Draft:Oregon Fishermen's Cable Committee

• File:Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Articles on Wikipedia must be based on published sources (although offline/print sources are acceptable), so you need to remove the parts of this draft that are based on unpublished letters. Parts of this draft also consist of original research rather than summarising published secondary sources, for instance the paragraph beginning . Substantial sections of the draft are also unsourced. The organisation is potentially notable, but this draft is not ready in its current state. MCE89 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Oregon Fishermen's Cable Committee (OFCC)

Formed	July 9, 1998
Type	Non-Profit 501(c)(6)
Chairman	Scott McMullen
Headquarters	2021 Marine Drive, Suite 102, Astoria, Oregon 97103
Website	www.ofcc.com

The Oregon Fishermen's Cable Committee, Inc. (OFCC) is an Astoria based non-profit that works to foster cooperation with commercial fishermen and cable owners in order to safely land subsea fiber optic cables on the seafloor off the Oregon coast. The OFCC was formed in 1998 to protect Oregon fishing grounds, while simultaneously preventing damage to both subsea cables and fishing gear due to snags from fishing equipment. This committee was the first effort by representatives of the commercial fishing and telecommunications industries to discuss, describe, and delineate their shared use of a community resource: the ocean. Currently, the OFCC is the only operational fishing industry-cable organization in Oregon, with members from throughout Oregon, California, and Alaska. The OFCC is also a member organization of the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC). Owing to close cooperation between the fishing industry and the subsea cable industry, since its inception in 1998 the OFCC has not experienced a single break of a cable in Oregon coastal waters as a result of a snag from commercial fishing equipment. The OFCC's successful model of cooperation among stakeholders has been held up as an example globally.

Membership

Member fishing vessels of OFCC must sign the "Individual Fisherman's Agreement and Mutual Release" form and comply with the OFCC's "Procedures to Follow While Operating Near Submarine Fiber Optic Cables" while fishing.

Currently, the OFCC has agreements with 10 cable companies, to include ACS Cable Systems, Inc. (ACS), GCI Communication Corp. (GCI), MFS Globenet, Inc. (Verizon Business), and VSNL Telecommunications (US) Inc. (TATA). Recently, in addition to legacy telecommunications companies, large technology companies have become more involved with laying subsea fiber optic cables in Oregon for their own networks. As of 2025, the OFCC also has agreements with Meta, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.

Agreements

The OFCC maintains written agreements with both member fishermen (via the "Individual Fisherman's Agreement and Mutual Release") and member cable owners. These agreements are intended to prevent damage to subsea fiber optic cables by releasing a participating fisherman, vessel and vessel owner from possible civil liability for ordinary negligence to a subsea fiber optic cable under defined circumstances, rather than relying upon fear and litigation. According to the OFCC website:

"The Oregon Fishermen's Agreement is founded upon a belief that a fisherman who has possibly snagged a cable is less likely to continue hauling on the snagged gear and jeopardizing the cable if the fisherman is immediately compensated for the sacrificed gear and released from civil liability for ordinary negligence. A cooperative approach appears to be more likely to prevent damage to the fiber optic cable than the threat of harsh civil and criminal penalties. A cooperative approach also recognizes the right of commercial fishermen to fish the seas, including the seas over and around a fiber optic cable."

The terms in the OFCC agreements adhere to established international laws that grant equal use of the seas to both fishermen and cable companies and protect existing subsea cables. These international laws include: the 1884 International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables, which declares the breaking or injury of a submarine cable a punishable offence; the Submarine Cable Act of 1888, which enacted the International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables in the U.S.; the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, which prevents a nation from prohibiting the laying of submarine cables on its continental shelf; and the 1958 Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), both of which recognize the freedom to fish and lay submarine cables/pipelines on the high seas, require owners of vessels who have sacrificed gear to protect cables be indemnified by the cable owner, and prevent a nation from prohibiting the laying of submarine cables on its continental shelf. While these laws do state some of the rights and responsibilities of fishermen and cable companies alike, they do not specifically address interactions between the two parties, leaving them to come together to address cooperative terms of shared usage of the sea and resolve arising disputes.

