7704

8/14/2019 7704

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/7704 1/132

Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone

June 1977

NTIS order #PB-273578

8/14/2019 7704


Establishing a 200-Mile” Fisheries Zone

OTA OCEANS PROGRAM STAFF

Robert W. Niblock, Program ManagerPeter A. Johnson , Project Director

Prudence S. Adler Emilia L. GovanKathleen A. Beil Richard C. Raymond

Thomas A. Cotton Judith M. Roales

Renee M. Crawford Bennett L. Silverstein

8/14/2019 7704


The Honorable Ernest F. H o l l ingsChairmanNational Ocean Policy StudyUni ted S ta tes Sena teWashington, D. C. 20510

The Honorable John P. MurphyChairmanMerchant Marine and Fisheries CommitteeU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairmen:

On behalf of the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment,

we a re forwarding to you the repor t , Es tab l i sh ing a 200-MileF isher ies Zone .

This report concludes OTA’s assessment of important problemsand opportunities which result from implementation of theFishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which becameef fec t ive March 1 of th is yea r .

The assessment was conducted in accord with a request from

the Senate National Ocean Policy Study in January 1974, anda subsequent request by the House Merchant Marine and FisheriesCommittee.

8/14/2019 7704


W A S H I N G T O N , D . C . 2 0 5 1 0

The Honorable Edward M. KennedyChairman of the BoardOffice of Technology AssessmentU.S. CongressWashington, D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The enclosed report, Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone,presents OTA’s analysis of important problems and opportunitieswhich result from implementing the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1976.

The assessment which led to this report was requested by theChairmen of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study and the HouseMerchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The assessment was con-ducted by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with input fromrepresenta t ives of the f i sh ing indus t ry and government agenc ieswhich a re involved in ca r ry ing out provis ions of the leg is la t ionwhich ex tended U.S . ju r i sd ic t ion over commerc ia l f i she r ies ou tto the 200-mi le l imi t .

The report analyzes four major aspects of the new fisherieslaw: 1 ) e nf o rc e me n t of f i sh e ri e s re g u la t i on s a nd U . S. j u ri s -dic t i on over the f i shery z one; 2) management of the new fisheryz o n e ; 3) in format ion which wi l l be needed for implementa t ion of the law; and 4) oppor tuni t ie s for expanding and rev i ta l iz ing the

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

8/14/2019 7704


AcknowledgementsThe staff wishes to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the following

contractors and consultants in the gathering and formulation of the background data:

James M. Acheson, University of Maine

Frederick W. Bell, Florida State University

Developmen t Sciences Inc., East Sandwich, Massachusetts

Douglas Campbell

Eastland Resolution Fisheries Survey, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf State Marine

Fisheries Commissions

John M. Gates, University of Rhode Island

William Jensen, Willamette University,

Oregon

Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,California

Synergy Inc., Washington, D.C.

Robert M. Snyder, ]upiter, Florida

Robert E. Taber, University of Rhode Island

John Vernberg, University of South

Carolina

The staff further w ishes to acknowledge the assistance of former OTA staff memberCynthia Mercing, who worked on the early development of this study, and those otherpeople and organizations, both public and private, which reviewed and commented onvarious draft documents circulated by OTA or provided other types of assistance:

W i l l i a m T . B u r k e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington

Francis T. Christy, Resources for the Future

Patrick J. Doody, Zapata-Haynie Corp.David J. Etzold, Univeristy of Southern

MississippiWade L Griffin Texas A & M University

Gilbert C. Radonski, Sport Fishing Inst ituteCourtland L. Smith, Oregon State Univer-

sity

Richard Stroud , Sport Fishing InstituteU.S. Department of Commerce, National

Marine Fisheries Service

U S Department of Defense Office of the

8/14/2019 7704


PrefaceThis report, “Establishing a 200-Mile Fishery Zone,” is the result of a

study of the major problems and opportunities which may occur because of

the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The study was re-

quested by Senator Ernest F. Hollings on behalf of the Senate National

Ocean Policy Study in January 1974, and by former Representative Lenore

K. Sullivan of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in April

1974. Upon retirement, Mrs. Sullivan was replaced by Representative John

Murphy as Chairman of that Committee. These requests were endorsed by

Senator Edward M. Kennedy in September 1975, and subsequently approved

for execution by the Technology Assessment Board.

The report was prepared by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with the

assistance of advisors from the fishing industry, Government, and academiawho reviewed draft materials and provided guidance.

The work undertaken by the Office of Technology Assessment, andreported in this document, was confined to evaluation of techniques which

will be used for enforcing regulations in the 200-mile fishery zone, problems

which may be encountered in the management of fisheries, and information

which will be needed in order to implement the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976. This limited scope made it possible for OTA tooffer specific criticism of existing systems and specific suggestions for con-

gressional ac t ion to fur ther improve f isher ies conservation and manage-

8/14/2019 7704


Table of ContentsPAGE

LIST OF WORKING PAPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . * . . *

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 11

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter III

ENFORCEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brief History of Fisheries Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Requirements of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Presen t Plan s for N ear-Term Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level of Enforcement , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Existing Capabilities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Possibilities for Near-Term Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommended Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Possibilities for Long-Range Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Recommended Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remote Sensing Devices

ix

x

1

7

19

21

21

23

24

27

29

38

42

4343

45

46

8/14/2019 7704


PAGE

Chapter IV

MANAGEMENT OF NEW U.S. FISHERIES ZONE ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Optimum Sustainable Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Regional Fishery Management Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Preliminary Management Plans for Foreign Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Final Management Plans for Domestic Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Evaluation of Management Effectiveness. .....,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter V

INFORMATION NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 94-265... 75

Biological Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Status of Current Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Methods of Improving Information Base..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Economic Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Status of Current Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Methods of Improving Information Base .,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Social Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Status of Current Information, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Methods of Improving Information Base...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Chapter VI

8/14/2019 7704


List of Working Papers

Working Paper No. 1: Economic Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Ex-

tended Jurisdiction by John M. Gates

Working Paper No. 2: Social Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Extended

Jurisdiction by James M. Acheson, University of Maine

Working Paper No. 3: Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment: Issues and Needs by

Development Sciences Inc.

Working Paper N o. 4: A Short Analysis of Stock Enhancement Possibilities for Certain

Commercially Important Marine Species by John Vernberg, University of South

Carolina

Working Paper No. 5: Survey of the Potential of Remote Sensing Technology to Sup-

port Enforcement of the 200-Mile Fishing Zone by Stanford Research Institute

8/14/2019 7704


List of Figures

Figure No. Page

1

23

4

5

6789

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

1819

2021

U.S. Landings, Imports, and Consumption of Edible Fishery Products. . . . .Overfished Species of Importance to U.S. Fisheries as of August 1975 . . . . .Historic World and U.S. Landings of Fish and Shellfish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Fisheries Regulations, Where Proposed, Effectiveness of Selected Surveillance Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expected N um ber of Undetected Violations by Month Und er “No Effort,” FY75 Level, and Planned Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - New England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planned Coast Gu ard Aircraft Patrols - Mid Atlant ic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - Gulf of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - West Coast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Possible Flow of Surveillance Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sum mary of the Potential of Remote-Sensing Technology To Supp ort En-forcement of the 200-nmi Fishing Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Useful Surveillance Coverage by a State-of-the-Art Microwave Radar . . . . .Over-the-Horizon Radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Over-the-Horizon Radar Coverage From Hypothetical Stations. . . . . . . . . . .Airborne Scanning Microwave Radiometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regional Council Jurisdictions and National Marine Fisheries ServiceRegions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appointed Voting Members of Regional Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Duties of Regional Council and National Marine Fisheries Service . . . . . . . .Fishery Management Plans, as of February 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P li i M t Pl All ti

345

2 6

31

32

33

3435

36

44

4 8 - 4 9515 35 45 5

6 4

6 5 - 6 66 77 0

71

8/14/2019 7704


1. Introduction

8/14/2019 7704


Fish are an important part of man’s patternof survival.

Directly-that is, fish and shellfish con-sumed by man—fish provide about 14 percentof the world’s supply of animal protein. TheFood and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has estimated that everyman, woman, and child in the world con-sumes an average of 26 pounds of fish each

year.lHowever, that figure varies greatly

from country to country, ranging from only asmall fraction-of-a-pound per person per yearin Afghanistan to more than 86 pounds perperson per year in Iceland, In the UnitedStates, the average consumption per person isabout 12 poun ds of fish ann ually. z Accordingto FAO the consum ption of fish is likely to in-crease through 1990 at a growth rate higherthan that of beef, pork, vegetables, cereal, ormilks This suggests increasing pressure onalready heavily utilized ocean resourcesworldwide in the next 10 years,

Indirectly—in the form of meal and oil fedto pigs and chickens which are in turn eatenby man—fish provide another 10 or 11 per-cent of the world’s animal protein

4

from w aters off the United States wh ere, with -in 200 miles of the coasts, about one-fifth of the world’s fishery resources are located.

9

Worldwide, the National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration has projected that

the oceans can sustain an annu al catch of only100-million metric tons, a catch figure theyexpect to be reached by 1980.

10Already, in-

creased fishing has caused acute pressure onsome s tocks , deple t ing the supply andthreatening their existence. For example, off the coast of the United States abou t 20 speciesof fish and shellf ish are believed to beseriously depleted

11(see figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1U.S. Landings, Imports,and Consumption ofEdible Fishery Products

87

6

Total Consumption

8/14/2019 7704


%iot all stocks de@a&M

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalO i d A h i Ad i i i

mercial fishermen an d consumers. The declineof the New England haddock fishery whichwas reduced from a major commercial en-terprise in 1950 to a relatively small activitytoday, is a principal example of the effects of

overfishing within 200 miles of the U.S.coasts. The U.S. haddock catch in 1950 was 20times larger than it was in 1974.

12Total catch

of other important commercial species, suchas flounder and ocean perch, also declined asoverfishing reduced the amount of stock available (see figure 3).

In response to widespread public concernabout overfishing, the U.S. Congress moved to

adopt a 200-mile fishery zone to give theUnited States power to limit or excludeforeign fishing off its coasts and impose onboth foreign and U.S. f ishermen respon-sibilities for conservation and utilization of the fishery resources within the zone.

In passing the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265), Con-

gress officially noted that certain stocks of fishoff the coasts of this coun try “h ave been over-fished to the point where their survival isthreatened and other such stocks have been so

8/14/2019 7704


Figure 3Historic Worid andU.S. Landings ofFish and Shellfish

50

The task of husbanding the U.S. fisheryresources is a major one. At stake is not on ly amajor supply of animal protein, but also anAmerican industry which provides employ-ment for more than a quarter-of-a-million

people

15

and has a $6.5 billion impact on theU .S . e c onom y .16

It is a resource used byforeign fishermen from more than 17 na-tions,

17U.S. commercial fishermen, and an

estimated 30 million18

recreational fishermen,wh ose catch is rough ly equal in size and valueto the catch of edible fish by U.S. commercialfishermen.

19

Managing such a resource will involve

scientific, social, and political problems formany years to come. Not the least of theseproblems is the fact that implementation of the law will require the use of much informa-tion about all phases of the fishing industry—information which has not been consistentlycollected and analyzed in the past. But if theprinciples established by the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act are pursued,

there is substantial promise of a rationalsystem for resolving conflicts between theneeds of foreign, domestic, and recreationalfi h d th d f ti

8/14/2019 7704


may be subject to increasing fishing p ressures how ever, raise considerable hop e for restoringif stronger controls are p laced on stocks in the stocks and encouraging the American fishing200-mile zone. Tuna is the major commercial indu stry to expand . Some of the potential newstock which is excluded from U.S. jurisdiction opportunities which may result are also dis-as a highly migratory species. The Act does, cussed in this report.

