Pacific
hake (whiting) (29%) had the largest increases, while
shrimp (-38%), other shellfish (-27%), and albacore
tuna (-8%) had the largest decreases.
43 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
19 Pacific recreational catch and effort estimates are based on multiple data sources. See data sources section.

Commercial Revenue: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Squid (158%, 125% in real terms)
• Crab (95%, 70% in real terms)
• Rockfish (62%, 42% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Squid (70%)
• Rockfish (58%)
• Pacific hake (whiting) (29%)
Commercial Revenue: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Other shellfish (-8%, -19% in real terms)
• Flatfish (-4%, -16% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Shrimp (-38%)
• Other shellfish (-27%)
• Albacore tuna (-8%)
Landings
In 2017, Pacific Region commercial fishermen landed
over 1.2 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish. This rep- resents an 8% increase from 2008 and a 26% increase
from 2016. Pacific hake (whiting) contributed the highest landings volume in the region, accounting for 66% of
total landing weight.

From 2008 to 2017, rockfish (192%), squid (62%), and
Pacific hake (whiting) (46%) had the largest increases, while other shellfish (-53%), flatfish (-38%), and alba- core tuna (-33%) had the largest decreases. From 2016
to 2017, rockfish (164%), squid (62%), and Pacific hake (whiting) (39%) had the largest increases, while oth-
er shellfish (-47%), shrimp (-36%), and albacore tuna
(-29%) had the largest decreases.

Commercial Landings: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Rockfish (192%)
• Squid (62%)
• Pacific hake (whiting) (46%)
From 2016:
• Rockfish (164%)
• Squid (62%)
• Pacific hake (whiting) (39%)
Commercial Landings: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Other shellfish (-53%, -59% in real terms)
• Flatfish (-38%, -46% in real terms)
• Albacore tuna (-33%, -41% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Other shellfish (-47%)
• Shrimp (-36%)
• Albacore tuna (-29%)
Prices
In 2017, other shellfish ($13.85 per pound) received the highest ex-vessel price in the region. Landings of Pacific hake (whiting) ($0.08 per pound) had the lowest ex-ves- sel price. From 2008 to 2017, other shellfish (96%, 71% in real terms), albacore tuna (80%, 58% in real terms), and squid (60%, 40% in real terms) had the largest
increases, while rockfish (-44%, -51% in real terms)
and Pacific hake (whiting) (-29%, -38% in real terms)
had the largest decreases. From 2016 to 2017, other
shellfish (37%), albacore tuna (29%), and flatfish (9%) had the largest increases, while rockfish (-40%), salmon (-12%), and Pacific hake (whiting) (-7%) had the largest decreases.

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES —

PACIFIC REGION
In this report, recreational fishing refers to fishing for leisure rather than to sell fish (commercial fishing) or for subsistence. This recreational fisheries section reports on economic impacts and expenditures, angler participation, fishing trips, and catch of key species/species groups.19 44 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
20 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 21 Trip expenditure estimates were generated from the 2016/2017 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2020).

Durable goods expenditures were generated from the 2014 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2016). (For citations: Publications-U.S. Coastal and Marine Recreation.) 22 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool. (Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states- interactive-tool.)
Key Pacific Region Recreational Species20
• Albacore and other
tunas
• Barracuda, bass
and bonito
• Croakers
• Flatfishes
• Greenlings
• Mackerel
• Rockfishes and
scorpionfishes
• Salmon: Chinook
salmon and coho
salmon
• Sculpins
• Surfperches
Economic Impacts and Expenditures
The economic contribution of recreational fishing activi- ties in the Pacific Region is based on spending by rec- reational anglers.21 Total annual trip expenditures are estimated at the state level by multiplying mean trip
expenditures by the estimated number of adult trips in
each trip mode (for-hire, private boat, and shore) and
adjusting by the CPI (consumer price index) to the cur- rent year. Total annual durable expenditures are esti-
mated by multiplying mean durable expenditures in each
state by the estimated annual number of adult partici-
pants for each state and adjusting by the CPI (consumer price index) to the current year.22
Four different measures are commonly used to show
how angler expenditures affect the economy in a region
(state or nationwide): sales, income, value-added, and
employment. The term sales refers to the gross value
of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activ- ity, such as recreational fishing. The category includes both the direct sales made to the angler and sales made between businesses and households resulting from that
original sale to the angler. Income includes personal
income (wages and salaries) and proprietors’ income
(income from self-employment). Value-added is the
contribution made to the gross domestic product in a
region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the purchases made by anglers. The first three measures
are calculated in terms of dollars, whereas employment
impacts are measured in number of jobs. Note that
these categories are not additive. NOAA Fisheries uses
a regional impact modeling software, called IMPLAN, to
estimate these four types of impacts.

The greatest employment impacts from expenditures
on saltwater recreational fishing in the Pacific Region were generated in California (19,750 jobs), followed by Washington (9,533 jobs) and Oregon (3,548 jobs).The
largest sales impacts were observed in California ($2.5 billion), followed by Washington ($1.2 billion) and Ore- gon ($364.2 million). The biggest income impacts were
generated in California ($976 million), followed by Wash- ington ($458.7 million) and Oregon ($156.6 million). The greatest value-added impacts were in California ($1.6
billion), followed by Washington ($766 million) and Ore- gon ($238.2 million).

Expenditures for fishing trips and durable equipment
across the Pacific Region in 2017 totaled $3.1 billion.

This total included $2.2 billion in durable goods expendi- tures, with the largest portion coming from boat expens- es ($1.2 billion).

Participation
In 2017, there were 1.3 million recreational anglers who fished in the Pacific Region. This number represented
a 15% decrease from 2008 and an 11% increase from
2016. The anglers are categorized as either residents
from coastal (73%) or non-coastal (27%) counties.

Fishing Trips
In 2017, recreational fishermen took 5.8 million fishing trips in the Pacific Region. This number represented a
1% increase from 2008 and a 12% increase from 2016.

The largest proportions of trips were taken in the shore mode (53%) and private boat (33%). States with the
highest number of recorded trips in the Pacific Region
were California (3.5 million trips) and Washington (1.6 million trips).
45 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
23 Unless otherwise stated, data are from the U.S. Census Bureau. [For more information: www.census.gov.] 24 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product’ and ’Table SA6N Compensation of Employees by NAICS Industry. [Available at:
https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0518gdpstate/.] 25 Percentage changes in inflation adjusted (real dollar) terms are calculated using the annual Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. [Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF.] 26 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘Location Quotient Calculator.’ [For more information: https://www.bls.gov/cew/about-data/location-quotients-explained.htm.] Harvest and Release Trends
Of the Pacific Region’s key species and species groups, rockfishes and scorpionfishes (4.6 million fish), mackerel (2.2 million fish), and surfperches (2 million fish), were most frequently caught by recreational fishermen. The text box below shows the species with the largest percentage increases and decreases in the past 10 years and in the past year.

Harvest and Release: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Albacore and other tunas (452%)
• Salmon (205%)
• Greenlings (93%)
From 2016:
• Albacore and other tunas (209%)
• Salmon (72%)
• Flatfishes (30%)
Harvest and Release: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Croakers (-52%)
• Sculpins (-16%)
From 2016:
• Greenlings (-15%)
• Barracuda, bass and bonito (-9%)
• Croakers (-4%)
From 2008 to 2017, albacore and other tunas (452%),
salmon (205%), and greenlings (93%) had the largest
increases, while croakers (-52%) and sculpins (-16%) had the largest decreases. From 2016 to 2017, albacore and
other tunas (209%), salmon (72%), and flatfishes (30%)
had the largest increases, while greenlings (-15%), barra- cuda, bass and bonito (-9%), and croakers (-4%) had the largest decreases.

MARINE ECONOMY — PACIFIC
REGION
For this report, the marine economy refers to the economic activity generated by fishing and marine-related industries in a coastal state. The national marine economy consists of two industry sectors: 1) seafood sales and processing (employer establishments and non-employer firms); and
2) transport, support, and marine operations (employer
establishments). These sectors include several different marine-related industries.23,24
To measure the size of the commercial fishing sector in a state’s economy relative to the size of the commercial fishing sector in the national economy, researchers use an index called the Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ).25,26 The CFLQ is calculated as the ratio of the per- centage of regional employment in the commercial fishing sector relative to the percentage of national employment in the commercial fishing sector. The United States CFLQ is 1. If a state CFLQ is less than 1, then less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. If a state CFLQ is greater than 1, then more commercial fish- ing occurs in this state than the national average.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics suppressed the CFLQ value for Washington for 2016. Of the remaining states, Oregon had the highest CFLQ at 3.33. California had a CFLQ value of 0.57.

In 2016, 1.2 million employer establishments operated
throughout the entire Pacific Region (including marine and non-marine related establishments). These establishments employed 18.8 million workers and had a total annual
payroll of $1.1 trillion. The combined gross state product of California, Oregon, and Washington was approximately $3.4 trillion in 2016.

