Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120360959
label
Pacific Whiting-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120360959
contentType
document
title
Pacific Whiting-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120360959
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg2-041-012-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f2df99010c23c52a
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
4299
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Pacific Whiting-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
7
1
3
A or
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere
MOTED STATES of AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
TIMFS
APR 28 1993
Mr. Philip Cogswell, Jr.
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
The Oregonian
1320 S.W. Broadway
Portland, Oregon 97201-3499
Dear Mr. Cogswell:
I would like to respond to the recent criticism claiming
that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
decision on the 1993 Pacific whiting allocation favors the at-sea
processors.
The new one-season rule recognizes the reality of a
doolining whiting population and allocates the conservation
burden equitably between onshore processors based in Oregon and
offshore processors based in Washington in proportion to their
actual take of whiting in 1992. Section 301 (a) (4) of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act states that
"conservation and management measures shall not discriminate
between residents of different states" and specifically requires
allocations that are "fair and equitable to all such fishermen."
As background, it should be noted that the Pacific whiting
fishery presents management challenges due to the cyclical nature
of this fishery. Between 1991 and 1993, the harvest quota
declined by 86,000 metric tons. The 1994 quota is expected to
drop another 42,000 metric tons, with a reversal of this trend
anticipated in the next several years.
In 1992, vessels delivering to shore-based processors in
Oregon used 27 percent of the available quota, or 56,000 metric
tons. In 1993, the Pacific Fishery Management Council proposed a
permanent rule that would have allocated 74 percent of the
available quota to vessels delivering to shore-based processors,
or 105,000 metric tons, nearly twice the amount of whiting that
they actually harvested in 1992. Conversely, while the offshore
processors actually took 153,000 metric tonc in 1992, their share
in 1993 would have dropped from 73 percent to 26 percent of the
quota, i.e., to 37,000 metric tons.
NO
NOAA
NATIONAL
$0
THE ADMINISTRATOR
AMOUNT
01/2999
TOTAL P.04
In other words, the original Council proposal would have
increased the portion available to onshore processors by 49,000
metric tons and decreased the amount available to offshore
processors by 115,000 metric tons. In NOAA's view this was not
an equitable allocation of the conservation burden in the
doclining whiting fishery, and did not comply with one of the
Magnuson Act's national standards for fishery conservation and
management set forth in Section 301 (a) (4).
In contrast, the 1-year rule adopted by NOAA is designed, in
its final result, to allocate to vessels delivering to each group
of processors approximately the same percentage of whiting as
occurred in 1992, i.e., approximately 29 percent to the onshore
processors and 71 percent to the offshore processors.
It does this in two steps. First, it allows all boats to
fish freely for the first 112,000 metric tons of the 1993 quota.
Historical data show that vessels delivering to onshore
processors will obtain approximately one-ninth of the harvest
under these circumstances, or roughly 12,000 metric tons. This
take could, of course, be larger if the currently depressed
markets for whiting diminish the offshore fleet. When 112,000
metric tons of whiting have been caught, the remaining 30,000
metric tons of the quota will be released to vessels delivering
whiting to the onshore processors, making their total take
approximately 42,000 metric tons or 29 percent of the harvest,
2 percent more than they actually took last year. While the
amount of whiting utilized by both types of processors will be
smaller in 1993 due to the smaller resource available, the
economic burden of the reduced fishery will be shared equitably
between them in proportion to the amounts of whiting that they
actually processed in 1992.
In this context, it is difficult to understand the argument
that reducing the offshore share by 53,000 metric tons while
reducing the onshore share by only 14,000 metric tons is unfair
to the onshore processors.
I hope that the above information will clarify NOAA'S final
rule on Pacific whiting for your readers.
Sincerely,
Diana H. Jacphson
Diana H. Josephson
Acting Under Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere
Daid
4562210
F