8/14/2019 7704


2 Summary

8/14/2019 7704


In March 1977, the Fishery Conservationand Management Act of 1976 became effec-tive, extending U.S. jurisdiction over offshorefisheries within 200 miles of its coast andpossessions, and making it the policy of the

land to use some of the most advanced ideasavailable about ways to mange marine fish-eries.

Implementation of the law will require alevel of understanding about the f ishingresources and industry that has never beforebeen attempted by the U.S. Government. Itwi ll requi re deve lopment of methods of balancing biological, economic, and social fac-

tors relating to fisheries in order to best servethe national needs. Most of the informationnecessary for this process does not yet exist.

The law establishes Regional Councils towork with the National Marine FisheriesService of the Department of Commerce inmanaging fishery resources and setting outregulations, including allocation of the catch

of commercial species between domestic andforeign fishermen. Preliminary regulationsand catch allocations have been drawn up, butbetter working relationships between all in-

will be primarily responsible for enforcingregulation of foreign fishermen and the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service will overseedomestic fishing. Both enforcement groupsare beginning their tasks by increasing exist-

ing activities. This appears ap prop riate for thetime being, but it is likely new enforcementtechniques and advanced equipment will beneeded in the future . Improvements areneeded in long-term evaluation of enforce-ment needs, costs and benefits, and attentionshould be given to coordinating some militaryinformation and equipment w ith Coast Guardrequirements for fisheries.

The Office of Technology Assessment’sanalysis of implementation of the new 200-mile fisheries zone can be expressed in termsof the conclusions reached during the assess-ment , the prac t ica l and organiza t iona lproblems which were discovered, and theO T A s u g g e s t i o n s f o r r e s o l v i n g t h o s eproblems.

The overall conclusions of the assessmentare given here for each of the major subjectareas of the report. These conclusions aregroup ed as they relate to:

8/14/2019 7704


Enforcement

Also included in this Summary are some of the specific problems which stand in the wayof full implementation of the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act of 1976.

It is the practice of the Office of Technology

Assessment to m ake an objective an alysis of asubject and not to recommend specific policyactions to the US. Congress. Adhering to thatpractice, OTA has made no policy recommen-dations in this report. However, due to thepractical nature of this report and the desiresof the congressional committee which re-quested this study, it seemed appropriate inthis case to make a n um ber of specific sugges-

tions for more effective implemen tation of theFishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. These recommendations are outlined inthis section and discussed in more detailwhere appropriate in later sections.

Throughout this Summary, page numbersare noted after individua l conclusions in ord erto simp lify reference to fuller d iscussion in themain text of the report.

Need for Enforcement

Adequate management and strict en-forcement offer the opportunity for futureincrease in fish stocks and yields due totighter controls to prevent overfishing, less

pressure on stocks which are normallytaken as bycatch, less conflict among fisher-men for certain grounds, less conflict be-tween different types of equipment, andassurance of workable allocation of catchquotas among foreign and U.S. fishermen.

(See pages 27 to 29.)

The Existing Coast Guard Enforcement Plan

for Foreign FisheriesThe Coast Guard plan of increasing its

present fishery enforcement capabilities is areasonable first step in enforcement. It isflexible in that resources can be added at areasonable first cost and the pr ogram can becurtailed or accelerated as assumptions andneed are proven or d isproven by ex-perience. (See pages 29 to 31.)

Enforcement of Domestic Fisheries by NMFSand USCG

8/14/2019 7704


foreign fi she r ies. However , addi t iona lfacilities would be needed to cover thedifferent areas used by domestic fishermenand the additional fishing vessels. (Seepages 29 to 31.)

Techniques To Improve Near-Term Enforce-ment Effectiveness

Several fairly simple strategies whichcould be activated almost immediately forenforcement have not been given favorableconsideration by the Coast Guard and theNational Marine Fisheries Service. Three of these are:

1) establishment of an efficient reportingsystem which would allow domestic fisher-men to aid in observing foreign fishingvessels,

2) more extensive use of observers on-board foreign fishing vessels, and

3) creation of specific guidelines to be

followed in granting annual fishing permitsand renewing Governing InternationalFishery Agreements. (See pages 38 to 42.)

E i h ld b d f b

Remote-Sensing Systems for Future Enforce-ment Needs

The cost of most remote-sensing systemsis high and it will probably be necessary toshare the cost of such systems with other

users. However, remote-sensing d evicescould be expected to improve enforcementby better coverage, better performan ce, anda reduction of the need for expanding con-ventional ship and aircraft patrols of fishing

areas in the future. (See pages 46 to 47.)

Transpond ers have good future p otentialfor use in fisheries enforcement. Par-

ticularly when combined with Loran-C,transpond ers can be used to detect, identify,and classify fishing vessels. (See pages 47 to49.)

New m icrowave radar equipment has thetechnical potential to supplement or sup-plant existing airborne radar for fisheriesenforcement within the next 10 years, butthe cost would be very high. (See pages 50

to 52.)

Over-the-horizon radar techniques havegood potential for use in fisheries enforce-

8/14/2019 7704


Recommended PilotProjects in Enforcement

Recommendations on Enforcement Levelsand Evaluation (see pages 24 to 29)

Problem 1: No desirable level of enforcementhas been determined, based on a policy deci-sion, as to what level of enforcement is most

desirable.

Recommendation: In order to determine thetype of effort and equipment necessary, thereshould be a specific definition of the desirablelevel of enforcement, followed by regularassessment of changing enforcement needsand the actual level of enforcement which hasbeen achieved compared to the desired level.

In addition, the Regional Councils shouldmake a projection of desired enforcement ac-tions in their areas, possible compliance in-ducements for fisheries in their areas, and po-tential domestic enforcement plans.

Problem 2: The existing Coast Guard analysisof the appropriate level of enforcement wasmade without benefit of an adequate methodfor assessing the benefits and the cost (in

social, economic, political, and scientificterms) of various enforcement strategies, thatis, the various combinations of aircraft, ships,

The cost of enforcing fishery regulations inthe new 200-mile zone may escalate as ex-perience is gained in managing the fisheries,and it may be learned that a h igher level of en-forcement is necessary than that w hich is now

planned. Therefore, a reasonable approach togaining experience with different enforcementtechniques is desirable in order to determinewhich are the most successful and cost-effec-tive methods of achieving the goals of theFishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

The research conducted during this studysuggests that such experience might be most

efficiently gained through a series of pilotprograms in various areas of enforcement.The following four projects are an outline of the types of work which may be useful. Theseprojects are suggested with the assumptionthat in the long-run, the cost of gaining suffi-cient experience on which to make informedchoices and trade-offs in enforcement ac-tivities would be less than the cost of possible

erroneous decisions about the use of very ex-pensive, electronic-surveillance systems, thecost of adding large numbers of new and

ibl i d f d h

8/14/2019 7704


It is suggested that these projects should becondu cted for at least a year, possibly more, inorder to cover the entire fishing season andrange of activities on any given area. At theend of the project, each should be evaluatedwith special attention to determining the com-pleteness of coverage provided, the cost, thetimeliness and usefulness of information ob-tained, and a comparison of each method withtraditional enforcement activities, and otherpossible alternatives to the pilot method.

Shipboard Observers (for background discus-sion, see pages 38 to 42)

OTA’s analysis suggests that m uch could belearned from a p ilot project in wh ich a foreignfishery is nearly blanketed with shipboard ob-servers who have both management and en-forcement d uties.

The New England region would be mostsuitable for such a pilot project because the

fishing grounds are concentrated and foreign-fishing practices are well known; many of theforeign vessels fish in groups which couldsimplify the arrangement of vessels with ob-

matters. If they are given enforcement duties,they should be Coast Guard personnel, in-stead of NMFS personnel. However, theyshould receive some training from NMFS inobserving, collecting, and reporting informa-tion of value. Some familiarity w ith the n ationon whose vessel the observer serves wouldalso be helpful.

Based on NMFS estimates for their existinglimited-observer program the cost of a 100-man pilot program would be roughly $2million plus funds for an accurate evaluationof the p ilot.

Under the law, this cost is passed on to theforeign vessels. How ever, other fees andcharges are also levied, und er the law, to reim-burse the United States for management andenforcement activities in the 200-mile zone.Since the observer program would presuma-bly make some other expenditures covered bythese levies unnecessary, the gross-tonnagefee or tax on ex-vessel value of the catch could

be reduced accordingly.

Transfer of Military Data (for backgrounddi i 43 t 44)

8/14/2019 7704


provide information needed for fisheries en-forcement.

Some funding would be necessary to addpersonnel who would coordinate the transferof fisheries-related data from the Navy to the

Coast Guard district in charge of fisheries en-forcement in that zone.

On one hand, there may be difficulties inworking with and protecting classified infor-mation and there may be a danger that th is ex-tra task might not receive adequate attentionin a facility oriented to an existing militarymission. However, such an information-shar-ing program could ultimately cut costs sub-stantially by reducing duplication of effortand facilities. It could also prov ide cooperativeexperience which might lead to sharing of other services and resources needed for en-forcement and the opportunity to evaluatenew technology which may be of use in fish-eries enforcement.

Joint Research (for background discussion,see pages 45 to 46)

OTA suggests that a pilot project for

Transponders with Loran-C (for backgrounddiscussion, see pages 47 to 49)

OTA suggests early implementation of apilot program utilizing transponders in twospecific regions-the Bering Sea off Alaskaand the Georges Bank off New England. Sinceeach of these areas are traditional fishinggrounds, but with very different prevailingconditions, the usefulness of transponderscould be evaluated for a broad range of ap-plications by this pilot project.

The pi lot programs would require thedesign and manufacture of Loran-C trans-

ponder equipment specifically for this pur-pose. The Loran-C network is already p lannedor in operation in the regions proposed. Alicensing arrangement and installation tech-nique for fitting transponders on each foreignfishing vessel entitled to fish in the regionwould need to be devised. Control stationsand receivers on patrol ships or aircraft wou ldneed to be installed.

It is estimated that the transponder whichwould go on board each foreign vessel wouldcost less than $2,500. Once the system were

8/14/2019 7704


Management of NewU.S. Fishery Zone

fishing activity that was not reported by thissystem.

In the Bering Sea region a similar network of transponders could be required aboardforeign fishing vessels. In this region it may be

desirable to combine the transponder network with microwave radar systems already usedaboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiv-ing stations also aboard the patrol craft. In th isway a specific region could be covered byregular overflight, all vessels operating in theregion located by radar, each vessel interro-gated to determine whether an approvedtransponder is aboard stating identification

and location, and any vessels without trans-ponders investigated. There are several ad-vantages to a system th us d escribed, especiallyin Alaska where long distances and large areascan best be covered by aircraft and where fre-quent cloud cover makes visual observationdifficult or impossible.

New Management Concepts Needed

New resea rch concepts need to bedeveloped and much new data must begathered in order to obtain an integratedview of all the fisheries of the United States

and to determine the optimum yield of eachfishery. Optimum yield is a judgmentaldecision on the size of fish catch which willachieve the most advantageous combina-tion of biological, economic, and socialresults. However, there is presently noagreed-upon method of determining op-timum yield. (See pages 62 to 63.)