Seafood Sales and Processing
Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging: In
2016, the Pacific Region had 253 non-employer firms in
the seafood product preparation and packaging sector (a 25% increase from 2008). Annual receipts for these firms totaled about $21.2 million (a 7% increase in real terms from 2008). There were 144 employer firms in the seafood product preparation and packaging sector (a 12% decrease from 2008). These establishments employed 7,792 work-
ers (an 11% decrease from 2008) and had a total annual
payroll of $457.8 million (a 2% increase in real terms from 2008). The greatest number of establishments in this sector was in California (256), followed by Washington (231) and Oregon (54).
46 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
27 The Census Bureau suppressed number of employees and payroll data for this sector in one or more states in the this region in either 2016 or 2008, and thus cannot be compared.

Seafood Sales, Retail: In 2016, there were 275
non-employer firms engaged in retail sales of seafood
in the states that make up the Pacific Region (a 6%
increase from 2008). Annual receipts for these firms
totaled about $22.7 million (a 15% decrease in real
terms from 2008). There were 231 employer firms in the
retail sales of seafood sector (a 2% increase from 2008).

These establishments employed 1,742 workers (a 28%
increase from 2008) and had a total annual payroll of
$48 million (a 34% increase in real terms from 2008).

The greatest number of establishments in this sector was in California (570), followed by Washington (107) and
Oregon (60).

Seafood Sales, Wholesale: There were 518 employer
firms in the wholesale sales of seafood sector in the Pa- cific Region in 2016 (a 29% increase from 2008). These
establishments employed 5,579 workers, and had a total
annual payroll of $282.8 million.
27 The greatest number
of establishments in this sector was in California (371), followed by Washington (120) and Oregon (27).

Transport, Support, and Marine
Operations
Data for the transport, support, and marine operations
sector of Pacific Region’s economy were largely sup-
pressed for confidentiality reasons. It is clear, however, that these sectors play an important role in the regional economy. For example, in 2016, the ship and boat build- ing sector in the Pacific Region accounted for $901.2 mil- lion in payroll (a 16% decrease in real terms from 2008). 47 National Overview | North Pacific | Pacific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Pacific Region | Regional Summary
Tables | Pacific Region
48 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 The Pacific Region includes landings by Pacific at-sea processors. However, revenue from these landings are not included in the state tables.

Pacific Region | Commercial Fisheries
Total Landings Revenue and Landings Revenue of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Revenue 500,447 501,938 566,579 729,785 674,465 814,834 776,098 557,669 688,918 670,651 Finfish & Other 218,718 170,610 206,161 267,963 252,144 282,370 265,357 203,535 227,249 249,978 Shellfish 281,729 331,327 360,418 461,821 422,321 532,464 510,742 354,134 461,669 420,673 Key Species
Albacore tuna 28,845 27,541 28,780 43,347 45,827 41,930 32,792 29,387 37,744 34,875 Crab 107,107 123,865 132,843 182,085 176,880 249,579 199,222 105,053 216,733 208,778 Flatfish 18,016 16,716 12,828 13,377 13,492 17,417 15,664 16,751 17,791 17,250 Other shellfish 122,905 133,940 134,460 172,541 141,221 166,551 177,487 137,035 156,483 113,633 Pacific hake
(whiting) 58,492 14,104 27,316 52,869 47,054 61,321 58,630 24,109 46,639 60,373 Rockfish 9,257 8,974 9,226 9,446 9,421 9,872 9,820 10,531 9,526 15,031 Sablefish 27,279 34,481 35,977 44,873 28,108 19,559 24,178 28,719 31,346 33,573 Salmon 27,548 25,549 49,534 54,267 48,197 77,754 71,416 48,157 40,453 42,330 Shrimp 25,132 16,594 21,941 40,638 40,326 42,614 61,100 87,556 48,139 29,627 Squid 26,585 56,928 71,173 66,557 63,894 73,720 72,932 24,491 40,315 68,636 Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of pounds) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Landings 1,091,673 899,0431,065,499 1,176,7801,070,0651,255,5941,208,811 747,113 937,751 1,177,043 Finfish & Other 908,242 583,273 652,515 758,522 721,080 850,058 816,757 526,113 719,615 935,607 Shellfish 183,431 315,771 412,984 418,258 348,985 405,537 392,053 221,000 218,136 241,436 Key Species
Albacore tuna 24,507 27,055 25,477 24,284 30,638 28,471 27,247 24,821 23,010 16,431 Crab 45,075 59,158 61,668 66,518 52,860 87,157 52,133 22,745 62,945 60,570 Flatfish 37,852 41,192 33,785 25,959 24,779 29,106 24,188 24,861 26,508 23,618 Other shellfish 17,357 17,513 16,446 17,072 14,819 16,509 17,107 11,805 15,466 8,206 Pacific hake
(whiting) 531,277 253,053 355,216 496,363 347,171 505,614 574,921 333,290 558,047 773,885 Rockfish 9,469 10,458 11,038 9,910 10,406 10,794 10,720 11,913 10,489 27,665 Sablefish 12,978 15,822 15,055 14,139 11,580 9,159 9,633 11,377 11,799 12,194 Salmon 19,503 34,132 31,107 42,224 24,619 56,892 37,187 26,134 18,757 22,376 Shrimp
35,799 33,456 46,191 66,686 66,319 71,505 93,150 105,324 55,017 35,019 Squid 85,200 205,643 288,678 267,983 214,988 230,365 229,664 81,127 84,708 137,641 Average Annual Ex-Vessel Price of Key Species/Species Groups (dollars per pound) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore tuna 1.18 1.02 1.13 1.78 1.50 1.47 1.20 1.18 1.64 2.12 Crab 2.38 2.09 2.15 2.74 3.35 2.86 3.82 4.62 3.44 3.45
Flatfish 0.48 0.41 0.38 0.52 0.54 0.60 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.73 Other shellfish 7.08 7.65 8.18 10.11 9.53 10.09 10.38 11.61 10.12 13.85 Pacific hake
(whiting) 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.08 Rockfish 0.98 0.86 0.84 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.88 0.91 0.54 Sablefish 2.10 2.18 2.39 3.17 2.43 2.14 2.51 2.52 2.66 2.75 Salmon 1.41 0.75 1.59 1.29 1.96 1.37 1.92 1.84 2.16 1.89 Shrimp 0.70 0.50 0.48 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.66 0.83 0.87 0.85 Squid 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.48 0.50 2017 Economic Impacts of the Pacific Seafood Industry (jobs, thousands of dollars) 1 With Imports Without Imports
Landings
Revenue #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added
California 209,846 152,508 28,832,650 6,157,762 10,246,589 14,188 1,191,943 447,758 616,143 Oregon 147,058 15,803 1,357,124 439,829 631,161 13,026 775,319 320,793 430,857 Washington 277,740 64,017 9,290,973 2,411,092 3,708,329 20,051 1,490,096 610,753 830,633 49 National Overview | North P acific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-A tlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 2 In this table, '<1' = 0-999 fish, and '1' = 1,000-1,499 fish. 3 'NA' = not available.

Pacific Region | Recreational Fisheries
Recreational Anglers by Residential Area (thousands of anglers) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Coastal 1,183 1,203 1,297 1,193 1,056 1,382 1,307 1,236 849 966 Non-Coastal 358 336 371 382 346 384 429 426 332 350
Total Anglers 1,541 1,539 1,668 1,575 1,402 1,766 1,736 1,662 1,181 1,316 Recreational Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of angler trips) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
For-Hire 415 442 457 681 689 753 1,085 881 759 784
Private 1,517 2,114 1,726 1,832 1,972 2,070 1,991 1,876 1,341 1,940 Shore 3,859 4,345 3,770 3,791 4,973 4,859 4,352 3,131 3,123 3,119 Total Trips 5,791 6,901 5,953 6,304 7,634 7,682 7,427 5,888 5,223 5,843 Harvest (H) and Release (R) of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of fish)1,2,3 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore and
other tunas
H 59 90 80 54 151 108 188 272 109 338
R 2 2 < 1 < 1 2 1 4 8 < 1 1
Barracuda,
bass and
bonito
H 411 387 389 425 354 153 384 367 276 254
R 1,127 1,236 998 747 792 1,173 1,727 1,277 1,674 1,515 Croakers H 355 499 248 132 302 201 168 110 151 151
R 242 290 270 93 185 229 148 123 148 136
Flatfishes H 368 367 416 607 559 711 992 404 357 386
R 351 250 277 221 295 453 341 241 200 340
Greenlings H 164 178 194 276 309 362 393 458 419 379
R 137 172 199 288 294 268 261 255 261 203
Mackerel H 1,908 1,357 1,176 1,108
836 573 1,017 1,681 1,010 1,419
R 827 664 581 532 409 332 728 533 591 772
Rockfishes and
scorpionfishes
H 1,935 2,230 2,223 2,904 3,448 3,904 4,045 3,884 3,483 3,665 R 367 386 466 576 652 903 838 788 734 892
Salmon H 47 243 111 143 224 236 356 189 84 144

