12 



coast fishing industry. It represents nearly one quarter of the 

 income derived from commercial fishing in Oregon, for example, 

 and we have had tremendous downturns in salmon. We have de- 

 pendent communities that are also facing downturns in the timber 

 industry and other sectors, and Pacific whiting is absolutely critical 

 to maintain the stability of these coastal communities and the fish- 

 eries. 



I'd also just like to remind you, as Bruce Andrews indicated, the 

 State of Oregon, my association of local governments, and others in 

 the industry have spent a good deal of time investing time and 

 money into promoting this industry as a stabilizing influence. In 

 1991, we made a report to the Oregon legislature on it, the future 

 of it, and the necessity of it for the Oregon coast. It remains a very 

 high priority. 



I would like to turn just a moment to a portion of my testimony 

 and read a bit on terms of the economics. There are a couple of 

 points I'd like to make. I'd like to make them very specifically. On 

 pages 4 and 5 of my testimony, I'm indicating to you that the eco- 

 nomic impacts of the decision the Commerce made are fairly signif- 

 icant for the Northern California, Oregon, and coastal Washington. 

 The following table illustrates that assuming a harvest of roughly 

 40,000 metric tons, that's 30,000 metric tons that was provided in 

 the initial allocation by Commerce, plus around 10,000 metric tons 

 that may be available from an early suspended open access fishery, 

 there will be a loss of about $4.5 million to fishermen, a job loss of 

 approximately 1,250 jobs along those coasts, that's California, 

 Oregon, and Washington, and a personal income reduction of 

 around $25 million. Job equivalents, by the way, are set at around 

 $20,000 of annual income. 



So, there's a loss to the coastal communities, to fishermen, and 

 I'd like to bring up one other loss as well. We tried to do some re- 

 search also on the fiscal impact this would have, and on page 5, I 

 indicate here that we are expecting in Oregon alone that the rec- 

 ommendation and the council being overturned by Commerce 

 would mean that landing fees to the State of Oregon, to the Oregon 

 Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is very hard pressed by 

 measure 5 like a lot of other State agencies, would be essentially 

 one-half of what would be expected. Rather than $100,000, roughly 

 $50,000. 



Corporate taxes would be halved roughly. Rather than $250,000, 

 around $150,000. Personal income taxes, we're talking only in the 

 State of Oregon, would go from about $1,300,000 to around 

 $600,000. Then we have to say that if businesses are at risk, and 

 they may be, that there is a long-term implication here for school 

 property taxes, for property taxes for local government, and other 

 revenue dependent agencies. 



I'll quit right now and will be glad to respond to some questions 

 here, but I hope you recognize that the State, local governments, 

 and the industry, has spent a lot of time and effort on this to do 

 the very best job with this resource, and with the highest utiliza- 

 tion rate that we possibly can, for the most good for the dependent 

 communities of the coasts here. Many of those are rural communi- 

 ties, and we recognize that this administration has made a commit- 