Even when analytical methods and relia-

ble data are generated, there will be uncer-tainty about stock assessments and otherprojections used for fishery management.Techniques for dealing with that uncer-tainty will be necessary. (See pages 62 to63.)

Relationships Between Federal Agencies and

Regional CouncilsIt is possible that better accountability for

the existence and the reliability of data p ro-

8/14/2019 7704


however, there is no framework--otherthan informal negotiations between NMFSand the councils—for resolving such con-flicts. (See pages 63 to 69.)

NMFS Management Guidelines Needed

No decisions have been made withinNMFS as to who will be responsible forresearch, data collecting, and developmentof analytical method s. There is a d ivision of opinions among NMFS staff as to whetherrecommendations on data and methodsshould be mad e by NMFS to the councils orby the councils to NMFS. (See pages 69 to73.)

The preliminary management plans pre-pared by NMFS were not coordinated incontent or format. Guidelines for presenta-tion of management plans were not pro-mulgated. This failure to standardize opera-tions with NMFS before the initial planswere written may have complicated thecouncils’ job of preparing succeeding plans

by failing to give them a model after whichto pattern their work. It may also perpetu-ate regional differences within NMFS and

li t th ti l i (S

Recommendation for Management Planning(See pages 73 to 74.)

Problem: There is no deadline for prepara-

tion of domestic fishery-management plansand no priority listing of domestic fisheriesfor which management plans should be pre-pared.

Recommendation: NMFS should prepare apriority listing of domestic fisheries for whichmanagement p lans are needed, delineating th eneeds and citing available data.

8/14/2019 7704


Information Need ed To Imp lementPublic Law 94–265

New Evaluation of Fisheries Stock Informa-tion Needed

The new Regional Councils could make asubstantial improvement in the old systemof making estimates of fishery yields and

adv ice abou t health of stocks available onlyto international governing bodies. Thecouncils could interpret scientific data onstocks, publish it widely, and provide anopportunity for continual access to infor-mation and debate of the issues by in-terested parties. Input by and involvementof users and other p ublic parties is crucial tothe success of fishery management. (See

pages 77 to 79.)

Status of Stock Information

Present assessments of heavily utilizedstocks are quite accurate. However, projec-tions of sustainable yields in the future aresubject to large uncertainties due to effectsof interspecies relationships, environmentalchange, fishing effort, and other unknown

natural variations. (See pages 77 to 79.)

Presently no stock has adequate quantita-tive data on all items necessary to develop

upon a few key indicators of the health andsize of the stock rather than to attempt toassess all possible indicators. (See pages 79to 81.)

Because of pressures to expand existing

stock assessment methodologies to providedata for near-term decisions, pressure totreat f ishery information as a precisescience, and the lack of validity for existingmethods of research, a program should beundertaken to improve the stock assess-ment data which will be used and establishfuture research priorities. (See pages 79 to81.)

Foreign Investment Information

Mand atory d isclosure of the actual extentof foreign investment in U.S. fish process-ing and wholesale operations would benecessary in order to determine if foreigninvestment results in uncontrolled foreignfishing or if it has an adverse effect on thec om pe t i t i ve pos i t i on o f U .S . f i r m s .

However, such disclosure is not presentlyrequired. (See pages 81 to 85.)

8/14/2019 7704


Future D evelopments in th eFishing In du stry

Recommendation for Improved Manage-ment Information (See pages 81 to 86.)

Problem: Most of the regional economics tud ie s w h ic h ha ve be e n done a nd theeconomic and social data generated by NMFS

would be of limited use to the Regional Coun-cils in their management work because it isoutdated or not maintained in a format ap-plicable to fisheries man agers.

Recommendation: The National Marine Fish-eries Service consulting with the RegionalCouncils could evaluate the economic andsocial-data needs and the suggestions for im-provement which are outlined in this reportand develop a comprehensive managementinformation system.

Information Needed To Evaluate Oppor-tunities

In order to make decisions on how to im-prove an existing fishery or develop a newfishery by enhan cement techniques, new in-

formation is necessary. This includes an in-tensive and integrated examination of allfacets of a fishery: resource assessment,harvest and processing technologies andcosts; market potentials; and institutionalfactors including artificial barriers to trade.None of this information presently existswithin th e Federal agencies. (See pages 96 to99.)

Sufficient d ata abou t various segm ents of the fishing industry are not now availablefor determining w hat, if any, actions shou ldbe taken by the Government to encouragegrowth in the fishing industry. (See pages99 to 104.)

Underutilized Species Not Defined

In addition to the possible prices which

presently underuti l ized species mightbring, stock assessments and projections of yield from the species are needed in orderto determine if the stocks can sustain a

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


Brief History of Fisheries LawBackground Enforcement

Management of the new 200-mile U.S. fish-ery zone will, of necessity, have enforcementof regulations as an integral part if it is to ac-complish restoration and conservation of fishstocks and provide the domestic fishing in-

dustry with the potential and incentive togrow, as mandated by the Fishery Conserva-tion and Management Act of 1976 (P.L.94-265).

Management plans to be drawn-up underprovisions of the Act will lay the groundwork for the types of regulations which will be re-quired and which mu st be enforced. However,fish resources are already scarce enough and

the demand for fish products high enoughthat it is logical to conclude that foreign na-tions can justify the risk of violating theseregulations and the United States can justifythe effort and expense of enforcing them. Infact, the U.S. Coast Guard, the agency pri-marily charged with the enforcement task, hasconcluded in a report on its preparations forincreased fisheries duties that “the state of the

fish stocks today is too critical to allow for anylapse in enforcement.”

20

A discussion of enforcement problems and

The United States began to exercise controlover its coastal fisheries soon after it became acountry. Until the passage of the Bartlett Act,in the middle 1960’s, however, enforcementwas essentially confined to the “territorial

sea”, the area with in 3-nautical miles offshore.The early control activities were generally

mild. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s and early1900’s, that strong legislation was passed toresolve fishery and marine mammal problemsin Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, In theearly 1900’s, foreign fishing vessels wereseized and brought to American ports, andfines were successfully levied against the

crews and vessels.

The Bartlett Act has been the primary fish-e r i e s l a w . F o r e ign f i sh ing i s no t on lyprohibited within the territorial sea, but alsois excluded within a contiguous 9-mile fish-eries zone beyond the 3-mile territorial sea. Inaddition, foreign fishermen cannot retaincreatures of the Continental Shelf (shellfish

and crustacean). Violations of the Bartlett Actcould result in fines, imprisonment, and for-feiture of the vessel, gear, and catch.

8/14/2019 7704


allocations. Inspectors may stop, board, andexamine member fishing vessels for violationsof the regulations, but prosecution andpunishment (if any) are carried out by the“flag state”, the home country of the particu-

lar fishing vessel.The United States was a member of ICNAF

for more than 25 years. However, it withdrewfrom the convention after Congress passed theFishery Management and Conservation Act of 1976, unilaterally assuming jurisdiction overmost of the east coast waters in whichAmerican fishermen work.

The growth in breadth and strength of en-forcement of fisheries laws can be traced totwo primary interrelated occurrences:

q intense foreign fishing off our coasts, and

q depletion of many fish species due tooverfishing.

In 1975, there were 17 foreign nations fish-ing off our coasts.

21In June 1975, almost 1,000

foreign fishing vessels were sighted; the year’s

monthly average was more than 500.22 Th eforeign vessels caught about three-quarters of the 3 million metric tons of fish caught in the200-mile zone that year.

From 1964 through September of 1976,nearly 100 foreign fishing vessels were citedfor violation of U.S. fishing laws. The mostfrequent offenders have been Japan, Canada,Cuba, and the U.S.S.R. Fishermen from thesenations account for more than 70 percent of the violations of U.S. law. In addition, approx-imately 100 treaty violations are documentedeach year.

23

8/14/2019 7704


Requirements of the Law

Violations of U.S. law can be classified as:

q geographical intrusion, that is entranceinto forbidden areas, such as territorialwaters or closed areas; and

q catch and illegal retention of creatures

from the continental shelf , such aslobsters and crabs.

Treaty violations take the form of:

q

q

q

q

i m p r o p e r f i s h i n g g e a r , w h i c h i sprohibited in certain areas by regulation;

illegal retainment of bycatch, that is,catching and keeping p rohibited species;

overfishing of quotas; andviolating administrative regulations,such as imp roper keeping of log books ornot rep orting requ ired scientific data.

In the past, fisheries enforcement respon-sibility has been vested primarily in the U.S.Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has providedthe ships and aircraft and much of the man-

power to staff the vehicles, the sensing equip-ment and the command and control functionof operations. The National Marine FisheriesService, which is primarily concerned with

The purpose and policies set out in PublicLaw 94-265 have important effects on enforce-ment. The law vests the responsibility for en-forcement in the Secretary of Commerce(NMFS) and in the Secretary of Transporta-tion (Coast Guard). Authorization is given to

arrest violators, to seize vessels and cargo, andto issue citations.

In addition a number of specific instruc-tions, which have a major effect on enforce-ment, are spelled out in the law:

1. No foreign fishing is permitted in thefishery conservation zone except:

a. under agreements or treaties (new andrenegotiated), and

b. with a permit.

2. In every international agreement:

a.

b.

The foreign country agrees to abide byall U.S. regulations.The foreign country allows a U.S.officer to:

(1) board the vessel,(2) make arrests and seizures, and(3) examine the permit

8/14/2019 7704


Present Plans for N ear-Term

Enforcement

3. An allocation of fishing level (fishquotas) will be made to specific foreigncountries.

4. If a foreign vessel, with a permit, violatesthe regulations:

a. The permit of that vessel could berevoked.

b. The p ermit could be su spended.c. Additional conditions could be im-

posed on the foreign nation and onany of its permits,

5. Civil penalties for violations could be asmuch as $25,000 per violation, where ev-ery day may be considered as an addi-tional violation.

6. Criminal p enalties for v iolations could beas much as $100,000 and 10 years inprison.

7. Any vessel, its fishing gear and cargo,could be forfeited to the United States.

Since the passage of the Fishery Manage-

ment and Conservation Act of 1976, someconcern has been voiced by Members of Con-gress, members of the Regional Councils, and

h h f i i i U S fi hi

Enforcement of regulations in the new 200-mile fishery zon e is complicated by th e size of the area and the fact that fishing is to be reg-ulated not prohibited. The area encompassedby the 200-mile-wide band surrounding theUnited States and its possessions adds up to

almost 21/ Q-million squ are miles of ocean. Ac-cording to Coast Guard estimates, major fish-eries cover approximately one-fourth of thatarea. These prime fishing grounds w ill requireconcentrated enforcement efforts during cer-tain seasons, In ad dition, at least some level of enforcement may be required in all parts of the zone at some time during the year. Adense mixture of marine traffic, including

merchant vessels, warships, tankers, recrea-tional craft, and both domestic and foreignfishing vessels, is found within the 200-milezone. From this mix of vessels, foreign fishingcraft must be located and identified by nation.Further, in order to enforce any regulation inany fishing area at any given time, fishingvessels must be classified as fishing accordingto the provisions of their permits and existing

regulations or in violation of these controls;violators must be apprehended; and someprosecutor action must be taken.

8/14/2019 7704


necessary through at least sea state 7 (28- to40-knot winds and 22- to 40-foot waves).