R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sculpins H 68 59 52 95 70 66 60 62 58 53
R 218 198 199 234 226 300 200 187 180 187
Surfperches H 937 788 721 1,075 1,279 1,060 1,244 1,477 1,072 1,126 R 714 670 383 874 1,144 979 1,162 1,072 681 861
2017 Angler Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Fishing Mode Trip Expenditures
For-Hire 275,797
Private Boat 391,418
Shore 249,523
Total 916,739
Equipment Durable Goods Expenditures
Fishing Tackle 506,447
Other Equipment 255,408
Boat Expenses 1,163,688
Vehicle Expenses 290,592
Second Home Expenses 4,327
Total Durable Expenditures 2,220,464
Total State Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures 3,137,203 2017 Economic Impacts of the Pacific Recreational Fishing Expenditures (thousands of dollars, trips) Trips #Jobs Sales Income Value Added
California 3,542 19,750 2,483,373 976,025 1,567,340
Oregon 693 3,548 364,171 156,642 238,219
Washington 1,608 9,533 1,198,318 458,671 766,018

California | Commercial Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of the California Seafood Industry (thousands of dollars) With Imports Without Imports
#Jobs Sales Income Value
Added #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added
Total Impacts 152,508 28,832,650 6,157,762 10,246,589 14,188 1,191,943 447,758 616,143 Commercial Harvesters 3,917 423,090 144,567 212,334 3,917 423,090 144,567 212,334 Seafood Processors
& Dealers 5,246 614,206 227,752 302,205 1,622 189,904 70,418 93,438 Importers 69,369 21,847,058 3,501,408 6,659,940 0 0 0 0 Seafood Wholesalers
& Distributors 13,732 2,216,363 718,878 1,004,322 556 89,742 29,108 40,666 Retail 60,245 3,731,934 1,565,157 2,067,789 8,093 489,207 203,666 269,706 Total Landings Revenue and Landings Revenue of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of dollars)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Revenue 120,861 159,253 187,263 222,160 243,963 266,488 253,768 129,143 216,139 209,846 Finfish & Other 48,671 47,738 45,558 59,289 57,103 66,416 61,163 54,526 50,101 53,850 Shellfish 72,190 111,515 141,704 162,871 186,860 200,071 192,605 74,617 166,038 155,996 Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Crab 24,227 32,508 43,016 53,762 88,207 91,851 70,563 20,467 85,620 49,498 Pacific sardine 7,575 5,544 4,366 4,398 4,249 1,510 2,003 343 95 61 Rockfish 5,781 5,330 5,453 5,644 5,170 5,748 5,604 5,797 5,400 6,812 Sablefish 6,224 9,765 11,491 15,121 8,988 7,047 8,945 8,870 8,804 9,039 Salmon 6 NA 1,215 5,096 12,850 22,957 12,127 8,058 5,277 4,794 Sea urchins 6,550 7,806 7,413 8,102 8,320 9,832 9,057 6,879 7,269 6,373 Shrimp 5,696 5,462 4,951 8,598 8,492 9,520 11,791 13,769 11,107 9,644 Spiny lobster 8,008 7,934 11,386 12,972 13,749 13,842 18,238 15,806 13,731 13,333 Squid 26,477 56,877 71,165 66,546 63,886 73,701 72,903 24,458 39,194 68,635 Swordfish 2,365 1,932 2,203 3,350 2,090 2,699 3,049 3,628 3,717 3,890 Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of pounds)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Landings 323,884 376,053 439,440 409,837 353,875 364,790 361,290 186,418 176,403 214,663 Finfish & Other 224,763 148,478 120,700 108,999 102,261 90,128 98,771 89,788 59,908 56,768 Shellfish 99,121 227,575 318,740 300,838 251,614 274,661 262,518 96,630 116,495 157,896 Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Crab 9,845 16,660 23,352 22,206 27,589 33,094 20,888 5,412 28,135 14,288 Pacific sardine 126,945 82,842 73,814 60,993 50,660 15,636 17,112 3,724 913 744 Rockfish 3,933 3,984 3,949 3,450 3,457 3,862 3,555 3,239 2,530 3,200 Sablefish 3,507 5,089 5,501 5,646 3,916 3,291 3,960 4,033 3,858 3,816 Salmon 1 NA 255 1,133 2,862 4,337 2,558 1,339 709 568
Sea urchins 10,283 12,205 11,230 11,465 11,443 12,945 11,833 8,106 5,885 4,183 Shrimp 3,011 3,596 4,522 8,217 7,255 9,712 9,873 9,443 4,818 4,443 Spiny lobster 741 706 716 751 876 764 951 768 680 703
Squid 84,071 205,278 288,497 267,890 214,867 230,061 229,466 80,968 81,751 137,483 Swordfish 1,168 898 815 1,365 887 1,174 1,252 1,358 1,364 1,482 Average Annual Ex-Vessel Price of Key Species/Species Groups (dollars per pound)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Crab 2.46 1.95 1.84 2.42 3.20 2.78 3.38 3.78 3.04 3.46
Pacific sardine 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.08 Rockfish 1.47 1.34 1.38 1.64 1.50 1.49 1.58 1.79 2.13 2.13 Sablefish 1.77 1.92 2.09 2.68 2.29 2.14 2.26 2.20 2.28 2.37 Salmon 4.16 NA 4.76 4.50 4.49 5.29 4.74 6.02 7.44 8.44
Sea urchins 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.85 1.24 1.52 Shrimp 1.89 1.52 1.09 1.05 1.17 0.98 1.19 1.46 2.31 2.17 Spiny lobster 10.80 11.24 15.91 17.27 15.69 18.11 19.17 20.59 20.19 18.96 Squid 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.48 0.50 Swordfish 2.03 2.15 2.70 2.46 2.36 2.30 2.44 2.67 2.72 2.62 53 National Overview | North P acific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-A tlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 Pacific recreational catch and effort estimates are based on multiple data sources. See data sources section. 2 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 3 In this table, '<1' = 0-999 fish, and '1' = 1,000-1,499 fish. 4 'NA' = not available.
5 This species may not be equivalent to species with similar names listed in the commercial tables. 6 Salmon include Chinook salmon and coho salmon.
7 Salmon harvest estimates exclude release mortality.

California | Recreational Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of California Recreational Fishing Expenditures (thousands of dollars) #Jobs Sales Income Value Added
Trip Impacts
by Fishing Mode
For-Hire 3,264 366,220 140,152 224,213
Private Boat 895 140,953 46,545 88,474
Shore 2,152 287,571 102,841 185,787
Total Durable Expenditures 13,439 1,688,629 686,487 1,068,866 Total State Economic Impacts 19,750 2,483,373 976,025 1,567,340 Recreational Anglers by Residential Area (thousands of anglers) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Coastal 913 812 992 863 722 1,024 964 893 591 576
Non-Coastal 215 177 220 230 190 222 264 263 182 189
Out-of-State 82 206 221 183 215 87 94 121 96 77
Total Anglers 1,210 1,195 1,433 1,276 1,127 1,333 1,322 1,277 869 842 Recreational Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of angler trips) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
For-Hire 305 308 334 554 557 613 929 727 632 636
Private 640 681 690 683 800 786 785 676 522 533
Shore 3,113 3,599 3,024 3,045 4,227 4,113 3,606 2,385 2,377 2,373 Total Trips 4,058 4,588 4,048 4,282 5,585 5,512 5,320 3,787 3,531 3,542 Harvest (H) and Release (R) of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of fish)1,2,3,4 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore and
other tunas
H 13 23 11 9 37 32 65 158 24 291
R 2 2 < 1 < 1 2 1 4 8 < 1 1
Barracuda,
bass and
bonito
5 H 411 387 389 425 354 153 384 367 276 254
R 1,127 1,236 998 747 792 1,173 1,727 1,277 1,674 1,515 Croakers H 355 499 248 132 302 201 168 110 151 151
R 242 290 270 93 185 229 148 123 148 136
Flatfishes H 298 300 351 541 490 640 921 333 280 295
R 303 199 231 175 248 405 294 193 153 293
Greenlings H 48 63 60 123 143 176 229 286 250 197
R 53 84 92 169 183 160 169 153 156 110
Mackerel H 1,907 1,357 1,176 1,108 835 572 1,016 1,681 1,010 1,419 R 827 664 581 532 409 331 728 532 591 772
Rockfishes
and scorpion-
fishes
H 1,445 1,670 1,639 2,379 2,871 3,229 3,326 3,000 2,650 2,869 R 311 320 383 506 583 823 752 674 635 760
Salmon
6,7 H < 1 < 1 15 50 124 116 75 38 38 62

R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sculpins H 37 27 19 62 39 37 32 34 30 19
R 69 50 47 82 74 147 48 35 29 33
Surfperches H 685 537 470 823 1,027 809 992 1,226 817 871 R 554 510 223 714 984 819 1,002 912 520 700
2017 Angler Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Fishing Mode Trip Expenditures
For-Hire 211,542
Private Boat 93,861
Shore 183,361
Total 488,765
Equipment Durable Goods Expenditures
Fishing Tackle 357,031
Other Equipment 177,628
Boat Expenses 568,641
Vehicle Expenses 179,852
Second Home Expenses 0
Total Durable Expenditures 1,283,153
Total State Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures 1,771,918 54 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 The U.S. Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ) is 1. A CFLQ greater than 1 indicates that more commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. A CFLQ less than 1 indicates that less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average.