In signing the "Individual Fisherman's Agreement and Mutual Release", fishermen are expected to adhere to the rules outlined in the OFCC's "Procedure's to Follow While Operating Near Submarine Fiber Optic Cables", which serves as a guide for responsible conduct when fishing near submarine cables. These procedures outline seven steps to follow when operating near a subsea fiber optic cable and six procedures to follow in case of possible contact of fishing gear with subsea cables.

When fishing near a cable, a member fishing vessel is required to:

1. Have on board in usable form the most current nautical chart information, including any updates from NOAA, Local Notice to Mariners, cable/fishing committees such as the OFCC, and cable companies
2. Ensure any person acting as helmsman is capable of implementing the procedures
3. Display the route of the cable on an electronic plotter or navigation system if the fishing vessel has such equipment
4. Refrain from setting down/hauling up fishing gear or making turns over 90 degrees
5. Refrain from using clam or scallop dredges, anchors, grapples, or other gear designed to significantly penetrate the surface of the seabed; and ensure that all trawl equipment is in good working condition
6. Refrain from towing fishing equipment over an area where a cable is not buried (Known Cable Exposure); and within 0.5 nautical miles of scientific instruments in the water column
7. Monitor ground speed and signs of possible cable contact when fishing near a cable

While fishermen are expected to follow these procedures while fishing near subsea cables, the agreement also prioritizes safety, instructing fishermen not to engage in any of these procedures if it jeopardizes the safety of crewmembers, passengers, and/or the vessel itself.

The procedures also outline steps for fishermen to follow if they believe they have possibly become snagged on a subsea cable. If a potential snag has occurred, a member fishing vessel is required to:

1. Summon the captain onto the bridge, whereby the captain is required to take all appropriate action to ensure the safety of the vessel and protect the cable
2. Take the vessel out of gear if safe to do so
3. Refrain from hauling up fishing gear or powering the vessel in attempts to free the potentially snagged gear without the permission of the cable owner
4. Call a 24-hour hotline maintained by the cable owner to discuss the situation
5. Cut away potentially snagged gear if instructed to do so; and file a claim using the "Sacrificed Gear Claim Form and Release and Settlement"
6. File a report with the OFCC immediately upon returning to port

Additionally, member cable companies of the OFCC are required to sign a written agreement and adhere to the procedures outlined in that agreement. This agreement requires cable companies to maintain a 24-hour hotline for fishermen to call in the event they believe their fishing gear has become snagged on the company's cable; maintain a sacrificed gear fund to compensate fishermen for fishing gear instructed by the cable company to be cut away if potentially snagged on their cable; release claims against vessel owners and operators and refrain from taking any administrative, legal or other action to sanction and/or recover damages against vessel owners and operators who honor the "Procedure's to Follow While Operating Near Submarine Fiber Optic Cables"; and bury their cables upon installation at a depth of one meter or more beneath the seabed seaward from shore to a water depth of 2000 meters where possible.

In the event fishing gear is cut away and sacrificed, the cable company will replace the lost fishing gear with equivalent gear from approved suppliers to match the gear that was sacrificed. This sacrificed gear clause in the agreement is intended to avoid lengthy delays that often result in lost wages to fishermen and inadequate compensation that has frustrated fishermen in the past. Upon receiving a sacrificed gear claim, OFCC board members review and investigate the claim, then provide recommendations for approval or denial. If the claim is denied due to evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or failure to follow OFCC procedures for fishing near subsea cables, the payment to the approved suppliers for the sacrificed gear is treated as a loan to the fisher who filed the claim.

History

Subsea Cables Arrive in Oregon

While transoceanic subsea telegraph and coaxial cables have landed on the west coast of the United States (primarily in California) since the early 20^th century, the first transoceanic subsea cable to be landed in Oregon was the North Pacific Cable (NPC), a fiber optic cable landed at Pacific City, Oregon in 1991 by the cable company Pacific Telecom Cable, Inc. (PTC).

With technology progressing from coaxial cables to fiber optics, the telecommunications industry received a large push in the late 1980s when the first transatlantic fiber optic cable, TAT-8, was laid in 1988 by a telecommunications consortium led by AT&T, British Telecom and France Telecom, connecting the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. (For comparison, the first international subsea coaxial cable, TAT-1, was laid in 1956 by a telecommunications consortium led by the General Post Office of the UK, AT&T, and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, connecting Scotland to Newfoundland). During this time, the combination of deregulation and privatization of the telecommunications industry, speculation of necessary capacity increases due to the expanding Internet, improvements in fiber optic cable capacity, the short lifespans of cables, and the assumption of the inherent relationship between telecommunications and economic development set off the global fiber optic cable boom. The cable boom saw the rapid laying of transoceanic fiber optic cables, significantly increasing the capacity of global telecommunications. Between 1988 and 2003, the number of voice paths across the Pacific alone increased from 1,800 to 1.87 billion. By 2003, fiber optic cables had claimed 94.4% of the world's transmission capacity, compared to only 16% in 1988.