In addition, for each enforcement step,different vehicles and equipment are useful.For example, an aircraft flying at 200 knots, at

15,000 feet in clear weather will cover agreater area, using sight and radar, and detectmore fishing vessels than will a cutter at seadoing 15 knots. On the other hand , the aircraftca nnot pu t a boa r d ing pa r ty on fish ingvessels, while a cutter can accomplish thismission.

It is not now possible to project explicitlywhat enforcement will be necessary to detectand deter violations because the RegionalCouncils, which are charged with creating theregulations for fishery management, have not

yet formalized final plans which will includethe regulations which are to be enforced.Regulations which have been drawn-up bythe National Marine Fisheries Service for im-plementation as of March 1, 1977, are merelyinterim rules which will be supplanted oncethe councils formulate regulations specific to

8/14/2019 7704


their fisheries. The interim regulations are nottoo different from those contained in the in-ternational agreements which have, in thepast, been the only means of controlling fish-ing activity. The major immediate changes

will be that the United States has taken on theresponsibility for enforcement, w ill board andinspect foreign vessels for compliance withU.S. regulations, and will prosecute offendersitself instead of leaving that task to flag states.But as experience with the fishery zon e grows,new types of regulations and enforcementtechniques will be needed and used.

Nevertheless, certain basic types of viola-tions can be anticipated, such as illegal fishingby foreign vessels which do not have permits;overfishing of quotas allowed for each species;violation of permit stipulations such as gear-,

area-, or time-restrictions; and failure to com-ply with data-reporting requirements.

The specific regulations to be enforced andviolations expected will affect the type of en-forcement strategies and equipment to beused, Figure 4 is a matrix of likely enforce-ment needs an d techniques.

8/14/2019 7704


Level of Enforcement

Just as important in determining what en-forcement capabilities will be necessary isdetermination of the desired level of enforce-

ment. In other words, should enforcementagencies mobilize to catch 50 percent of theviolators, 75 percent, or 100 percent—inwhich case the costs could prove to beastronomical. Without a quantified level of enforcement, the allocation of enforcementresources becomes a matter of intuition ratherthan one of reasoned judgment.

Currently, the Coast Guard simulat ion

mod el used for costing pu rposes indicates thatthe agency assumes it can catch or deter ap-proximately 95 percent of the 2,150 expectedannu al violators within the bud get appropria-t ion leve l r eques ted .

24T h a t p e r c e n t a g e ,

however, does not app ear to have been set asan enforcement goal based on any p olicy deci-sion as to w hat level of enforcement is desira-ble. In addition, the percentage shown may be

much too high, depending on what types of violations (over quota, use of prohibited gear,fishing in closed areas) are being counted, A

iddl d h i b bl i d

A major shortcoming of the Coast Guard’sanalysis of the appropriate level of enforce-ment is the lack of an adequate method forassessing the benefits that can be expectedfrom various enforcement strategies. Since

significant resou rces may be required to oper-ate an effective enforcemen t system, th e CoastGuard’s current inability to systematicallyestimate the expected value of enforcement isa serious flaw. However, since the determina-tion of appropriate enforcement strategies isonly one part of the broader process of fish-eries management, what is probably needed isa more general analytical system which could

provide quantitative estimates of the impactsof alternative management techniques, includ -ing—but not limited to—the enforcementstrategies, on th e catch an d profits of comm er-cial fishermen, the quantities and prices of fishavailable to the domestic consumer, the stateof recreational fishing, and other measures of the benefits of management.

One such general analytical system is cur-

rently being developed for NOAA by theCente r for Technology Assessment andResource Policy at Stanford University. This

8/14/2019 7704


qAssurance of proper allocation of quotasamong foreign and U.S. fishermen.

An enforcement component is not presentlyplanned for the Stanford model. Such a com-ponent, which would translate various en-

forcement strategies into impacts on foreignfishing activities, should be developed by theCoast Guard. The Coast Guard could then useits enforcement model in conjunction with theStanford model, or any similar one adoptedby NOAA, in order to determine the costs andbenefits of various levels or enforcement orspecific enforcement strategies.

The primary objective of the Coast Guardsimulation shou ld be to evalu ate the effective-ness and the cost of a mix of vehicles, sensors,and personnel as they enforce the regulationsapplicable to the 200-mile fishery zone.Among other factors, the model should in-clude:

q existing capabilities and possible futuresystems of sensors, vehicles, and person-

nel;q shor t - and long- range enforcement

needs;

foreign relations, comparability withother Coast Guard du ties, etc.;

. b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s o f f o r e i g n a n ddomestic fishermen in reaction to regula-tions; and

q monetary cost of programs.

A mod el which d oes a more adequate job of making cost-benefit estimates than the exist-ing Coast Guard model will be exceedinglydifficult to prepare since the efficiency of en-forcement involves intangible as w ell as tangi-ble costs and results. For example, how doesthe value of protect ing and restor ing a

depleted stock compare with the value of im-proved international relations which mayresult in some sp ecific sought-after agreem entin another field? However, the model couldpresent p ossible scenarios, imp acts, and trade-offs which may result from various levels of enforcement or differing amounts of expend-itures.

Although the analytical models to be usedby NOAA and the Coast Guard in fisheriesmanagement and enforcement are an impor-tant tool, there is considerable feeling among

8/14/2019 7704


Existing Capabilities

The existing capabilities for enforcingPublic Law 94-265 include three primarygroups, within the executive branch, whichwould or could be involved in the future:

1. The Coast Guard has the p rimary respon -sibility for enforcement and exercisesalmost complete jurisdiction over ac-tivities in the foreign fisheries.

2. The National Marine Fisheries Serviceshares the enforcement function with theCoast Guard by providing personnelwith scientific and biological expertise toaid in planning and carrying out enforce-ment strategies in the domestic fisheries.

3. The Departmen t of Defense normally w illhave no enforcement function at all, ex-cept in the unlikely event that foreignwarships should appear within the 200-mile zone to contest U.S. regulations. Inthat case, U.S. military forces would be

called upon unde r the t e r m s o f amemorandum of understanding betweenthe Coast Guard and the Department of D f Th d d

tions agree to accept the U.S. jurisdiction inthe 200-mile zone. The State Department isalso to exercise an advisory role, keeping theCoast Guard, the National Marine FisheriesService, and the Regional Councils informedon foreign policy implications of f isherymanagement.

Under the new law, as in the past, the StateDepartment is consulted by the Coast Guardbefore any foreign fishing vessel is seized forviolation of U.S. regulations. There are un-doubtedly legit imate instances when theforeign policy or diplomatic implications of some action should take precedence over the

fishery implications. However, the CoastGuard routinely allows the State Depart-ment’s desire to avoid unpleasant diplomaticincidents to influence enforcement actions.There appears to be no formal mechanism toassure that State Department decisions to in-tervene in a fishery action are made at an ap-propriate policy level and that the CoastGuard exercises its statutory responsiblitity to

make final enforcement d ecisions, with adv icefrom the State Department being only one of many factors to be considered. There is ob-

i d f l d i l d

8/14/2019 7704


solely to fishery enforcement, but were usedalso for other Coast Guard duties such as in-vestigating oil spills, sea search and rescue,and general law enforcement. Approximately2,500 days of ship time and 6,000 hours of aircraft time w ere devoted to enforcing fishery

laws, regulations, and treaties during 1975,about one-haIf million square miles werepatrolled, at a cost of $46 million for the year.The Coast Guard spent about 5 percent of its

total annual operational budget on fisheriesenforcement

.25

The Coast Guard’s original plan for en-forcement under the new law called for in-creasing ship time by 951 days to provide

2,616 patrol days inside active fishing areasand 823 patrol days in other areas; increasingaircraft time by 7,553 hours to provide 8,446hours of patrol in active fishing areas and3,068 hours of patrol in other areas.

26

8/14/2019 7704


According to the Coast Guard plan, this,theoretically, would reduce the number of violations p er year from the expected 2,150 toabout 110, based on the assumption thatdetection and identification constitute en-forcement (see figure 5). However, there is

some question about the wisdom of thisassumption since simple detection of a viola-tion by an aircraft or other means does notguarantee that the violation will cease andthat the violator will be penalized.

The Coast Guard plan would necessitate theaddition of 10 fixed-wing aircraft, 5 helicop-ters, and 6 high-endurance cutters. Procure-

ment and operation of these new craft wasestimated at $275.4 million through fiscal Year1978, After appropriation of the fiscal year1977 budget, this strategy was reassessed andit was determined that budget constraints dic-tated that initial enforcement focus on the ac-tive fishing areas only. For maximum effect inthat area with appropriated funds, the CoastGuard revised procurement plans to include

purchase of four C-130s and reactivation of four C-131s; reactivation of its last five spare,short-range shipboard helicopters, and t e m -porary overscheduling of the crews of five

Figure 5Expected Number ofUndetected Violations byMonth Under “No Effort”,FY 75 Level,and Planned Enforcement

6 0 0

1

5 0 0

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


Mid Atlantic

Figure 7Planned Coast Guard

“ .“ .

.. . . .

. “ . .. “. q

. . . .“.

..“ .. . ‘. .

. . q .

.

.

760 Miles5 HrsJan—May

8/14/2019 7704


Gu lf of Mexico

\

8/14/2019 7704


West Coast

Figure 9Pianned Coast

1070 Miles7.5 Flt HrApr—Nov

8/14/2019 7704


Alaska

8/14/2019 7704


On the other hand, there are also manyspecies in danger in the east coast and gulf f isheries. Three new aircraft have beenassigned to the New England area and one tothe Gulf of Mexico, but it seems reasonable

that additional vehicles may be desirable onthe east coast in the future even though fish-ery areas there are concentrated and notgreatly increased by the move to the 200-mile jurisdiction.

A s ou t l i ne d by the C oa s t G ua r d , t heplanned enforcement strategy of increasingpresent capabilities is a reasonable first step. Itis flexible in that enforcement resources will

be added over a period of time and at amoderate first cost. As experience is gained,additional resources can be curtailed or ac-celerated if original assumptions do not proveout.

The Coast Guard enforcement strategy is,however, limited to preventing violations byforeign fishermen. Presently, there is no plan-

ning within the Coast Guard to deal withpossible at-sea violations of the domestic fish-ery regulations. Only two domestic manage-ment plans have been drawn up so far but

However, if regulations for domestic fish-eries duplicate many of the gear and opera-tional controls used in foreign regulations,some at-sea capability will be needed.

In the event an at-sea capability is needed

for enforcement in domestic fisheries, theCoast Guard could use the same types of equipment and techniques planned for foreignfisheries, but would need additional facilitiesin order to cover the different areas used bydomestic fishermen and the many additionalfishing vessels of a greater variety of sizes andtypes.

Available information indicates that about7,000 domestic vessels may spend most of their fishing time in the 3- to 200-mile zone.

28

Although the domestic vessels catch far lessthan the foreign vessels, domestic fisheries en-forcement—in terms of fishing units to bedealt with—is on a larger scale than foreignenforcement. The cost of any deterrencegained by domestic enforcement will also be

higher than for foreign enforcement.The Coast Guard has rightly given priority

status to planning for enforcement in foreign

8/14/2019 7704


Other Possibilities forNear-Term Enforcement

The OTA study of enforcement strategiesseems to indicate that several fairly simpletechniques which could be activated almostimmediately have not been given favorableconsideration by the Coast Guard or the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service.