California | Marine Economy
2016 California State Economy (% of national total)
#Non-Employer
Firms #Establishments #Employees
Annual
Payroll
($ billions)
Employee
Compensation
($ billions)
Gross State
Product
($ billions)
Commercial
Fishing
Location
Quotient1
3,277,415 (13.2%)922,477 (11.9%)14,600,349 (11.5%) 887 (13.8%) 1,378 (13.8%) 2,667 0.57 Seafood Sales and Processing — Non-Employer Firms (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Firms 139 159 184 187 151 157 164 169 174
Receipts 11,460 10,852 9,695 9,788 9,283 9,866 11,112 12,978 14,725 Seafood sales,
retail
Firms 210 202 203 209 236 218 227 221 228
Receipts 19,892 17,095 19,021 18,006 18,238 18,581 17,055 17,896 19,375 Seafood Sales and Processing — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Establishments 45 47 48 48 41 44 53 48 41
Employees 2,024 2,167 1,820 1,842 1,668 1,871 1,799 1,661 1,549 Payroll 65,215 69,529 62,480 60,411 52,977 57,603 60,762 59,829 64,374 Seafood sales,
wholesale
Establishments 278 289 314 404 275 320 341 349 371
Employees 3,321 3,183 3,223 3,505 3,441 3,671 3,912 4,170 4,250 Payroll 132,139 128,813 137,810 149,302 173,959 181,698 175,927 201,903 212,079 Seafood sales,
retail
Establishments 161 153 158 157 149 155 167 170 171
Employees 932 976 985 1,088 1,043 1,119 1,124 1,208 1,272 Payroll 20,585 21,785 22,718 25,168 24,221 26,702 28,044 28,437 31,722 Transport, Support and Marine Operations — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ship and Boat
Building
Establishments 136 123 117 108 120 113 108 103 104
Employees 11,630 10,483 9,720 9,165 12,681 12,651 9,814 11,379 11,236 Payroll 477,300 460,239 448,338 434,449 544,819 537,438 534,787 583,717 548,198 Deep Sea Freight
Transportation
Establishments 43 41 54 51 45 34 43 56 45
Employees ds ds 2,562 2,464 2,431 2,073 2,467 2,554 2,399 Payroll ds ds 236,235 256,962 236,423 218,054 187,383 235,546 230,946 Deep Sea Pas-
senger Transpor-
tation
Establishments 5 5 3 2 2 4 5 6 7
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Coastal and Great
Lakes Freight
Transportation
Establishments 28 30 25 21 22 24 30 34 32
Employees ds ds 554 395 ds ds ds 851 759
Payroll ds ds
30,431 24,708 ds ds ds 70,978 62,151
Port and Harbor
Operations
Establishments 17 19 21 19 59 31 33 30 30
Employees 256 345 435 508 ds 651 535 570 742
Payroll 23,316 26,889 37,560 41,688 ds 52,401 33,599 40,887 46,859 Marine Cargo
Handling
Establishments 61 62 63 71 38 64 64 67 70
Employees 22,086 17,428 18,449 18,812 18,759 ds ds 18,859 20,694 Payroll1,453,2811,211,5721,273,2681,333,8051,351,874 ds ds 1,761,2841,898,249 Navigational Ser-
vices to Shipping
Establishments 40 39 41 45 35 36 37 38 37
Employees 815 804 765 760 800 805 634 587 1,221
Payroll 65,225 61,720 58,899 62,065 61,166 67,665 59,927 60,228 68,514 Marinas
Establishments 277 276 270 269 251 250 249 258 243
Employees 2,652 2,514 2,390 2,401 2,237 2,199 2,332 2,439 2,432 Payroll 85,315 78,890 80,631 82,958 71,777 72,737 79,840 84,427 86,510
Tables | Oregon
56 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 NA = these data are confidential and therefore not disclosable.

Oregon | Commercial Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of the Oregon Seafood Industry (thousands of dollars) With Imports Without Imports
#Jobs Sales Income Value
Added #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added
Total Impacts 15,803 1,357,124 439,829 631,161 13,026 775,319 320,793 430,857 Commercial Harvesters 4,546 279,594 115,806 163,240 4,546 279,594 115,806 163,240 Seafood Processors
& Dealers 1,813 175,848 67,536 88,240 1,297 125,782 48,308 63,117 Importers 1,482 466,665 74,792 142,260 0 0 0 0
Seafood Wholesalers
& Distributors 681 92,989 31,545 42,310 392 53,600 18,183 24,388 Retail 7,281 342,027 150,149 195,111 6,790 316,344 138,496 180,113 Total Landings Revenue and Landings Revenue of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of dollars)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Revenue 103,042 106,959 106,378 148,354 128,222 179,215 158,080 113,990 151,707 147,058 Finfish & Other 56,912 52,750 58,730 76,718 72,329 81,445 78,214 60,860 64,925 71,673 Shellfish 46,130 54,210 47,648 71,636 55,893 97,770 79,866 53,130 86,782 75,385 Key Species - - - - - - - - -
Albacore tuna 10,666 10,191 12,425 18,766 15,168 16,085 11,023 9,212 12,502 10,803 Crab 29,168 42,413 32,757 44,696 29,189 71,208 48,149 11,935 55,737 58,728 Flatfish 9,163 8,468 6,861 6,779 7,315 9,854 8,651 9,765 10,716 10,418 Oysters 2,748 4,506 3,317 1,869 1,661 1,798 1,774 NA 3,615 3,102 Pacific hake
(whiting) 6,830 3,783 5,414 16,518 14,611 20,405 18,274 7,146 8,601 16,369 Pacific sardine 5,665 5,291 5,252 3,192 8,979 6,299 3,522 813 0 NA Rockfish 2,610 2,500 2,520 2,473 2,661 3,023 3,246 3,744 3,589 7,419 Sablefish 13,737 15,919 15,069 17,351 11,530 7,595 8,076 12,807 15,086 15,508 Salmon 4,166 3,546 7,698 6,737 6,950 12,422 20,115 11,864 8,311 5,549 Shrimp 14,056 6,994 11,313 24,901 24,848 24,430 29,605 40,634 25,245 12,859 Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of pounds)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Landings 195,688 199,458 201,974 274,533 296,091 339,589 291,655 194,575 209,486 296,485 Finfish & Other 155,837 154,147 153,588 208,445 237,822 265,454 227,318 138,601 153,909 253,358 Shellfish 39,851 45,310 48,386 66,088 58,269 74,136 64,337 55,974 55,578 43,127 Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Albacore tuna 8,876 10,082 10,703 9,682 9,938 10,209 8,767 7,574 7,250 4,744 Crab 13,875 21,848 15,817 17,240 8,681 26,016 11,910 2,284 15,702 18,965 Flatfish 23,842 26,047 22,226 15,957 15,322 18,965 15,955 16,722 18,640 18,380 Oysters 162 1,127 829 467 415 449 443 NA 743 560
Pacific hake
(whiting) 55,511 53,466 57,017 142,092 102,651 160,098 161,589 88,728 98,003 198,643 Pacific sardine 49,298 45,902 44,743 23,479 91,459 57,022 16,938 4,688 2 NA Rockfish 3,820 4,207 4,533 3,819 3,918 4,745 5,293 6,628 6,324 19,680 Sablefish 6,514
7,219 6,269 5,074 4,739 3,840 3,293 5,002 5,502 5,490
Salmon 1,860 2,311 2,765 2,386 1,918 3,505 6,373 3,142 1,838 1,190 Shrimp 25,433 22,085 31,516 48,276 49,054 47,535 51,835 53,457 35,344 23,079 Average Annual Ex-Vessel Price of Key Species/Species Groups (dollars per pound)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore tuna 1.20 1.01 1.16 1.94 1.53 1.58 1.26 1.22 1.72 2.28 Crab 2.10 1.94 2.07 2.59 3.36 2.74 4.04 5.22 3.55 3.10
Flatfish 0.38 0.33 0.31 0.42 0.48 0.52 0.54 0.58 0.57 0.57 Oysters 16.96 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 NA 4.87 5.53 Pacific hake
(whiting) 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.08 Pacific sardine 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.17 0.18 NA Rockfish 0.68 0.59 0.56 0.65 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.56 0.57 0.38 Sablefish 2.11 2.21 2.40 3.42 2.43 1.98 2.45 2.56 2.74 2.82 Salmon 2.24 1.53 2.78 2.82 3.62 3.54 3.16 3.78 4.52 4.66 Shrimp 0.55 0.32 0.36 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.57 0.76 0.71 0.56 57 National Overview | North P acific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-A tlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 Pacific recreational catch and effort estimates are based on multiple data sources. See data sources section. 2 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 3 In this table, '<1' = 0-999 fish, and '1' = 1,000-1,499 fish. 4 'NA' = not available.
5 This species may not be equivalent to species with similar names listed in the commercial tables. 6 Salmon include Chinook salmon and coho salmon.
7 Salmon harvest estimates exclude release mortality.