Deregulation and privatization of the telecommunications industry led to the severing of strict national affiliation with cable suppliers and replaced the consortium model of cable laying – whereby several national cable companies or national monopolies banded together to form a consortium responsible for laying and maintaining cables – with new entrants of private companies from various countries. The first private transatlantic fiber optic cable was PTAT-1, laid by Private Trans-Atlantic Telecommunication Systems, Inc. in 1989. The success of PTAT-1 paved the way for several other transoceanic fiber optic cables to be laid by private companies.

Deregulation and privatization of the telecommunications industry also changed the geography of cable landing sites. While private telecommunications companies laid their cables along existing routes established by legacy telecommunications consortia in the past, these legacy companies often blocked private cables from terminating at their stations in several locations, forcing the private entrants to negotiate cable landings in new locations, where they were often unfamiliar with local practices. Eventually, the new telecommunications nodes were connected with the established ones, contributing to a more secure network, but only after the geography of cable landings had been expanded with the new locations forged by private companies. Complicating the efforts of private telecommunications companies to negotiate new landing sites was the deregulation in the telecommunications environment, which often intensified difficulties in obtaining permits at these new sites. Additionally, private telecommunications companies had to contend with established users of coastal waters such as fishermen, who saw the increases in fiber optic cables and the diversification of landing sites as an encroachment on their fishing grounds. In the environment of telecommunications deregulation and privatization, private companies seeking to land their cables in California, where cables had long been landed through the consortium model of cable laying, were now met with high cable landing fees and heavy contestation from California fishermen. This situation eventually drove private telecommunications companies to seek new landing sites elsewhere. In the midst of these challenges, PTC built a new cable station at Pacific City, Oregon in 1991 for its transpacific cable NPC, pioneering the landing of cables on the Oregon coast. In her research on the history of transoceanic cables, media scholar Nicole Starosielski recalls engaging with representatives of telecommunications companies frustrated with the opposition to fiber optic cables from fishermen in California, who suggested "cables may continue to be routed through Oregon because the fishermen there are 'a bit more accommodating.'"

North Pacific Cable (NPC)

North Pacific Cable (NPC), owned by Pacific Telecom Cable, Inc. (PTC) and landed in Pacific City, Oregon in 1991, connected Oregon, Japan, and Alaska Prior to the laying of this cable, local town meetings were held to inform the public of the cable project which was received favorably. Upon completion of the cable laying, PTC sent a certified letter to trawl fishermen in Oregon informing them not to fish over their cable, and to stay one nautical mile away from the cable on either side while fishing. The letter listed the legal repercussions fishermen could face if they fished over the cable and snagged it. However, because the cable company's proposal was inefficient for fishermen and did not consider the technicalities of their fishing operations, most of the fishing fleet in Oregon simply ignored the letter. Fishing continued as usual without any issues since the cable was buried according to the best burial technology of the time.

Yet, the NPC cable was eventually hit and damaged in May of 1995 after market conditions prompted fishermen to trawl in deeper water to find Sablefish. PTC filed a liability claim against Venture West, the fishing vessel allegedly responsible for the cable break. The claim was settled before it went to trial, obligating the owner of the fishing vessel to pay in excess of $1.2M to PTC for damage to the cable.