Among these are:

1)

2)

3)

the establishment of an efficient report-ing system which wou ld allow domesticfishermen to aid in observing foreignfishing vessels,

extensive use of observers onboardforeign fishing vessels, and

formulation of specific guidelines to befollowed in granting annual permitsand renewing the Governing Interna-tional Fisheries Agreements.

The lesser of these strategies is the repor tingsystem, which could be simply a well-definedand published procedure, which domesticfishermen could follow in notifying the Coast

Guard by radio with information on the loca-tion of foreign vessels or on suspected viola-tions of fisheries regulations.

Extensive use of a reporting system may n otbe likely because many domestic fishermenmaintain radio silence in order to protect thelocation of their fishing areas. Still, it is likelythat the lack of formal procedures for report-ing may, in the future, cause the same kind of gap in coverage that was demonstrated whenfishermen testified to congressional commit-tees that some recent oil spills might havebeen prevented if fisherman had some systemfor reporting on the location of foreigntankers which are sited outside of establishedtraffic lanes.

29

Another minor improvement in enforce-

ment could probably be gained by formulat-ing a detailed list of specific criteria which willbe taken into account in renewal of theGoverning International Fisheries Agree-ments (GIFAs) with foreign governments andin annually granting fishery permits to thevessels.

The National Marine and Fisheries Service

is now drafting civil procedure regulationswhich outline the sanctions, such as permitrevocation, suspension, or modification,which may be used against viola tors or

8/14/2019 7704


against those countries which have not paidfines and assessments. However, these pro-cedures are not expected to include specificnumbers or types of violations which wouldmandate nonrenewal of GIFAs or nonissuanceof permits.

The Coast Guard has indicated that record-ing violations on the permits of individualfishing vessels may constitute one of the mostpotent regulatory tools available.

30A system

which works much like the points systemused in revocation of drivers licenses and set-ting insurance rates is probably worth in-vestigating in connection with fisheries per-

mits. Such a system could be used initially inforeign fisheries, but would be equally usefulin the domestic fisheries should some form of limited entry be ad opted.

Under the law, GIFAs are negotiated by theState Department. However, the State Depart-ment has been given no regulatory functions.Therefore, the law m ay have to be amended inorder to charge the State Department with

preparing such guidelines for its negotiationsor these guidelines could be prepared byNMFS along with guidelines to be considered

The present p lan is to place about 20 observ-ers on vessels in the Georges Bank area of theNortheast fisheries and slightly fewer in theNorthwest fisheries, primarily Alaska. TheNational Marine and Fisheries Service hasestimated the annual cost of the program at

approximately $750,000, The cost per ship,with an observer onboard, may be as high as$15,00031 for a cruise of several w eeks. Underthe terms of Public Law 94-265, which re-qui res tha t fore ign f ishing vessels payreasonable fees to compensate the UnitedStates for expenses incurred in the course of fishery conservation, management, research,administration, and enforcement, costs for ob-

servers will be billed to the individual shipcarrying the observers.

32

The cost will probably make little differenceto vessels from countries which subsidizetheir fishermen, However, such a charge maynot be taken lightly by fishermen who are in-dep endent op erators. Since the vessels to carryobservers will be chosen randomly within any

particular country, levying the charge againstthe individual vessels may strain relations be-tween foreign fishermen and the observerwho must live onboard their vessel for ex

8/14/2019 7704


NMFS has u sed some observers for the pa st2 years, primarily on Japanese vessels, and hastermed the experience very successful as a toolfor collecting information.

From the NMFS viewpoint, the observers

are ideal for gathering scientific and manage-ment data, The observers could visually ex-amine the rate of fish catch, effectiveness of fishing gear, and types and sizes of fishcaught. This is information w hich will be vitalto NMFS and the Regional Councils for use inthe formulation of management plans for theforeign fisheries. Yet, none of these jobs can beadequately carried out by surveillance vessels

or any of the remote-sensing devices whichwill be discussed later in this section. For thesereasons, much more extensive use should bemade of observers, in a dual role:

1) to collect data needed for managementof the fisheries and

2) to observe operations for enforcementfunctions.

Observers could be utilized by the CoastGuard as part of its enforcement network.Among other enforcement-related duties the

8/14/2019 7704


The Coast Guard has stressed the need foreasily enforceable regulations as an importantfactor in successful enforcement. Aimingtoward that goal, the Coast Guard favors aNMFS proposal to reduce most regulations tolimitations on the amount of effort expended

fishing or the number of days spent in a cer-ta in a rea . Such l imi ta t ions a re next tomeaningless, however, because there is no de-pendable equation for measuring catch ratesbased on vessel time in an ar ea. Past data u sedin such calculations haven’t been verified. Inaddition, new technology and improvementsin fishing techniques make any equation sub-

ject to constant change. Shipboard observerswould be in the best position to provideanalysis of the relationships between vesseltime, fishing effort, and catch rate.

Foreign fishermen will realize that fromtheir view the observer is primarily a police-man. The potential penalties for violationsnoted by the observer could be high, but thevalue of an illegal catch may be even higher.

Therefore, foreign fishermen may attempt tobribe, harm, or d eceive the observers, frustrat -ing their scientific and enforcement functions.

Councils the option of charging a fee for il-legal bycatch. Some council members feel thatsuch a fee, based on actual bycatch figuresprovided by observers, would be more suc-cessful than gear restrictions in reducing theactual amount of bycatch because it wouldforce fishermen to find their own means of notcatching fish which cut into their profit.

35

The observer program is an area in whichthere are a wide range of opinions among themany parties interested in enforcement of fisheries regulations. However, the limited u seof observers to date provides no basis forresolving these differences. A pilot project

would offer actual experience on which toevaluate the costin a combinedgathering role.

and usefulness of observersenforcement - information

8/14/2019 7704


Recommended Pilot Project

The Office of Technology Assessment’sanalysis suggests that much could be learnedfrom a pilot project in which a foreign fisheryis nearly blanketed with shipboard observerswho have both management and enforcementduties,

The New England region would be mostsuitable for such a pilot project for the follow-ing reasons:

they should be Coast Guard personnel, in-stead of NMFS personnel. However, theyshould receive some training from NMFS inobserving, collecting, and reporting informa-tion of value. Some familiarity with the n ationon whose vessel the observer serves wouldalso be helpful.

Based on NMFS estimates for their limited-observer program, the cost of a 100-man pilotprogram would be roughly $2 million plusfunds for an accurate evaluation of the pilot.

36

q

q

q

q

q

The fishing grounds are concentrated Under the law, this cost is passed on to theand foreign fishing practices are well foreign vessels. However, other fees andknown. charges are also levied, under the law, to reim -

Many of the foreign vessels fish inburse the United States for management and

groups which could simplify the ar-enforcement activities in the 200-mile zone.Since the observer program would presuma-

rangement of vessels with observersbly make some other expenditures covered by

and control vessels without observers.these levies unnecessary, the gross tonnage-

The stocks in that region are generally fee or tax on ex-vessel valdepleted and information for use in be reduced accordingly.restoring stocks is badly needed .

Questions about bycatch are most sig-nificant in the area.

There are important problems with

ue of the catch could

8/14/2019 7704


Possibilities for Long-Range Enforcemen t

It is likely that the proposed near-term en-forcement capabilities described earlier willnot be adequate for long-range demands. Fac-tors like the following may contribute to theneed for more sophisticated enforcementtools:

q

q

q

q

q

Individu al Regional Fishery ManagementCouncils are likely to develop someunique regulations which demand moreknow ledge of vessel locations;

Developments in technology may resultin m ore efficient and effective equ ipmen t,for instance, land-based e lectronicssystems could supplant some aircraftflights;

There may be pressures for increasedforeign fishing off our shores, such thatthe value of illegal fish could exceed thecost of being app rehend ed;

Scientific data might reveal a greaterdanger to fishery resources than is pres-

ently realized or danger to resources innew areas not now covered;

The costs of traditional enforcement may

In addition to the fact that such equipmentis dedicated to military app lication and rep ort-edly already heavily used, it would be neces-s a r y t o d e v e l o p a f a s t a n d e f f i c i e n tclearinghouse for processing and distributinginformation from the sensors before joint useof sensing equipment would be possible. Themilitary has already developed specializedsystems for correlating information frommany sensors; however, these systems arecrowded and translation of fisheries datawould receive low-priority treatment.

It may be desirable to pursue the develop-ment of new facilities which could receive

data f rom many sources, including suchgroups as the military, Bureau of Customs,NMFS, Coast Guard, and State and Federallaw enforcement networks. This facility couldcorrelate data, protecting classified or priv-ileged information if necessary, and displayall maritime activity, including that of fishingvessels

37(see figure 11).

Such a data correlation and display centerfor coverage of the complete fishing zonewould be costly, but it could also provide in-formation on oil tankers commercial cargo

8/14/2019 7704


San

Routine

qAmverqFit. WeatherqPort Data, VTSqUSCG Ships, Aircraft

8/14/2019 7704


New Technologies

tion and transfer of available surveillance datafor one specific region. Some precedent forsuch a project already exists at the NavalOcean Surveillance Information Center wherethe Coast Guard has recently detailed oneofficer to w ork on dat a w hich are of interest to

the Coast Guard and have not, in the past,been processed by Navy personnel.38

The Office of Technology Assessment hasnot investigated the feasibility of using aspecific system in any region, but it appearsthat the Navy’s west coast network could be alikely pilot region. Any pilot project shouldbegin with an indepth investigation of theNavy’s existing system and its ability to pro-

vide information needed for fisheries enforce-ment.

Some funding would be necessary to addpersonnel who would coordinate the transferof fisheries-related data from the Navy to theCoast Guard district in charge of fisheries en-forcement in that zone.

After a period of operation, the pilot p roject

should be evaluated with special attention todetermining the completeness of coverageprovided, the cost, the timeliness and useful-

Use of new technology, pa r t icu la r lyremote-sensing devices, may make it possibleto improve enforcement of fisheries regula-tions in the future by better coverage, betterperformance, and a reduction of the need forexpanding conventional ship and aircraft

patrols. Although it may be possible forseveral agencies (such as th e Coast Guard , themilitary, and NASA) to share the cost of newremote-sensing devices, these systems are ex-tremely expensive and their use should bethoroughly evaluated before any one systemis adopted. Any analysis of benefits and costsof remote-sensing systems should not ignorethe argument that national security could be

compromised by making some of thesesystems available for other than military mis-sions. Most of the security risks and financialcosts of remote-sensing systems could be con-sidered now; however, a clear analysis of thebenefits or improvements that could resultfrom the use of such new technology is notpossible until overall strategies of enforce-ment and specific regulations are defined.

When these strategies and regulations havebeen drawn up, it will be desirable to preparea long-range plan; for example, a 5- to 10-year

l th t ld i l d ifi l i f

8/14/2019 7704


At present, the research and developmentprogram is directed toward bringing new en-forcement technology into use in 10 years ormore. It could be possible, however, to ac-celerate the applied development of new tech-nology for which most of the research has

already been completed by others so that itcould meet some Coast Guard needs in about5 years.

Because the budget for fisheries enforce-ment is only a small part of the overall CoastGuard budget (about $50 million out of $1.2billion), the agency has determined thatresearch funds in support of such enforcementcan best be spent for technology transfer and

for additions to related research contracts inother agencies.