Oregon | Recreational Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of Oregon Recreational Fishing Expenditures (thousands of dollars) #Jobs Sales Income Value Added
Trip Impacts by
Fishing Mode
For-Hire 414 38,671 13,597 22,904
Private Boat 720 73,733 30,371 46,868
Shore 256 25,803 10,342 16,107
Total Durable Expenditures 2,158 225,964 102,332 152,340 Total State Economic Impacts 3,548 364,171 156,642 238,219 Recreational Anglers by Residential Area (thousands of anglers) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Coastal 79 85 83 82 86 90 92 90 86 87
Non-Coastal 121 129 126 125 129 134 137 135 129 130
Out-of-State 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15
Total Anglers 214 229 224 222 230 240 245 241 230 232
Recreational Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of angler trips) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
For-Hire 48 55 51 51 57 64 67 71 63 65
Private 357 402 385 380 402 424 440 416 388 395
Shore 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 233
Total Trips 638 690 669 664 692 721 740 720 684 693
Harvest (H) and Release (R) of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of fish)1,2,3,4 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore
tuna
H 24 42 38 29 63 22 48 35 37 16
R < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Baitfishes H 221 221 223 221 220 220 221 221 220 220
R 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Flatfishes H 20 16 14 15 17 18 15 17 18 33
R 8 9 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 6
Greenlings H 92 90 99 108 120 142 119 130 114 128
70 72 82 88 85 90 74 85 84 81
Rockfishes5 H 266 317 332 251 278 361 376 516 443 503
R 30 36 44 34 33 42 42 75 56 89
Salmon6,7 H 14 91 23 24 35 45 118 38 13 26

R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sculpins H 16 16 16 16 15 14 12 13 13 18
R 58 58 61 61 61 63 60 60 61 63
Sturgeon H 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
R 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Surfperches H 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118
R 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
2017 Angler Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Fishing Mode Trip Expenditures
For-Hire 25,117
Private Boat 65,026
Shore 21,697
Total 111,840
Equipment Durable Goods Expenditures
Fishing Tackle 50,323
Other Equipment 28,045
Boat Expenses 83,900
Vehicle Expenses 64,924
Second Home Expenses 4,327
Total Durable Expenditures 231,520
Total State Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures 343,360 58 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 The U.S. Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ) is 1. A CFLQ greater than 1 indicates that more commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. A CFLQ less than 1 indicates that less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. 2 ds = Data are suppressed.

Oregon | Marine Economy
2016 Oregon State Economy (% of national total)
#Non-Employer
Firms #Establishments #Employees
Annual
Payroll
($ billions)
Employee
Compensation
($ billions)
Gross State
Product
($ billions)
Commercial
Fishing
Location
Quotient1
286,538 (1.2%) 114,551 (1.5%) 1,551,192 (1.2%) 74.1 (1.2%) 118 (1.2%) 231 3.33 Seafood Sales and Processing — Non-Employer Firms (thousands of dollars)2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Firms 19 15 15 16 14 11 11 12 14
Receipts 957 466 510 467 346 319 484 1,088 1,776
Seafood sales,
retail
Firms 16 12 15 16 11 ds 16 15 14
Receipts 2,101 1,140 1,907 1,896 1,600 ds 1,036 841 1,379 Seafood Sales and Processing — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Establishments 23 20 21 22 18 19 20 20 20
Employees 850 812 806 805 934 907 980 916 989
Payroll 27,616 26,202 27,007 32,438 31,970 37,265 39,290 41,181 42,832 Seafood sales,
wholesale
Establishments 18 19 22 27 21 19 22 24 27
Employees ds ds ds ds 180 189 192 196 187
Payroll ds ds ds ds 7,602 8,065 8,601 9,121 9,892
Seafood sales,
retail
Establishments 21 23 21 20 18 20 23 25 23
Employees 178 151 162 163 126 147 170 181 174
Payroll 3,370 3,515 3,651 3,613 2,851 4,238 4,440 4,951 5,239 Transport, Support and Marine Operations — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ship and Boat
Building
Establishments 41 35 34 34 33 32 30 29 26
Employees 1,692 1,886 980 1,179 1,504 1,406 ds 1,506 1,278 Payroll 74,583 90,446 42,004 55,068 77,718 79,913 ds 94,956 83,079 Deep Sea Freight
Transportation
Establishments 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Coastal and Great
Lakes Freight
Transportation
Establishments 8 9 8 8 8 7 8 8 12
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 437 506
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 40,746 47,896
Port and Harbor
Operations
Establishments 1 1 3 3 10 5 5 5 5
Employees ds ds ds ds 90 ds ds 49 45
Payroll ds ds ds ds 6,512
ds ds 3,437 2,686
Marine Cargo
Handling
Establishments 13 13 12 13 5 8 7 7 6
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds ds 0 0
Navigational Ser-
vices to Shipping
Establishments 20 17 18 18 20 15 15 15 17
Employees 200 189 144 152 176 81 67 74 69
Payroll 11,808 10,154 9,577 9,592 12,219 6,534 3,958 3,998 4,789 Marinas
Establishments 37 33 30 33 32 34 34 36 35
Employees 106 109 102 102 119 104 113 119 137
Payroll 2,178 2,602 2,290 2,382 3,034 3,148 3,584 3,643 3,550 Tables | Washington
60 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Washington | Commercial Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of the Washington Seafood Industry (thousands of dollars) With Imports Without Imports
#Jobs Sales Income Value
Added #Jobs Sales Income Value
Added
Total Impacts 64,017 9,290,973 2,411,092 3,708,329 20,051 1,490,096 610,753 830,633 Commercial Harvesters 5,818 556,076 231,772 330,152 5,818 556,076 231,772 330,152 Seafood Processors
& Dealers 17,742 1,925,187 723,072 956,875 2,195 238,215 89,470 118,400 Importers 16,894 5,320,487 852,709 1,621,917 0 0 0 0
Seafood Wholesalers
& Distributors 2,738 401,588 134,548 183,568 730 107,039 35,862 48,928 Retail 20,825 1,087,636 468,990 615,817 11,307 588,766 253,649 333,153 Total Landings Revenue and Landings Revenue of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Revenue 232,841 227,773 255,332 329,785 275,585 335,450 329,109 299,952 287,543 277,740 Finfish & Other 69,445 62,173 84,269 102,481 96,026 100,844 90,855 73,583 78,694 88,448 Shellfish 163,396 165,600 171,063 227,305 179,560 234,606 238,254 226,368 208,849 189,292 Key Species - - - - - - - - -
Albacore tuna 17,225 16,390 14,575 22,253 28,440 24,745 21,177 19,961 24,769 23,494 Clams 64,142 72,647 73,625 88,774 69,445 83,788 83,643 75,342 82,882 67,021 Crab 53,712 48,944 57,070 83,627 59,485 86,520 80,509 72,651 75,376 100,553 Halibut 7,525 4,879 5,764 6,740 6,122 4,929 6,985 6,199 6,896 6,795 Mussels 5,293 4,851 4,318 4,740 6,065 9,253 6,830 7,704 6,452 2,465 Oysters 34,794 34,993 30,370 43,021 37,576 46,378 47,555 37,507 32,353 12,125 Pacific hake
(whiting) 7,249 2,334 4,105 7,183 5,882 7,452 5,431 2,563 4,509 7,996 Sablefish 7,312 8,796 9,402 12,378 7,578 4,888 7,098 7,020 7,456 9,025 Salmon 23,376 22,003 40,622 42,434 28,398 42,376 39,174 28,235 26,866 31,987 Shrimp 5,380 4,139 5,677 7,140 6,986 8,664 19,704 33,152 11,786 7,124 Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of pounds) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Landings 173,176 163,937 189,486 210,282 213,578 263,639 191,391 153,568 168,136 215,976 Finfish & Other 128,825 121,060 143,705 159,034 174,597 207,194 126,364 85,300 122,279 175,718 Shellfish 44,351 42,877 45,782 51,248 38,982 56,445 65,027 68,268 45,856 40,258 Key Species - - - - - - - - - -
Albacore tuna 14,801 16,112 13,148 13,209 19,275 17,552 18,039 17,133 15,500 11,421 Clams 4,071 4,267 3,876 4,038 3,677 3,978 4,320 4,262 3,355 2,126 Crab 21,355 20,651 22,500 27,072 16,590 28,046 19,335 15,048 19,109 27,317 Halibut 2,055 1,731 1,371 1,301 1,295 1,065 1,284 1,157 1,370 1,433 Mussels 593 568 589 547 559 734 579 600 2,790 227
Oysters 10,258 9,386 8,650 9,389 8,143 9,420 9,329 5,911 5,748 3,071 Pacific hake
(whiting) 67,159 36,378 58,900 73,494 38,524 58,696 49,654 32,977 77,808 128,888 Sablefish 2,954 3,514 3,277 3,410 2,916 2,006 2,345 2,317 2,391 2,661 Salmon 17,641 31,821 28,086 38,706 19,839 49,050 28,256 21,654 16,211 20,618 Shrimp 7,355 7,775 10,153 10,193 10,009 14,259 31,441 42,423 14,855 7,496 Average Annual Ex-Vessel Price of Key Species/Species Groups (dollars per pound) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore tuna 1.16 1.02 1.11 1.68 1.48 1.41 1.17 1.17 1.60 2.06 Clams 15.76 17.03 18.99 21.98 18.89 21.06 19.36 17.68 24.70 31.53 Crab 2.52 2.37 2.54 3.09 3.59 3.08 4.16 4.83 3.94 3.68
Halibut 3.66 2.82 4.20 5.18 4.73 4.63 5.44 5.36 5.03 4.74 Mussels 8.93 8.54 7.33 8.66 10.85 12.60 11.79 12.85 2.31 10.88 Oysters 3.39 3.73 3.51 4.58 4.61 4.92 5.10 6.34 5.63 3.95 Pacific hake
(whiting) 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.06 Sablefish 2.48 2.50 2.87 3.63 2.60 2.44 3.03 3.03 3.12 3.39 Salmon 1.33 0.69 1.45 1.10 1.43 0.86 1.39 1.30 1.66 1.55 Shrimp 0.73 0.53 0.56 0.70 0.70 0.61 0.63 0.78 0.79 0.95 61 National Overview | North P acific | Pacific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-A tlantic | South A tlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 Pacific recreational catch and effort estimates are based on multiple data sources. See data sources section. 2 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 3 In this table, '<1' = 0-999 fish, and '1' = 1,000-1,499 fish. 4 'NA' = not available.
5 This species may not be equivalent to species with similar names listed in the commercial tables. 6 Salmon include Chinook salmon and coho salmon.
7 Salmon harvest estimates exclude release mortality.
8 Sturgeon harvest data is not available for some years.