Transpacific Cable 5 (TPC-5)

Transpacific Cable 5 (TPC-5), owned by AT&T and landed in Bandon in 1996, was the next submarine cable to come ashore in Oregon. TPC-5 connected Oregon, California, Hawaii, Guam, and Japan. Public notice of the application to lay this cable was circulated and received little public comment. Prior to laying the cable, an AT&T representative met with local fishermen in Coos Bay, Oregon near, where the cable was intended to be landed, who requested that AT&T did not disturb a lucrative Petrale sole fishing ground in the area with their cable. When the cables were installed, however, the cable routes cut "through the heart of some of the richest, long-standing fishing grounds" for the Coos Bay fleet. Several letters were received by the Oregon Division of State Lands (currently the Oregon Department of State Lands), the Oregon State organization responsible, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, for issuing easement permits for cable landings. Fishermen in Coos Bay requested that DSL reopen the case for discussion. But by that time, DSL had already issued the permits to AT&T to land the cable. At the same time, word of the lawsuit against Venture West that obliged them to pay in excess of $1.2M to PTC for damaging the NPC cable deepened fishermen' apprehensions of subsea cables and sparked "a battle zone of fishermen concern and hot political interest and debate."

NorthStar Cable

The third subsea fiber optic cable to land on the Oregon coast was NorthStar. Owned by WCI Cable Inc. and Alaska NorthStar Communications, LLC, and landed at Nedonna Beach in 1998, North Star connected the Alaska Fiber Star (AFS) network with the lower 48 states of the U.S. It was during the planning and installation of this cable that cooperation between local Oregon fishermen and WCI Cable led to the creation of the Oregon Fishermen's Undersea Cable Committee, Inc. (later renamed Oregon Fishermen's Cable Committee, Inc. (OFCC))

In the wake of the NPC cable break lawsuit and the laying of the TPC-5 cable which ran through prime fishing grounds, fishermen in Oregon were becoming more aware of the vulnerabilities to fishing that were associated with the laying of additional cables in Oregon. In 1998, Scott McMullen, a shrimp and groundfish trawl fisherman  out of Astoria, Oregon, got word of the proposed NorthStar cable from a local newspaper article. The cable was intended to land at Nedonna Beach, an area he and other local fishermen frequented for fishing. Knowing that local fishermen would soon get a certified letter from the cable company telling them to limit their fishing around the cable, Scott reached out to a fellow career fishermen  Leo Kuntz who fished out of Garibaldi, OR and Oregon State Legislature Representative Terry Thompson who fished out of Newport, OR. Terry talked to then Governor John Kitzhaber who was sympathetic to the fishermen' needs. The DSL agreed to hold off on issuing permits for the NorthStar cable and instructed WCI Cable to hold discussions with fishermen along the north Oregon coast. The cable company sent a representative, Geoff Fowler, to talk with the fishermen and understand their concerns about the installation of the cable through their fishing grounds. As the assistant project manager for the Alaska Pipeline, and having prior experience negotiating with fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico for an oil pipeline project, Geoff seemed to be the right person to negotiate with the Oregon fishermen. Scott McMullen and Terry Thompson showed Geoff Fowler a flyer they received from NPC that used a pink band on a nautical chart to demarcate a one nautical mile buffer zone on either side of the cable where fishermen were prohibited from fishing, and explained that the buffer zone was a significant impediment to the fishing industry as a whole. Talking with the project's engineering firm, Bill Gunderson, PE and Floyd Holcom of PND Engineers, Geoff Fowler came back with the solution that if the cable was buried, there wouldn't be a problem with trawl gear being dragged over top of it. The meeting between the fishermen and WCI Cable proved to be groundbreaking for both industries, as knowledge and understanding for each other's industries was shared. This successful cooperation was especially pronounced, as during that time there was widespread distrust in the telecommunications industry of working with fishermen, who were often seen as the enemy of cables. (To be sure, to this day, fishing is still the number one reason for subsea cable breaks). Scott McMullen later recounted that Geoff Fowler's non-traditional background as someone who did not come from the cable industry contributed to the successful negotiations between the fishermen and WCI Cable. An agreement was drafted that preserved fishermen' rights to fish over buried cables and released them from liability in the event of a cable break due to ordinary negligence. Additionally, a 24-hour hot line and sacrificed gear fund was established by the cable company. The fishermen and cable companies signed the "Agreement to Create and Establish the Oregon Fishermen's Undersea Cable Committee" on July 9^th, 1998, and took it to the state agencies handling the permitting requirements to recommend that the permitting process continue. The agreement signed today by the OFCC and cable companies has remained relatively unchanged for the most part since this first agreement in 1998.