40

The Coast Guard is also following develop-ments in the Department of Defense wheremuch of the work on technology which maybe applicable to long-term fisheries enforce-ment is classified.

If conservation and man agement of the 200-

mile fisheries zone is judged to have value tothe United States beyond the present mone-tary value of fisheries-related products and

Remote-Sensing Devices

Since it appears that remote sensing will bean important enforcement tool as fisheriesmanagement develops, OTA commissioned astudy of the technology of such systems. The

following is a brief summary of the OTAstudy of remote-sensing devices and findingsrelative to the remote-sensing techniqueswhich were analyzed for potential usefulnessin fisheries enforcement. Figure 12 comparesthe various techniques for usefulness and cost.

Of the seven devices studied, microwaveradar appears to have the best potential foruse in fisheries enforcement. High-frequency,

over-the-horizon radar was also judged tohave good potential, but is not as highlydeveloped for commercial application asmicrowave radar . Other remote -sensingsystems in this group appear to have onlylimited fisheries application at this time.

Because of the sensitive nature of much of the remote-sensing technology, OTA has also

prepared a separate classified document onthese systems.

By definition, remote sensing includes any

8/14/2019 7704


Based on past experience and based onNavy and Coast Guard ocean surveillancefunctions, it is likely that a combination of sensors may be required to maintain an ade-quate picture of activity. When properly cor-re la ted and analyzed, information f rom

visual, radio, and radar sensors can provide apicture that is much more complete and of greater validity than could be provided by anyone or a few sensor systems. Ultimately, theproblems of patrolling a 200-mile fishing zonemay require the acquisition, correlation, andanalysis of multisensory data.

The Department of Defense is the principal

developer and user of most of the remote-sensing technology which may be applicableto the fisheries enforcement problem. To alesser extent, the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration and the Federal Avia-tion Administration are also developers andusers of new sensing technology. The CoastGuard is now working with these other agen-cies to determine what technologies would be

suitable and how they could be utilized infisheries enforcement.

using continuou s signals from two shorebasedstations at kn own locations. After the locationis identified by Loran–C, the information ispassed to the transponder which retransmitsit, along with the vessel’s identification, to acontrol station. These systems have good

future potential for use in fisheries enforce-ment as an extension of patrols by cutters andaircraft.

Transpond ers can be built that emit a stand -ard, preset signal or that respond to interroga-tion by a remote-sensing device by transmit-ting a wide variety of identification and fish-ing status information. The sophistication of

transponders is limited primarily by cost con-siderations. However, the state-of-the-art intr an sp on d er s i s a d v a n ci n g r a p id l y , d u elargely to advances in digital storage andprocessing technology, so that improved per-formance at lower cost is possible in thefuture. From a fisheries enforcement stand-point, the major drawback of most transpon-ders is that cooperation on the part of the

vessel fitted with the transponder is required.A transponder that simply enhances detectionor sup plies a p reprogramm ed identification andlocation signal can operate independently on

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


Figure 12 (continued)Summary of the Potentiai of Remote-sensing Technology ToSupport Enforcement of the 200 nmi Fishing Zone

Classification Capability

FishingVessel?

BeaconRequired

ForeignFishing Vessel’

Coded BeaconRequired

Beacon Coded BeaconRequired Required

Beacon Coded BeaconRequired Required

1Good;Requires low-to Medium-AltitudeApproach

Limited;

RequiresTargetCooperation

N C bilit

Fair; RequiresVery Low-AltitudeApproach

Limited;

RequiresTargetCooperation

No Capabilit

I IFishing? I Permit? I Catch?

Cooperative Transponder Required

Cooperative Transponder Required

No Capabi li ty No Capabi li ty No Capabi li ty

I I

Good, with Cooperative Fair, if CatchDirect Tele- Transponder Visible onPhoto Required DeckInspection

Cooperative Transmission Required

N C bilit N C bil it N C bil it

Rough Cost Estimates ($ thousands)

I

InitialI

Yearly Operating

250-500 Per Principality AircraftAircraft* Operating Costs

(1 ,000-1,600 per A/C)

48,000 fo r

I

1,800 for CompleteComplete Coverage* Coverage

100-200 Per 10% of AircraftAircraft* Operating Costs

10-500 Per Aircraft 10% of AircraftOperating Costs

125 Per Station 110 Per Station

N/A N/A

8/14/2019 7704


pose. The Loran–C network is now plannedor in operation in the regions proposed. Alicensing arrangement and installation tech-nique for fitting transponders on each foreignfishing vessel entitled to fish in the regionwould need to be devised, Control stations

and receivers on patrol ships or aircraft wouldneed to be installed.

It is estimated that the transponder whichwould go onboard each foreign vessel wouldcost less than $2,500. Once the system wereinstalled, operational costs would be roughlyequivalent to the operational cost of theaircraft carrying each control station, $1million to $1.6 million annually. Funds forevaluating the pilot project would be in addi-tion to these costs.

The Georges Bank pilot program would re-quire about 150 transponder units and a con-trol station most likely at a Coast Guard shorebase in New England. Each vessel entering the200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishingwou ld be required to activate its transpond er

which would automatically transmit iden-tification and location to the shore base. Theshore base would keep plots of all foreign

operating in the region located by radar, eachvessel interrogated to determine whether anapproved transponder is aboard stating IDand location, and any vessels without trans-ponders investigated.

44There are several ad-

vantages to a system thu s described, especially

in Alaska where long d istances and large areascan best be covered by aircraft and where fre-quent cloud cover makes visual observationdifficult or impossible. After a season of operations with such a system a comparativeevaluation of its usefulness would determinewh ether it could be beneficial to expan d use orcoverage.

Microwave Radar 45

Microwave radar has been used for oceansurveillance by aircraft and ships for almost40 years. The technology is highly developedand the design principles are so well knownthat it is possible to predict with high confi-dence the performance of any given designchosen for use. Microwave radar has betterpotential for large area coverage than anyother system now in use.

8/14/2019 7704


q the position of a detected ship at a givenpoint in time;

q course and speed of a vessel when aseries of position updates are available;and

q estimates of gross shape and size.However, microwave radar by itself has

almost no potential to classify vessels by typ e,nationality, or operation. Some classificationmay be possible by continuous tracking toestablish movement patterns, but microwaveradar’s primary contribution to classificationis in guiding patrol ships or aircraft to a posi-tion where identification can be made byvisual means. Detection of fishing vessels byradar is enhanced, and identification andclassification made possible, by adding trans-ponders onboard permitted foreign fishingvessels.

Any modern commercial or military ship-board radar can easily detect fishing boats at adistance of up to 12- to 18-nautical miles

(nmi), Existing ground-based, surface-searchradars, such as the sea surveillance radarsdeveloped for the Pacific Missile Test Center

Figure 13Useful Surveillance Coverage by aState-of-the-Art Microwave Radaron a 70-kft Altitude Aircraft

/

8/14/2019 7704


radar, but the cost would be high and proba-bly would have to be shared by several agen-cies.

Over-the-Horizon Radar46

Use of over-the-horizon radar (OTHR)techniques would allow detection of fishingboats at much greater distances and wouldallow coverage of much larger areas thanthose covered by microwave radar.

This is because rem ote sensing u sing signalsin the microwave and other very high fre-quency ranges is constrained by the essen-

tially line-of-sight nature of the signal. For allpractical purposes, this means that the sensorsmust be elevated in order to operate over sig-nificant distances.

The use of over-the-horizon radar reducesthis constraint by making use of signals in thehigh frequency range in which energy wavesare refracted by the atmosphere or ionosphere

to follow the curvature of the earth.High frequency energy has been used for

communications since the earliest days of

returns in order to extract more informationabout the object detected also are still beingdeveloped.

OTHR has been developed primarily formi l i ta ry use and severa l exper imenta lsystems, capable of performing a number of useful functions, have been built by the NavalResearch Laboratory, the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, and othergroups.

Two types of OTHR might be usefulcries enforcement, a skywave modegroundwave mode:

Skywave OTHR takes advantage

in fish-and a

of therefractive property of the ionosphere, whichcauses the radar to curve back to earth at dis-tances ranging from 500 to 2,000 nmi (seefigure 14). Thus wide area coverage is possiblefrom a single site. For instance, a singleskywave OTHR located in Utah could providesurveillance coverage over the entire PacificCoast (see figure 15).

Groundwave OTHR, in which radio energytravels along the curved earth surface, pro-vides mu ch more limited coverage, but m ay be

8/14/2019 7704


Figure 14Over-the-Horizon Radar

Surface of the Earth

-2000 n m i

Source: Stanford Research Inst!tute

Location

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


ditions and airborne radiometers have beenFigure 16

successful in mapping weather fronts and sea Airborne Scanning Microwavestates. Radiometric measurement of oil spillshave been made with limited success and

Radiometer

radiometers have been frequently suggestedfor use in missile terminal guidance systems.

Although there do not appear to be anyoperat ional systems a t present that arespecifically designed for detection of ships,such systems have been studied and pro-totypes have been tested. The existing tech-nology is more than ad equate for the detectionof fishing vessels.

However, constraints on maximum fre-h = 62

quency and the d etectability of relatively smallships severely restrict the h eight from w hich aradiometer can effectively operate. Satellitescould not be used for radiometer detection of fishing vessels, and aircraft would be limitedat altitud es of about 6,000 feet. At that altitud efishing vessels could be located to within2,000 feet in range and 2 degrees in bearing(see figure 16).

Optical and Electro-Optical Techniques48

8/14/2019 7704


Optical detection and surveillance systemscan be operated from satellites, aircraft, orships. The combination of timeliness of coverage and operational economics makesaircraft seem the most useful surveillance craftfor the near future, with some data being

derived from existing or projected satellites,and with final follow-up performed by sur-face vessel.

One of the major problems of optical sen-sors is the processing and handling of raw-da ta output . Photographic film requireschemical development, usually at the end of areconnaissance mission (that is, when theaircraft lands or ejected film capsules have

been retrieved from satellites). In some cases,film from aircraft can be rapid processed inflight to allow for examination or data

8/14/2019 7704


transmission within minutes, for immediateinterpretation of close-up photography. Butimages f rom long- range , h igh-a l t i tudesatellites need m ore extensive and detailed ex-amination, often requiring several hours oreven days by expert photo-interpreters before

useful, specific data are developed. Most of theelectro-optical systems can provide realtimeoutputs capable of immediate display and ex-amination in the form of electrical signalsr e a d i l y a m e n a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o rtransmission to a shore-based facility.

Optical and electro-optical techniques varywidely and the choice of specific systemswould depend on the enforcement strategies

chosen.

Electromagnetic Intercept Techniques49

Because all ocean-going vessels are alreadyequipped with radio equipment and mostwith navigational rad ar, it is possible to detectand classify foreign fishing vessels by inter-

cepting and analyzing their radio or radaremissions.

Two techniques have potential in fisheries

In the past, direction-finding equipmentwas used prim arily for location of aircraft andships in distress. Currently, however, it is inuse largely for monitoring and surveillance.The Federal Communications Commissionmaintains a network to locate illegal radio

transm itters and sources of radio interference;the Department of Defense operates severalnetworks for surveillance and intelligencedata collection.

It is possible that some signal intercept in-formation from DO D files can be mad e availa-ble to the Coast Guard for fishery enforce-ment, However, most of the DOD operationsare mission-oriented and are flown in areas of

military interest, therefore it is unlikely muchtime is spent tracking fishing fleets. Thefeasibility of assigning military aircraft forfishery patrols would be expensive and wouldhave to be worked out with DOD.