Washington | Recreational Fisheries
2017 Economic Impacts of Washington Recreational Fishing Expenditures (thousands of dollars) #Jobs Sales Income Value Added
Trip Impacts
by Fishing Mode
For-Hire 606 63,000 21,720 37,514
Private Boat 2,133 310,044 101,224 185,541
Shore 480 61,608 21,650 39,028
Total Durable Expenditures 6,314 763,666 314,077 503,935 Total State Economic Impacts 9,533 1,198,318 458,671 766,018 Recreational Anglers by Residential Area (thousands of anglers) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Coastal 191 306 222 248 248 268 251 253 172 303
Non-Coastal 22 30 25 27 27 28 28 28 21 31
Out-of-State 17 24 19 21 21 22 22 22 17 24
Total Anglers 230 360 266 296 296 318 301 303 210 358
Recreational Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of angler trips) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
For-Hire 62 79 72 76 75 76 88 83 64 83
Private 520 1,031 651 770 770 860 766 784 431 1,012
Shore 513 513 513 513 513 513 513 513 513 513
Total Trips 1,095 1,623 1,236 1,358 1,358 1,449 1,367 1,381 1,008 1,608 Harvest (H) and Release (R) of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands of fish)1,2,3,4 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Albacore tuna H 22 25 31 15 51 54 75 79 47 30
R < 1 0 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Baitfishes H 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 2,486 R 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126
Flatfishes H 50 51 50 51 52 53 55 54 59 58
R 40 42 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 41
Greenlings H 24 26 35 46 46 44 45 42 56 54
R 14 16 25 31 25 19 18 17 21 12
Rockfishes5 H 179 198 208 229 253 268 298 322 345 247
R 9 13 22 18 18 21 26 23 25 26
Salmon6,7 H 34 151 73 69 65 75 163 114 33 56

R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sculpins H 15 16 16 17 16 16 16 16 16 16
R 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Sharks and skates H < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 R 7 5 3 1 3 2 4 4 3 3
Sturgeon8 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Surfperches H 134 133 133 133 134 134 134 133 137 137
R 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 123 122
2017 Angler Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Fishing Mode Trip Expenditures
For-Hire 39,138
Private Boat 232,531
Shore 44,465
Total 316,134
Equipment Durable Goods Expenditures
Fishing Tackle 99,093
Other Equipment 49,735
Boat Expenses 511,147
Vehicle Expenses 45,816
Second Home Expenses 0
Total Durable Expenditures 705,791
Total State Trip and Durable Goods Expenditures 1,021,925 62 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid- Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 ds = Data are suppressed.
2 The U.S. Commercial Fishing Location Quotient (CFLQ) is 1. A CFLQ greater than 1 indicates that more commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average. A CFLQ less than 1 indicates that less commercial fishing occurs in this state than the national average.

Washington | Marine Economy
2016 Washington State Economy (% of national total)1
#Non-Employer
Firms #Establishments #Employees
Annual
Payroll
($ billions)
Employee
Compensation
($ billions)
Gross State
Product
($ billions)
Commercial
Fishing
Location
Quotient2
459,590 (1.9%) 186,164 (2.4%) 2,685,355 (2.1%) 157 (2.4%) 250 (2.5%) 489 ds Seafood Sales and Processing — Non-Employer Firms (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Firms 44 47 39 37 42 42 51 59 65
Receipts 5,167 5,022 4,228 3,859 4,377 4,094 5,270 3,555 4,697 Seafood sales,
retail
Firms 33 42 30 34 42 41 36 35 33
Receipts 1,807 2,462 1,273 2,370 1,871 3,017 2,559 2,071 1,991 Seafood Sales and Processing — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seafood product
prep. & packaging
Establishments 96 86 93 90 90 86 90 85 83
Employees 5,893 4,860 5,296 5,387 6,118 6,224 5,945 5,753 5,254 Payroll 306,213 232,543 254,592 293,112 326,827 315,379 329,739 325,389 350,599 Seafood sales,
wholesale
Establishments 107 108 105 107 101 116 119 118 120
Employees 996 1,103 970 911 1,085 999 1,098 1,077 1,142 Payroll 48,251 48,044 45,871 45,543 51,508 49,683 52,761 54,339 60,854 Seafood sales,
retail
Establishments 44 43 47 44 40 35 33 39 37
Employees 247 239 282 253 256 266 276 279 296
Payroll 7,947 8,324 9,098 7,786 8,210 9,069 9,938 10,865 11,059 Transport, Support and Marine Operations — Employer Establishments (thousands of dollars)1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ship and Boat
Building
Establishments 169 162 152 135 141 138 131 143 129
Employees 8,067 6,710 5,406 5,232 5,294 5,387 5,060 4,653 4,930 Payroll 402,253 312,240 284,759 276,402 290,400 273,825 262,730 265,732 269,879 Deep Sea Freight
Transportation
Establishments 21 25 20 14 12 8 8 8 5
Employees 263 305 209 ds ds 200 204 194 170
Payroll 24,843 28,897 24,711 ds 14,014 14,892 14,991 13,981 13,822 Deep Sea Pas-
senger Transpor-
tation
Establishments 4 5 4 2 2 5 4 6 4
Employees ds ds ds ds ds ds 1,412 1,277 1,151
Payroll ds ds ds ds ds ds 54,346 73,134 72,462
Coastal and Great
Lakes Freight
Transportation
Establishments 24 24 30 28 28 35 38 35 41
Employees 2,222 2,245 1,731 1,684 1,557 2,186 2,020 1,879 1,956 Payroll 168,832 168,783 130,398 132,068 126,401 170,003 163,075 162,635 163,240 Port and Harbor
Operations
Establishments 11 11 9 9 48 28 27 23 23
Employees 111 118 74 75 1,509 181 304 250 226
Payroll 6,359 6,437 4,662 4,937 85,042 11,894 16,449 14,278 14,169 Marine Cargo
Handling
Establishments 25 27 26 32 13 30 29 30 30
Employees 4,821 2,953 ds 3,910 ds ds ds 3,966 4,143
Payroll 334,193 239,490 ds 323,286 ds ds ds 424,469 436,086 Navigational Ser-
vices to Shipping
Establishments 76 69 79 78 72 73 71 68 76
Employees 1,213 1,168 1,225 1,207 ds ds 1,297 1,176 1,175 Payroll 100,542 102,934 102,766 94,781 ds ds 101,251 88,363 88,045 Marinas
Establishments 116 110 117 114 100 110 106 102 97
Employees 573 570 560 517 479 529 530 588 525
Payroll 18,931 18,811 18,783 18,364 18,038 18,914 20,348 21,944 21,809 Western Pacific Region
• Hawaiʻi
An opah (fish) found at the Honolulu Fish Auction.

