83 



PACIFIC .ISHERV MANAGEMENT C. JNCIL 



Mclro Center, Suite 420 

 CHAIRMAS 2000 SW FiRl Avenue EXECUTnX DIRECTOR 



Philip Anderson PortUnd, Oregon 97201 Lawrence D Six 



Telephone: (503) 526-4352 

 April 23, 1993 



The Honorable Ronald H. Brown 



Secrelar)' of the Department of Commerce 



Herbert C Hoover Bldg , Room 5862 



14th Street between Constitution Ave. and E Street NW 



Washington, DC 20230 



Dear Mr. Secretary: 



Based on your recent action with respect to Pacific whiting allocation for the 1993 season, the Pacific 

 Council is deeply concerned about the integrity and viability of the regional fishery management council 

 process as prescribed in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Council and Its 

 constituents spent a considerable amount of time following a well-established process to develop measures 

 for this fishery. This was a difficult and controversial decision to make, but the process has matured over 

 the years to the extent that the public feels that they are afforded every opportunity to be a part of the 

 solution. Some may not agree with the Council's final decision, but nearly aU of the participants feel that 

 they had full opportunity to be a part of the process and express their views. 



There is a risk now that the public will feel that the regional council process is a waste of their time and 

 money There is little incentive for the public to use the council process in the future, if they perceive 

 (hat the Secretary may significantly alter the Council's measure and implement a substitute without council 

 input. Regardless of one's position on this issue, everyone should be concerned about the process. 



The Pacific Council meticulously followed all of the requirements of the groundfish fishery management 

 plan, the Magnuson Act and other applicable law, including requisite analyses, in developing an allocation 

 The Department of Commerce, in making substantive changes, did not cite legal or procedural problems 

 with the Council's adopted measures in the final rule It is our understanding that the councils were 

 created to develop these sorts of policies and that the Secretary would approve them unless there were 

 legal or procedural problems with council actions Furthermore, councils should be given an opportunity 

 to consider the Secretary's concerns and submit revised measures. If this is not the case, then the integrity 

 of the regional process is seriously undermined. 



Another concern relates to the intent of the final rule. It appears that the intent was to maintain the 

 percentage sharing which occurred in the 1992 season. For the shore-based sector, this would be 

 accomplished by assuming that they would process about 12,000 mt of the initial open access release of 

 112,000 mt, and all of the 30,000 mt reserve. In reality, the shore-based catcher boat fleet and the shore- 

 based processing plants were ix>t prepared to go head-to-head in an Olympic style fishery when the 

 season opened on April IS. Many shore-based o[>erations intended to begin in May, and poor weather 

 has limited the ability of the shore-based boats to compete. The shore-based sector is expected to process 

 less than 5,000 mt of the initial 112,000 mt. 



We were especially disappointed in the timing of the Commerce ruling The Council and its advisors and 

 scientists worked for nine months, encompassing four Council meetings, in order to reach a final decision 

 in November 1992. We submitted the package to the NMFS Regional Office on December 22, 1992. 