The Coast Guard could su pp ly personnel tosort out fishery information collected by DODor an entire direction-finding station could be

dedicated to Coast Guard fisheries work.Because of the security implications of muchof the data handled by DOD facilities, such

di ti diffi lt

8/14/2019 7704


netic properties. However, because detectionis possible only at a much shorter range thanwith radar or visual systems and because noclassification of vessels is possible, magnetictechniques presently have little potential foruse in fisheries enforcement.

Acoustic Techniques51

Detection and classification of fishingvessels by use of acoustic techniques is possi-ble because the technology for the generation,transmission, and reception of acoustic energyis well established and the factors that in-

fluence acoustics in the ocean and atmosphereare well known.

The use of acoustic techniques for the detec-tion of fishing vessels can be extrapolatedfrom the Navy’s experience in submarinedetection. How ever, new equipment and newmethods of use would have to be developed.Since most of the existing acoustic systems arehighly classified it is not possible to describethem, except to say the equipment is verycomplex and costly to operate. Much develop-ment would be needed to determine theusefulness of these systems for fisheries lawenforcement.

8/14/2019 7704


4. Management of NewU.S. Fisheries Zone

8/14/2019 7704


Background

The Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of 1976 (P.L, 94-265) is potentially themost significant institutional change in thehistory of U.S. fisheries management. The lawextends the limits of U.S. jurisdiction out to

200 miles and incorporates some advancedideas about ways to manage marine fisheriesin the United States, Implementation of thislaw will require a level of understandingabout the infrastructure of the fishing indus-try that has never before been attempted bythe U.S. Government. Eventually it will re-quire a thorough description of the entire cy-cle from spawning fish to fish on the dinner

table. In the past, each section of the fishingindu stry—i e., fishing, processing, retailing,etc. —was concerned only with its own aspectsof the cycle. There ha s been little correlation of information and no indepth analysis of the in-terdependence and the interrelatedness of thevarious segments of the industry. A better un-derstanding of the fishing industry as a wholewill be necessary in order to implement the

management theories put forth in the newlaw.

Management, according to the law, means

conservation of fish stocks, which means areduction in overfishing of some species, in-creased fishing of underutilized species, andenhancement of stocks which are currentlyoverutilized or depleted.

International pressures now exist to takethe last available ton of some popular speciesfrom the ocean each year. For example, in itslatest report to Congress under the terms of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctu-aries Act of 1972, NOAA concludes that about10 to 15 major finfish and shellfish stockshave been overfished, primarily by foreignfleets; other stocks are in danger of being

overfished, and numerous others are “inten-sively exploited.”

53

In this study, OTA examined many ele-ments of fisheries management that are con-tained in Public Law 94-265--elements thatmany people believe have been neglected inthe past-and that seem to be of great impor-t a nc e in e f f e c t ive ly m a na g ing f i she r yresources in the future. The major elements of

fishery management which were examined byOTA are:

development of and use of the concept of

8/14/2019 7704


Optimum Sustainable Yield

One of the most important managementprinciples set out in the law is that manage-ment plans should result in optimum yield.Optimum yield, according to the broad defini-tion in the Act, is the allowable catch which

(A) will prov ide the greatest overall benefit tothe Nation, with particular reference to foodproduction and recreational opportunities;and (B) which is determined as such on thebasis of the m aximum sustainable yield (MSY)as modified by any relevant economic, social,or ecological factors.

54

Implicit in optimum yield is the idea thatthe concepts and data from all the fields indi-

cated in the Act should be integrated and nottreated as separate entities. Managem ent plansbased on the finest concept will do little goodif their implementation results in dangerousdepletion of the fish stocks or massive socialdisruption with attendant political agitation.Unfortunately, integration of biological,economic, and social information poses majorproblems.

In the past, it was considered adequate toanalytically determine the total allowable

In addition, social and economic factors areof considerable importance in a free societyand do, in fact, have a major effect on actualutilization of each species. The concept of op-timum as opposed to maximum (or “best” as

opposed to “most”) is to take these social andeconomic factors into consideration.

Like an MSY figure, a precise optimum-yield figure for each fishery is not attainable atthis time. However, a process can be soughtfor considering all factors and reaching a com-promise set of guidelines to follow for goodmanagement.

Such optimum yield concepts should beadaptable to changes in resource priorities,knowledge about the resource, informationabout its use, and the trade-offs that resultfrom management. Optimum yield is the coreof each management plan which will probablyinclude such other items as: quantities andtypes of fish to be harvested; methods andtechniques to be used; and measurements and

evaluations to be conducted.No specific process for seeking optimum

yield for a fishery has been established yet

8/14/2019 7704


Regional Fishery Management

Councils

. biologically based estimates or predic-tions of the maximum yield which can beexpected from each stock without futuredepletion of that stock;

55

. quality of the predictions or the rangewithin which they are likely to be accu-

rate so that safety margins can be builtinto catch figures;

56

q such relevant ecological factors as waterquality, destruction of breeding grounds,disasters such as oil spills or severeweather; and

. economic and social factors of individualfisheries which will be relevant in deter-

mining the effect of management optionson such interested parties as commercialfishermen, sport fishermen, food proc-essors, marketing groups, fish-food con-sumers, and the general public.

57

In reality, the exact meaning of optimumyield and the best method of determining itwill be determined by the Regional Councils

through their decisions in the coming years.In the absence of an analytical method, judg-ments may be used to modify a maximum-

i ld fi fl h f li d b

P ub l i c La w 94 - 265 e s t a b l i she s e igh tRegional Councils which will set standards,develop plans, and prepare regulations for themanagement of fisheries in each region, Theregions and their jurisdiction are shown infigure 17. Each council includes membersfrom industry and other parties of interest inthe region as well as representatives of Statefisheries offices, the Regional Director of theNational Marine Fisheries Service, a CoastGuard representative, and a representative of the Department of State. The Secretary of Commerce, who app oints the voting m embersof the councils from lists of poten tial memberssubmitted by the Governors of the States in

each region, has been asked to seek an amend -ment to the F ishery Conserva t ion andManagement Act which would require thatenvironmental interests be represented on thecouncils. Similar consideration should proba-bly be given to consumers. Figure 18 lists thecouncils and their memberships on the effec-tive date of Public Law 94-265.

T h e R e g i o n a l C o u n c i l s h a v e b r o a d

authority to recommend fishery managementplans to the Secretary of Commerce for ap-proval and implementation. The man agement

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


New England

8/14/2019 7704


Figure 19Duties of Regional Counciis and National Marine Fisheries Service ‘

Required b

Regional Councils

Modify preliminary management plans preparedby NMFS for foreign fisheries

Prepare fishery management plans for domesticfisheries.

Determine information, data and analysis neededto prepare management plans

Test and evaluate techniques for determiningoptimum sustainable yield and other managementfactors

Secure needed information from NMFS or otherregional sources as necessary to completemanagement plans

8/14/2019 7704


estimates and other data, and of assuring thatmanagement plans adequately reflect the na-tional interest and are consistent with nationalmanagement standards. The Council andNMFS will also work with two other Federalagencies—the Coast Guard and the Depart-ment of State—in enforcing regulations anddetermining foreign fishing allocations andregulations to control foreign fishing.

With all this complex organizational andprocedural set-up, it will undoubtedly takesome time to develop a smooth operation. Itappears that an important aspect of smoothoperations is close-working arrangements be-tween the Federal and regional levels. To date,there are no w ritten requ irements for work tobe done by the councils and no firm criteriafor use by NMFS in judging the p lansdeveloped by the councils.

58At present it ap-

pears that communications between Federalgroups and the Regional Councils will bethrough NMFS regional offices when services

or data are needed but through the NMFSWashington office when management plansare submitted for app roval.

councils and improve working relations be-tween the two groups.

Close coordination will be required in threeareas of major problems which have not yetbeen resolved:

1. What budget allocations w ill the councilsreceive from NOAA and how much dis-cretion will they have in spending fundsfor collection of regional data not availa-ble from NMFS and data not consideredreliable enough for management deci-sions?

Roughly $30 million are programed in thefiscal year 1978 Department of Commercebudget for implementation of the 200-milefishery zone. Of this, about $10 million will goto N MFS for its work, the w ork of its regionallaboratories, and the work of the RegionalCouncils. The rest of the moneys go to N OAAfor administration; Sea Grant for research bymember universities; and the National OceanSurvey for operation of research vessels.

The councils’ requests for fund s mu st be ap -proved by NMFS and NOAA before themoneys are made available. According to an

8/14/2019 7704


Preliminary M anagement Plans for

Foreign Fisheries

biological research which is already well-developed by the N MFS labs. How ever, NMFSis already buttressing each of its four regionalresearch staffs with the addition of a seven-man economic and statistical team. Conflictsmay evolve over who does specific research

tasks. There is presently no framework, otherthan informal negotiations between NMFSand the councils, for resolving such conflicts.

2. What national data and methods oranalysis will NMFS undertake to collectand publish for the use of all councils inmanagement planning?

When this report was written, no decisions

had been made within NMFS as to howresearch and development of analyt icalmethods w ould be d ivided. There was a divi-sion of opinions among NMFS professionalsa s t o w he the r r e c om m e nde d da ta a ndmethods should flow from NMFS to councilsor from th e councils to N MFS. Early w ork w asof necessity under the constraints of a March1, 1977, dead line und ertaken by N MFS, but n o

firm guidelines have been drawn-up yet as towho, in the future, should do what specifictypes of tasks

Since the Regional Councils were not ableto develop management plans for those fish-eries with foreign fishing in time for theMarch 1, 1977 deadline for implementation of the Act, these plans were prepared by NMFS.The plans have been termed “preliminary”

until they are approved or modified by thecouncils. Plans were prepared for 16 fish-eries

60in four general regions covered by six

councils. However, only two regions have themajor significant foreign fishing effort—theNortheast region, covered by New Englandand Mid-Atlantic Councils, and the North-west and Alaska Region, covered by thePacific and North Pacific Councils. Figure 20

lists the plans prepared for these regions.

In the preparation of these plans, no at-tempt was made to consider all the factorsspecified in the Act or to determine optimumyield which takes into account the economic,social, and ecological factors. Most of thepreliminary plans state that the councils willdetermine the specific factors to be used to

calculate optimum yield sometime in thefuture. In the m eantime, NMFS has u sed total-allowable catch figures determined, for exam-

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


men in the sam e areas in 1974 and about 3.63-million metric tons in 1972. While someredu ction in foreign allocations is contained inthe preliminary plans in order to reserve cer-tain stocks for US. fishermen, th e overw helm-ing redu ction in allowable catch is assum ed to

be for the pu rpose of conserving stocks wh ichhave been substantially overfished in the past(see figur e 22).

As in enforcement of fishery regulations,the Department of State may, in some cases,exert a practically unquestioned influence onforeign allocation figures. For example,foreign allocations for pollock were increased

100,000 metric tons by NMFS this year inresponse to State Department comments onthe environmental impact statement relativeto trawl fishery management plans for theBering Sea.