Photo: NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology/Noelle Olsen 64 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 1 This stock is fished by U.S. and international fleets. 2 The geographic boundary of this stock extends from Mexico south and west to the Palmyra Atoll.

Western Pacific Region | Regional Summary

MANAGEMENT CONTEXT
The U.S. Pacific Islands Region includes the state of Ha- wai‘i; the territories of American Samoa and Guam; the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI);
and the Pacific Remote Island Areas. Federal fisheries in this region are managed by the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council (WPFMC) and NOAA Fisheries under
five fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs). These plans focus
on place-based rather than species- or fishery-based
management.

Western Pacific Fishery Ecosystem Plans
• American Samoa
• Hawai‘i
• Mariana Archipela-
go (Guam and the
CNMI)
• Pacific Remote
Island Areas
• Western Pacific
Pelagics
Three of the stocks or stock complexes covered in these FMPs were listed as overfished in 2017: Pacific bluefin tuna (Pacific stock),
1 striped marlin (Western and Central
Pacific stock),1 and seamount groundfish complex (Han-
cock seamount stock).1 Bluefin tuna (Western Atlantic)
was removed from the overfished list because the stock’s overfished status was determined to be unknown. Four
stocks/complexes were subject to overfishing in 2017:

Pacific bluefin tuna (Pacific stock),1 swordfish (Eastern Pacific stock),1,2 striped marlin (Western and Central Pa- cific stock), and bigeye tuna (Western and Central Pacific stock).
1 Because fishery data are limited in most of these areas, only information for the Hawai‘i and Western Pacific
Pelagics fisheries is reported here. No catch share pro- grams operate in this region.

Hawai‘i FEP: NOAA Fisheries, the WPFMC, and the State
of Hawai‘i collaborate to manage fisheries across the Ha- wai‘i Archipelago. The major fisheries in Hawai‘i include trolling for pelagic species such as tuna, marlin, wahoo, and mahimahi; deepwater hook-and-line bottom fishing;
and various forms of net fishing that target nearshore
pelagic and reef fish species. Under this FEP, the Hancock Seamount groundfish complex is currently overfished.

This fishery has been closed since 1986.

Western Pacific Pelagics FEP: The management
species covered under this FEP include tunas, billfish- es, sharks, squids, and an assortment of other species.

These species include mahimahi, wahoo, moonfish,
and pomfret caught by the Hawai‘i longline fishery and
smaller boats that use diverse gears including trolling, handline, and traditional fishing methods. Of these spe- cies, bigeye tuna, Pacific bluefin tuna, swordfish, and the Central Western Pacific striped marlin stock are consid- ered subject to overfishing. The Central Western Pacific striped marlin stock and Pacific bluefin tuna stock are also listed as overfished.

In addition to management by the WPFMC and NOAA
Fisheries, pelagic fish, such as bigeye and yellowfin tu- nas, are managed by two regional fishery management
organizations (RFMOs). The Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has authority to man-
age pelagic fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, while the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis-
sion (IATTC) manages pelagic fisheries in the Eastern Pa- cific Ocean. Fish species and fisheries under the purview of both RFMOs migrate across national boundaries and
between RFMO areas, requiring coordinated manage-
ment. Since 2009, the annual bigeye tuna catch limit has been recommended by the WCPFC and implemented by
NOAA Fisheries for the U.S. longline fleet in the Western and Central Pacific. The IATTC establishes the harvest
limit for bigeye tuna for U.S. longline vessels longer than 24 meters in the Eastern Tropical Pacific.

Policy Updates
The Hawai‘i-based pelagic longline fleet accounts
for most of the U.S. longline catch of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Under the
authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act, the 2017
bigeye catch limit for U.S. longline vessels was set at 3,138 metric tons, a 12% reduction from the 2016 levels due to an overage in 2016. Based upon its own predic-
tion that the bigeye catch limit (3,138 metric tons) would be reached by September 1, 2017, NMFS closed the U.S.
deep-set longline fishery in WCPO on that date (82 FR
37824, August 14, 2017). However, during the closure, if a Hawai‘i longline vessel also holds a valid American Sa- moa longline permit (dual permitted vessels), the bigeye tuna caught by these vessels may still be landed in Ha- 65 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico 3 Summary data is available online in the FEUS webtool. [Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/data-tools/fisheries-economics-united-states- interactive-tool.]
4 The NMFS Commercial Fishing Industry Input/Output Model was used to generate the impact estimates. [Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ documents/commercial_seafood_impacts_2007-2009.pdf.]
Western Pacific Region | Regional Summary
wai‘i, as long as the fish were not caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ surrounding the Hawai‘ian Archipelago.

On October 10, 2017, the fishery was reopened.

In 2017, the bigeye tuna catch limit in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) was 500 mt for all U.S. vessels greater than 24 meters (vessels equal to or under 24 meters are not
subjected to any catch limit). Because the catch limit of 500 mt was expected to be reached on September 8,
2017 (based on the PIFSC prediction model), NMFS closed the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna for vessels over 24 meters in EPO starting from September 8, 2017 until
the end of the year (82 FR 41562, September 1, 2017).

On February 3, 2016, NOAA Fisheries published a
final rule allowing large federally permitted U.S. long - line vessels to fish in certain areas of the American
Samoa Large V essel Prohibited Area (LVPA). The LVPA
was established in 2002 to prevent the potential for gear conflicts and catch competition between large and small fishing vessels. However, by 2016 the American Samoa
pelagic fisheries had changed so that the conditions that led to the establishment of the LVPA appeared no longer existed. The final rule allowed fishing in an additional 16,817 square nautical miles of federal waters. On March 20, 2017, however, a U.S. federal judge in American
Samoa v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 16-cv-00095 (D.Haw) issued an order vacating this regulation, bar-
ring large federally permitted U.S. longline vessels from fishing within the LVPA.

COMMERCIAL FISHERIES —
WESTERN PACIFIC (HAWAI‘I)
REGION
In this report, commercial fisheries refer to fishing oper- ations that sell their catch for profit. The term does not include subsistence fishermen or saltwater anglers who
fish for sport. It also excludes the for-hire sector, which earns its revenue from selling recreational fishing trips to saltwater anglers. The commercial fisheries section re- ports on economic impacts, landings revenue, landings,
and ex-vessel prices of key species/species groups.

Key Western (Hawai`i) Pacific Commercial
Species
• Dolphinfish (mahi-
mahi)
• Lobsters (ula)
• Marlin (a‘u)
• Moonfish (opah)
• Pomfrets (mon-
chong)
• Scad (opelu)
• Snappers
• Swordfish (meka-
jiki)
• Tunas (aku)
• Wahoo (ono)
Economic Impacts
The premise behind economic impact modeling is that
every dollar spent in a regional economy (direct impact) is either saved or re-spent on additional goods or ser- vices. If those dollars are re-spent on other goods and services in the regional economy, this spending gener-
ates additional economic activity in the region.
3 Four different measures are commonly used to show
how commercial fisheries landings affect the economy
in a region (state or nationwide): sales, income, val-
ue-added, and employment. The term sales refers to the
gross value of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activity, such as commercial fishing. The category includes both the direct sales of fish landed and sales made between businesses and households resulting from
the original sale. Income includes personal income (wag- es and salaries) and proprietors’ income (income from
self-employment). Value-added is the contribution made
to the gross domestic product in a region. Employment
is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the sales of seafood or purchases of inputs to commercial fishing. The first three measures are calculated in terms of dollars, whereas
employment impacts are measured in numbers of jobs.

Note that these categories are not additive. The United States seafood industry is defined here as the com-
mercial fishing sector, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and distributors, importers, and
seafood retailers.
4 This report provides estimates of total economic impacts for the nation and for each of the 23 coastal states. Total economic impacts for each state and the nation repre-
sent the sum of direct impacts; indirect impacts (in this 66 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Western Pacific Region | Regional Summary
case, the impact from suppliers to the seafood industry); and induced impacts (spending by employees on per-
sonal and household expenditures, where employees of
both the seafood industry and its full supply chain are included). That is, the total economic impact estimates reported here measure jobs, sales, value-added, and
income impacts from the seafood industry as well as the economic activity generated throughout each region’s
broader economy from this industry.

In 2017, the commercial fishing and seafood industry
supported 9,827 full- and part-time jobs and generated
$900.6 million in sales, $275 million in income, and
$402.2 million in value-added impacts in the Western
Pacific (Hawai‘i) Region. Importers generated the largest sales impacts ($350.8 million). Retail generated the
largest value-added impacts ($132.1 million), income
impacts ($101.4 million), and employment impacts
(4,023 jobs).