China-Us Cable

In October of 1998, AT&T submitted an application to the Oregon Division of State Lands to land another cable, the China-US cable, at its existing cable station in Bandon, Oregon. This was the first fiber cable to directly link the Chinese mainland with the continental United States, and over all linked China, the US, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Guam. Members of the Oregon fishing community made comments on the DSL application, voicing concerns about the cable passing through productive fishing grounds and the proposed no-fishing buffer on either side of the cable. By this time, the fishing industry, through creation of the OFCC, had developed working relations with the Oregon state agencies responsible for issuing permits to cable companies. These agencies encouraged AT&T to hold collaborative meetings and cooperate with local fishermen. Scott McMullen of the recently established OFCC presented AT&T representatives with the agreement recently signed with WCI Cable Inc. and Alaska NorthStar Communications, LLC in July of that year for the landing of the NorthStar cable in Nedonna Beach, Oregon. AT&T refused to sign a similar agreement and join the OFCC, viewing the agreement as eroding the rights of cable owners. Of particular concern for AT&T was the fishermen' request, as outlined in the NorthStar agreement, that they should be released from liability if damaging a cable. A letter drafted from an AT&T lawyer stated: "AT&T must maintain the right to pursue a claim if the circumstances of a particular case warrant it, because that is the only way the Company has to protect the cable and ensure continuity of service to millions of users." After long and tough negotiations between the two sides, an agreement was eventually signed on April 24^th 1999 in Coos Bay, Oregon. This agreement established the Bandon Submarine Cable Council (BSCC) since AT&T was unwilling to join the recently established OFCC and subscribe to the terms in the OFCC's agreement. The BSCC board consisted of two members from OFCC, the Coos Bay and Astoria representatives (Gerald Gunnari and Scott McMullen respectively), and two members from AT&T to include Bob Wargo, who served as the board's secretary and treasurer. The primary difference between the BSCC agreement and the OFCC agreement with NorthStar was that in the BSCC agreement, AT&T did not agree to the release of liability for damage by fishermen to a cable. However, AT&T did agree to work within the BSCC committee first to resolve issues with fishermen who potentially damaged their cable, only moving towards binding arbitration if the issue could not be resolved internally. So, while AT&T did not give up their right to sue over cable damages, they agreed that litigation would not be the first step. Additionally, the BSCC agreement established a $1.25M "Fisheries Improvement Fund" for research on fisheries stocks and other projects that benefited the local fishing industry, funded by AT&T. The BSCC agreement had a lifespan of twenty years with the option to renew the agreement afterwards. The agreement was not renewed and the BSCC was subsequently disbanded after the twenty-year lifespan.

Southern Cross Cable Network (SCCN)

At the height of the cable boom in the late 1990s, cable company MFS GlobeNet (MFSG) planned to construct the Southern Cross Cable Network (SCCN), a transpacific fiber optic cable network that would connect Australia and New Zealand with the US, with US stations in Hawaii, San Louis Obispo, California, and Monterey Bay, California. However, MFSG had issues obtaining California state permits due to its planned landing at Monterey Bay, one of the US's most vital marine protected areas, despite having gained approval from the Federal Communications Commission and showing that the project would constitute minimal environmental impact. Having not received California state permits, MFSG decided to reroute the northern branch of the network to Oregon. Prior to applying for Oregon state permits, MFSG representatives met with members of the OFCC board who worked with them to select a route that allowed the best burial of the cable and minimize loss of fishing grounds. OFCC representatives also presented MFSG with the OFCC's agreement from NorthStar. MFSG was pleased with the agreement's terms, and a similar agreement was drafted which included MFSG into the OFCC and split the committee's operational costs (which are paid for by the cable companies) between MFSG and WCI Cable. The "Agreement Between and Among the Oregon Fishermen's Undersea Cable Committee, Inc., MFS Globenet, inc. and WCI cable, Inc." was drafted and faxed to Paris. The next day, in January of 2000, the agreement was signed. The OFCC supported MFSG's cable proposal and recommended to the state permitting agencies that the project proceed apace. MFSG received permits for SCCN in just over fifty days, unheard of at the time.

Additional Cables

Additional subsea fiber optic cables landed in Oregon, all having signed the OFCC agreement, include: TATA TGN-Pacific, Alaska United West (AU-West), Trans Pacific Express Cable System (TPE), Alaska-Oregon Network (AKORN), FASTER, New Cross Pacific Cable System (NCP), Hawaiki, Jupiter, and Bifrost.