197 





•JNITL-D aTATLa OIlPAWTIVld NT O. wijMVir«c* 

 f.-otluoBl O'Ceonlc ».MJ Almo*|.lMirla AdmlnUli-til Ion 



'.ato'-^al •v<ai»'jc rct <t«i.!3 'Jicnvce 



JAN I 7 1992 



MEMORANDUM FOR: F/KVTR - RoH^nd A.^ Schraitton 

 FROM: F/CM - Richard M. Schaefer 



SUBJECT: Pacific Whiting Allocation for 1992 



On January 8, 1992, we received from your office an advance copy 

 of the "Pinal Report on Proposed 1992 Managenent Measures to 

 Allocate Pacific V?hiting" and its related EA/RIR. We also 

 received regional nemos sent to the Pacific Council last fall 

 that were critical of the preliminary analysis under review at 

 that time. We have conducted a review of these documents and 

 have concluded that problems exist with both the proposed action 

 and the accompanying analysis. This memo documents oral comments 

 conveyed between our respective staffs on January 10, and during 

 a conference call by F/CM and GCF staff with your staff on 

 January 13. 



Acceptabilitv of Proposed Actioi) 



Summary - The Council's proposed action to allocate the 208,800 

 mt 1992 harvest guideline for Pacific whiting (80,000 mt for 

 shoreside processing; 98,800 mt for at-sea processing; and 30,000 

 ■t reserve, priority for shoreside processing; catcher/processors 

 prohibited from harvesting; and reapportionment of unused 

 allocations authorized) is a narked departure from last year's 

 allocation and is causing considerable controversy that is likely 

 to result in litigation. In our opinion, the action i% not 

 approvable because the Council has not demonstrated that the 

 preferred alternative is fair and equitable in accordance with 

 National Standard 4 of the Magnuson Act, and nay, to a lesser 

 extent, have difficultly conforming with National Standard 5's 

 prohibition against management measures having economic 

 allocation as their sole purpose and National Standard 7's charge 

 to Bininiee costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. The 

 preferred alternative also is inconsistent with at least one of 

 the FMP's objectives. The rudimentary problem from which the 

 proposed action suffers is that it requires additional capital 

 investment in shoreside processing capacity when present 

 processing capacity (ashore and at-sea) substantially exceeds the 

 amount of Pacific whiting available to the fishery. 



o The need for the action has not been justified -- problem 

 statement is extremely limited, not supported by analysis, only 

 unsubstantiated statements. 



