56 



STANBUNN ^^_^ imsCOMMiTTiiS 



VAMHIO. nUAWOOK. POUC l.lNCO<J4 1 LANE COUNTIES ^^^^^ vcrCh*': 



OtSTnCT 2 ^r^k^^^^ ''** * ^""""^ Om u fnttn 



(«n.¥TOADi)BessiNDic*TEa Bir"^*^^ EltK*--n 



"^ USfSSwj.o m^^y^# PAST SESSIONS 



OMft7132 ^^B^^^ Wlr» * M— ^ Sul KWH ii ^l l— aft 



STATE SENATE ^iSL™. 



SALEM, OREGON L^»irtv>RuiM.op«f»iion»ft 



Wayi & M<i M SuboortKWtlw on 

 HwTvnRMounM 



June 2, 1993 "::l^::i.o..-.^ 



JuOcUiy 



Mr. Chair & Members of the Commiltee: 



My name is Stan Bunn, State Senator from Oregon Senate District 2. 

 My constituency includes the entire central coast of Oregon from Neskowin 

 in the north, and beyond Yachats in the south. I appreciate the opportunity to 

 offer testimony on such an important issue. 



The effects of the Clinton Administration decision on the Pacific 

 Whiting allocation is hard felt in the communities of the Central Oregon 

 Coast. I feel that the administration's lopsided allocation to off-shore 

 processors was poor decision making and a poor process. Both the Oregon 

 Coastal Zone Management Association and ^e Pacific Fishery Management 

 Council went through a long careful process to provide the Department of 

 Commerce the information they needed to make a well-informed decision. 

 The entire public input and information gathering process took over one year 

 to complete. The decision to move more Pacific Whiting processing onshore 

 was based on sound scientific and economic information. 



Not only did the Department of Commerce disregard the Pacific 

 Fisheries Management Council recommendation, but it also reversed a 

 similar ruling by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 (NOAA). The Commerce Department has undermined the process set up to 

 make these types of decisions. The Magnuson Fishery Management 

 Conservation Act (FCMA) set up a local decision making process, that truly 

 empowers the local regions affected by the decision to have direct input into 

 decisionmaking. Many of my constituents spent much time and energy to 

 be a part of this process. The department's decision also calls into question 

 the validity and the role of open and public participation in a process 

 intended to enable regional authorities to manage regional resources. It is 

 my belief that both the letter and intent of the Magnuson Act were violated. 



