124 



limitations of the data available for use in the cost/benefit 

 analysis, especially the lack of specific price differentials for 

 shoreside processing products and comparable at-sea processing 

 products, the analysis was not useful as the basis of a major 

 reallocation among user groups. 



Question 5: What effort did the Department make to include 

 consideration of the potential negative economic impact on small 

 fishing fleets and small on-shore processors and communities of 

 precipitously increasing the allocation for large, at-sea 

 processors? 



While the amount ultimately made available to the off-shore 



sector was increased over what the Council had recommended, it 



was not increased over what that sector had utilized in either 



1991 or 1992. In fact, both the offshore allocation and the 



shoreside allocation were decreased in quantity because the 



harvest guideline was reduced by approximately one-third in 1993. 



Both sectors are substantially overcapitalized and there is not a 



sufficient amount of Pacific whiting to satisfy their collective 



needs. 



Question 6: How has the Department addressed environmental 

 concerns raised regarding wasteful fishing and processing 

 practices -- including discard and efficiency in processing 

 problems -- of at-sea processors as well as by-catch concerns? 



Environmental concerns, wasteful fishing and processing 



practices, discards, and efficiency, are issues inherent in every 



fishery in the United states. The Department is not aware of any 



documented environmental concerns resulting from allegedly 



wasteful fishing and processing practices that require Department 



7 