Landings Trends
Landings revenue in Hawai‘i decreased $1.7 million from 2016 to 2017, or about 1.5%. In inflation-adjusted terms (using 2015 dollars), landings revenue fluctuated within a range from $100-$120 million from 2012 to 2017, a
leveling off after a period of increase from the previous decade. Tuna revenue, which accounted for 75% of the
2017 total, fell 1% from 2016. Notable changes among
other species included a 21% increase in swordfish reve- nue and a 24% decrease in dolphinfish revenue.

In recent years, Hawai‘i’s landings and landings reve-
nue trends largely reflect the growth of the tuna fishery.

From 2008 to 2017, bigeye tuna dominated Hawai‘i’s
landings revenue, accounting for between 55% and 68%
of annual state landings revenue. Bigeye tuna revenues
reached a record high of $72 million in 2016 before fall- ing 10% to $65 million in 2017. This decrease in bigeye tuna revenue was largely offset by a $7 million increase in revenues for the second largest tuna fishery, yellowfin.

This 50% increase in yellowfin tuna revenues over the
previous year was due almost entirely to increased land- ings rather than a price change. Overall, Hawai‘i account- ed for 57% of U.S. tuna landings revenue in 2017. The
state’s share of national tuna landings revenue ranged
between 49% and 60% during the previous decade.

Landings Revenue
In 2017, landings revenue in the Western Pacific (Ha-
wai‘i) region totaled $116.4 million, a 37% increase from 2008 (a 20% increase in real terms after adjusting for
inflation) and an 1% decrease from 2016.

Finfish and other landings revenue accounted for 100%
of all landings revenue. In 2017, tunas (aku) ($87.3
million), swordfish (mekajiki) ($5.8 million), and marlin (a‘u) ($3.8 million) had the highest landings revenue in this region. Together, these top three species accounted for 83% of total landings revenue.

Commercial Revenue: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Pomfrets (monchong) (98%, 73% in real
terms)
• Marlin (a’u) (85%, 61% in real terms)
• Snappers (53%, 34% in real terms)
From 2016:
• Swordfish (mekajiki) (21%)
• Snappers (16%)
Commercial Revenue: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Lobsters (ula) (-83%, -85% in real terms)
• Swordfish (mekajiki) (-19%, -29% in real
terms)
From 2016:
• Lobsters (ula) (-27%)
• Dolphinfish (mahimahi) (-24%)
• Scad (opelu) (-15%)
From 2008 to 2017, pomfrets (monchong) (98%, 73%
in real terms), marlin (a‘u) (85%, 61% in real terms),
and snappers (53%, 34% in real terms) had the larg-
est increases, while lobsters (ula) (-83%, -85% in real terms) and swordfish (mekajiki) (-19%, -29% in real
terms) had the largest decreases. From 2016 to 2017,
swordfish (mekajiki) (21%) and snappers (16%) had the
largest increases, while lobsters (ula) (-27%), dolphin- fish (mahimahi) (-24%), and scad (opelu) (-15%) had
the largest decreases.

Landings
In 2017, Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) Region commercial
fishermen landed over 37.2 million pounds of finfish and shellfish. This represents a 21% increase from 2008 and a 6% increase from 2016. Tunas (aku) contributed the
67 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | W estern Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Western Pacific Region | Regional Summary
highest landings volume in the region, accounting for
67% of total landing weight.

From 2008 to 2017, pomfrets (monchong) (46%),
moonfish (opah) (38%), and tunas (aku) (37%) had the
largest increases, while lobsters (ula) (-68%), swordfish (mekajiki) (-33%), and dolphinfish (mahimahi) (-24%)
had the largest decreases. From 2016 to 2017, sword-
fish (mekajiki) (56%), snappers (11%), and marlin
(a’u) (11%) had the largest increases, while dolphinfish (mahimahi) (-20%), scad (opelu) (-17%), and pomfrets
(monchong) (-16%) had the largest decreases.

Commercial Landings: Largest Increases
From 2008:
• Pomfrets (monchong) (46%)
• Moonfish (opah) (38%)
• Tunas (aku) (37%)
From 2016:
• Swordfish (mekajiki) (56%)
• Snappers (11%)
• Marlin (a’u) (11%)
Commercial Landings: Largest Decreases
From 2008:
• Lobsters (ula) (-68%)
• Swordfish (mekajiki) (-33%)
• Dolphinfish (mahimahi) (-24%)
From 2016:
• Dolphinfish (mahimahi) (-20%)
• Scad (opelu) (-17%)
• Pomfrets (monchong) (-16%)
Prices
In 2017, lobsters (ula) ($6.48 per pound) received the
highest ex-vessel price in the region. Landings of marlin (a‘u) ($1.48 per pound) had the lowest ex-vessel price.

From 2008 to 2017, dolphinfish (mahimahi) (42%, 24%
in real terms), marlin (a‘u) (40%, 22% in real terms),
and snappers (37%, 20% in real terms) had the larg-
est increases, while lobsters (ula) (-47%, -53% in real terms) had the largest decreases. From 2016 to 2017,
pomfrets (monchong) (12%), wahoo (ono) (10%), and
snappers (4%) had the largest increases, while lobsters (ula) (-24%), swordfish (mekajiki) (-23%), and marlin
(a‘u) (-15%) had the largest decreases.

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES —
WESTERN PACIFIC (HAWAI‘I)
REGION
In the Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) Region, recreational fish- ing includes all non-commercial fishing, which is fishing that does not meet the definition of commercial fishing in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manage-
ment Act, and includes, but is not limited to, sustenance, subsistence, traditional indigenous, and recreational
fishing.
5 This recreational fisheries section reports on
economic impacts and expenditures, angler participation, fishing trips, and catch of key species/species groups. 6 Key Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) Recreational
Species7
• Bigeye (akule) and
mackerel (opelu)
scad
• Blue marlin (a’u)
• Dolphinfish (mahi-
mahi)
• Goatfishes: band-
tail goatfish, blue
goatfish, doublebar
goatfish, goatfish
family, goatfishes,
manybar goatfish,
pflugers goat-
fish, whitesaddle
goatfish, yellowfin
goatfish, and yel-
lowstripe goatfish
• Jacks (trevallys
and other jacks):

African pompano,
bigeye trevally,
black jack, black
trevally, bluefin
trevally, giant
trevally, greater
amberjack, island
jack, jack family,
and jack genus
• Skipjack tuna (aku)
• Smallmouth bone-
fish (o’io)
• Snappers: Bing-
hams snapper,
blacktail snapper,
bluestipe snapper,
green jobfish, iron-
jaw snapper, long-
tailed red snapper,
pink snapper, ruby
snapper, smalltooth
jobfish, snapper
family, snapper
genus, and von
Siebolds snapper
• Wahoo (ono)
• Yellowfin tuna
(‘ahi)
Economic Impacts and Expenditures
The economic contribution of recreational fishing activ- ities in the Western Pacific (Hawai‘i) Region is based on 5 For a definition of non-commercial fishing see the electronic code of federal regulations. (Available at: https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3a2527021 8fea2849201cc659f78167f&mc=true&node=se50.13.665_112&rgn=div8.). 6 Data for this state is from MRIP estimates produced using pre-calibration methods. 7 Key species/species groups were chosen to represent those most frequently caught or highly prized by recreational anglers, or important for management. It is not a comprehensive list nor ranked by the total number of fish caught/released. 8 Trip expenditure estimates were generated from the 2016/2017 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2020). Durable goods expenditures were generated from the 2014 National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey (Lovell et al., 2016). (For citations:

Publications-U.S. Coastal and Marine Recreation.)
68 National Overview | North Pacific | P acific | Western Pacific | New England | Mid-Atlantic | South Atlantic | Gulf of Mexico Western Pacific Region | Regional Summary
spending by recreational anglers.8 Total annual trip ex- penditures are estimated at the state level by multiply- ing mean trip expenditures by the estimated number of
adult trips in each trip mode (for-hire, private boat, and shore) and adjusting by the CPI (consumer price index)
to the current year. Total annual durable expenditures
are estimated by multiplying mean durable expenditures
in each state by the estimated annual number of adult
participants for each state and adjusting by the CPI (con- sumer price index) to the current year.9
Four different measures are commonly used to show
how angler expenditures affect the economy in a region
(state or nationwide): sales, income, value-added, and
employment. The term sales refers to the gross value
of all sales by regional businesses affected by an activ- ity, such as recreational fishing. The category includes both the direct sales made to the angler and sales made between businesses and households resulting from that
original sale to the angler. Income includes personal
income (wages and salaries) and proprietors’ income
(income from self-employment). Value-added is the
contribution made to the gross domestic product in a
region. Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs supported directly or indirectly by the purchases made by anglers. The first three measures
are calculated in terms of dollars, whereas employment
impacts are measured in number of jobs. Note that
these categories are not additive. NOAA Fisheries uses
a regional impact modeling software, called IMPLAN, to
estimate these four types of impacts.

Long Beach City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Long Beach City Council
March 21, 2023