165 



Representative Mike Kopetski 



Representative Ron Wyden 



June 4, 1993 ' 



page 2 



Of greater importance is the comparison of offshore /onshore shares in Alaska and the west 

 coast. In the Gulf of Alaska with the small fishery dependent communities (much like the 

 coastal communities of southern Washington, Oregon and northern California) onshore 

 shares are 90 to 100% of the resource. In the Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands the offshore 

 sector dominates. Under the Council's whiting decision a sliding scale would have been a 

 dynamic and fair approach which advantages shoreside when stocks are low and uses the 

 offshore sector's mobility when stocks are high. 



Your staff should spend serious time comparing the final rules reversing the Council on 

 whiting and approving the Gulf of Alaska offshore/onshore allocation (CFR V.58, No. 74, 

 April 20, 1993, and CFR V.57, No. 107 June 3, 1992). The substantive question raised is 

 why application of federal policy could be so significantly inconsistent in application and 

 appear so unfair in what are similar situations. The Gulf allocation was approved with 

 negative net national benefits being out weighed by social/community considerations. The 

 Council's whiting decision was based on shgntly positive net nadonal benefits. 



The last attachment is a table of state, local and Seattle area economic values derived from 

 the input/output model results considered by the Council as part of its whiting decision. 



During the Council's process offshore interests emphasized a point that the employment of 

 Oregon citizens on factory trawlers would be impacted by the allocation decision. The 

 input/output model showed that the difference m lost income between the Council's 

 preferred alternative and the best offshore alternative was $108,094 for Oregon. This 

 amount is very small because the factory trawler employment base is approximately 10,000 

 people and, as shown above, only a small fraction of^ total work involves whiting. 

 Correspondingly, local income gain under the Council's preferred alternative was about 

 $11,000,000 higher than under the best offshore case. This contrasts with the loss of 

 $22,525,000 to the Seattle area economy. The Council chose to support the small coastal 

 economies over the much larger regional economy which already accrues the benefits of 

 the offshore industry. Secretary Brown's reversal of the Council decision finds national 

 benefit in increasing the disproportional relationship between coastal and regional 

 economies and implies conscious marginalization oi the social and economic fabric of rural 

 communities. 



We appreciate the opportunity to assist you in investigating this issue. 



Sincerely, 



Neal Coenen 



Marine Program Manager 