As w ith enforcement, the foreign policy im-plications of some management actions andallocations may at times be more importantthan the fishery implications. However, somemechanism should be established to assurethat fisheries managers are not intimidated bythe Department of State and that Department

Figure 21Preliminary ManagementPlan Allocations -

Metric Tons

TotalAllowable

CatchForeign

AllocationFishery

Northwest and Alaska Reglon

Trawi Fisheries*(Inciudes poiiack, sole,

mackerel, flounder, oceanperch, rock fish, pacific hake) 1,672,0001,783,000

Sable Fish (not in above) 36,000 25,000

1 0 , 0 0 0King and Tanner Crabs 142,000

Shrimp

Region Total

50,000

2,014,000

164,000

None

1,710,000

Northeast Region

128,000Red and Silver Hake

8/14/2019 7704


t ion of the councils and preparat ion of management plans, in very general language,were p ublished in the Federal Register in d raftform in September, 1976 .

61This failure t.

standardize operations within NMFS beforethe initial plans were written may have com-

plicated the councils’ job of preparing suc-ceeding plans by failing to give them a modelafter which to pattern their work. It may alsoperpetuate regional differences within NMFSand complicate the national review process.

As the councils consider the preliminaryplans and attemp t to develop the man agementprocess, much must be learned about theeffectiveness of management techniques andpresentation of plans. The most pressing needfor improvement, however, is in the area of

developing and considering economic, social,and biological data to be used to modify thecatch figures presented in the preliminaryplans.

8/14/2019 7704


Final Management Plans forDom estic Fisheries

As the councils become operational, theywill assume their principal responsibility of developing management plans for domesticfisheries. There is no deadline for issuingspecific plans. How ever, serious problemswith heavily fished species have been recog-nized in two areas and emergency domesticmanagement plans have been prepared to takeeffect simultaneously with the preliminarymanagement plans for foreign fisheries. Theseplans were prepared by NMFS and there issome concern that they will not be wellreceived by dom estic fishermen because of thelack of local input to the regulations.

This possibility could have been avoided—and can be avoided in the future if additionalemergency plans are deemed necessary beforethe councils are working fully—if NMFS wereto detail or loan personnel to the councils forpreparation of the plans. Such an arrangementwould put the councils in charge of the prepa-ration and ensure the input of industry andother interested segments of the pubIic.

A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e w e l l - k n o w n a d -ministrative problems and costs in detailing

l h h ld b i i

recreational fishermen. The plan also recom-mends that the stock be protected by somefishing regu lations such as ones on mesh size,minimum catch size, and tying the allowablecatch to the number of crew members perboat.

In the Pacific, the domestic catch is allocatedamong commercial, recreational, and nativeAmerican fishermen and regulations are set,including fishing season, area closures, andbag and size limits.

Beyond these two em ergency plans, there isno priority list of domestic fisheries for whichmanagement p lans should be prepared. SinceNMFS now has the most information on U.S.fisheries and the status of stocks in general,and since NMFS has the power to preparedom estic management p lans if the councils donot do so, it would be helpful if NMFS wouldcompile a listing of fisheries where manage-ment plans are needed. Such a listing shouldbe a priority ranking and should delineate theneeds for management plans in each case.Such a list would help focus the councils’ earlywork and would be helpful in projecting theiri f ti d

8/14/2019 7704


Evaluation of ManagementEffectiveness

Both the councils and the Federal Govern-ment have the responsibility of measuring theeffect of the new m anagem ent systems tha t arebeing developed. In its interim regulations forthe op eration of the Regional Coun cils, NMFShas slightly expanded on the standards setforth in the law to be considered in evalu atingmanagement plans. These standards are:

62

1.

2.

3.

4.

Conservation and management m easuresshall prevent overfishing, while achiev-ing on a continuing basis, the optimumyield from each fishery.

Conservation and management shall bebased upon the best scientific informa-tion available.

To the extent practicable, an individualstock of fish shall be managed as a unitthroughout its range and interrelatedstocks of fish shall be managed as a unitor in close coordination.

Conservation and management m easuresshall not discriminate between residentsof different States. If it becomes necessaryto allocate or assign fishing privileges

i U S fi h h

6. Conservation an d management measuresshall take into account and allow forvariations among and contingencies in,fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

7. Conservation and management measures

shall, where practicable, minimize costsand avoid unnecessary duplication.

How ever, scientific data ar e not available tobackup these s tandards and i t would bedesirable to establish a baseline for evalua tionas soon as possible. Later sections of thisreport and Working Papers Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4describe the lack or unreliability of necessarydata for fisheries management. Until suchdata and analytical methods are developed, itis unlikely that management plans can beevaluated in any way which meaningfullyreflects whether the plans have been effectivein the past and wh at measu res will be effectivein the future.

8/14/2019 7704


5 In formation Needs forImplementation of Public

Law 94-265

8/14/2019 7704


Biological Information

Fisheries management has traditionallybeen based on biological considerations.Therefore biological data are more sophisti-cated and research concepts are better under-stood than those for economic or social infor-mation, and biological research has beenfunded at a high Ievel by Federal and Stateagencies concerned with fisheries manage-ment.

The principal biological data tool is stock assessment,

63the study of marine fish popula-

tions in terms of their potential commercialyield, as well as the limits of that yield, Stock assessment attempts to develop an under-standing of marine ecosystems and the effects

of man’s activities upon them. The mecha-nisms that d rive marine ecosystems, as well asthose that drive fishing activities, if under-stood and if properly applied, serve as onemeans to predict the effects of future activities.Therefore, stock assessments can and do con-tribute to fisheries management decisions.

Stock assessments seek to d evelop informa-tion on what the maximum sustainable yield(MSY) of a fishery is. That is, fisheries areviewed as a renewable resource, dependent

The management goal is to not removem or e f r om the popu la t ion tha n c a n bereplaced, thus allowing maintenance on asteady basis of an allowable surplus over andabove the parental stock necessary to producethat surplus. The principle that catch shouldnot exceed the MSY has found nearly univer-sal acceptance in the international fishingcommunity.

64

Stock assessment has traditionally servedtwo purposes: provision of information anddata for the developm ent of new fisheries, andprovision of information to maintain a stock or to restore depleted fisheries.

There exist a large number of uncertaintieswi th ex is t ing s tock assessment sc ience :problems with the data generated and moreimportantly, problems concerning the use of that data.

65Of paramount importance is the

fact that offshore marine fisheries, particularlyground fish (demersal species), constitutepopulations that are nearly impossible to ob-serve until harvested, As a result, assessmentmust depend upon inference, statistical prob-abilities, and the measures developed to un-derstand the complicated and interrelated

i i A h

8/14/2019 7704


Status of Current Information

In the past, estimates of fisheries yields andadv ice on the health and viability of stocks hasbeen given to management bodies like the In-ternational Commission for Northwest Atlan-tic Fisheries (ICNAF) without disclosure to

the general public and with little involvementof domestic f ishermen or other interestgroups. The new Regional Councils couldmake a substantial improvement in this pro-cedure by interpreting scientific data onstocks, publishing and widely disseminatingstock data and advice, and providing an op-portunity for continual access to informationand debate of the issues by interested parties.

Good scientific data by itself will not p romoteconservation or adequate management of stocks. Input by and involvement of users andother public parties is crucial.

At present, most population estimates of heavily utilized stocks appear to be quite ac-curate, in spite of some problems in gatheringinformation and evaluating the effects of fish-

ing activity decisions. However, projections of sustainable yields in the future are subject tolarge uncertainties due to effects of in-

potential yields that can be harvested withoutreducing the parent stock. The informationnecessary includes:

66

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s p e c i e s - s t o c k biology;

quantification of the commercial indiceswhich allow trends in abundance to befollowed;

survey information that demonstrateschanges in total stock abundance and agecomposition;

survey information giving pre-recruit in-dices;

accurate kn owledge of species/ s tock abundance and area location;

accurate age an d size composition;

historical catch-effort data;

understanding of movements and migra-tions;

knowledge of the effect of such factors as

temperature and water quality; andknowledge concerning the interrelated-

i

8/14/2019 7704


Methods of Improving Information Base

The National Marine Fisheries Servicebudget for stock assessment is $11.1 millionfor fiscal 1978, up $2 million from fiscal 1977with most of the increase needed to provideinformation for management in the 200-milezone,

68The budget is projected to double in

the next 5 years, but th is may n ot be su fficient.The time and budget needs to provide addi-tional information are enormous. Yet, whilesuch information may well become necessaryin the future, the immediate short-term needsfor assessment data are for use in designingrestoration strategies. Restoration does notdemand the same level of accuracy in assess-ment data that is required for long-termmanagement. In the meantime, increased ac-curacy of assessment data carries with it costimplications that may be enormous; therefore,it may be far more cost-effective to choose keyindicators upon which to make decisions withall parties participating in those decisionsaware that, in the end, yield judgments willremain judgments.

It would be desirable to establish clear

There are two basic problems wh ich arise inthe consideration of how to proceed withstock assessments:

69

1.

2.

Because of the threatened status of manymarine stocks, much stock assessment in-

formation is needed for immediate short-term management decisions. Therefore,the pressures to expand existing assess-ment m ethods are great.

Fisheries managers have been pressuredto treat stock ‘assessment informationwith the same precision as other resourcemanagers treat their data. However,while forest managers, for instance cancount the board feet of available timber,fish populations cannot be counted withsuch accuracy. Therefore , the newpressures to determine sustainable yieldsmay require more precision than stock assessments have delivered in the past orcan be expected to deliver in the future.

These problems should be considered along

with two other facts:70

1. Assessment history has demonstratedth t i ti th d h t b

8/14/2019 7704


When these four items are consideredtogether, it appears logical that a programshould be undertaken to improve the stock assessment data which will be used. Such aprogram could include the following steps:

1. Test the validity of existing assessment methodsduring a chosen restoration period

During this period, fishing pressure onsome stocks should be reduced drastically.Estimates of yields should be on the low side;then if they are incorrect, the major conse-quences are that stocks will recover more

rapidly while some economic opportunity isdelayed.

During this restoration period, time-seriesof data could be developed through accuratecatch and effort figures gained via the use of observers on foreign fishing vessels and as t r ic t enforcement sys tem. In addi t ion ,automatic plankton sorting and fish-aging

techniques could be developed along withdesign and development of hydroacoustics,expanded survey cruises for several well-

2. While assessing existing methodology, establishresearch priorities for the future

During the restoration period, the level of accuracy required for assessments underd i f f e r e n t m a n a g e m e n t g o a l s c o u l d b eestablished. For each chosen goal (for exam-ple, “catch the last ton,” “resource revitaliza-tion,” “maximum yield for today,” “max-imum yield for the future, ” etc.), the key in-dicators that will be required to achieve thedetermined level of precision could be out-lined. Then, for each level of precision andthose ind icators that achieve that p recision thefollowing items could be determined:

q the p robable cost;

q the time necessary to provide usefulresults; and

q the relationship of each variable toassessment accuracy under the existingsystem.

3. Design a program strategy

A h i i f i

8/14/2019 7704


Econom ic Inform ation

There has been some work in the field of fisheries econom ics during the p ast 25 years tobegin a body of data and theory concerningthe application of economics to fisheriesmanagement problems, and the impact of economists on Public Law 94-265 is clear.

However, additional economic informationis necessary under the new law for severalpurposes:

q to determine the optimum yield;

q to project the domestic catch and capacityto catch;

q to promote efficiency in the harvest sec-tor of the fishing indu stry;

• to understand and manage the impact of foreign fishing and imports of fish to U.S.markets;

q to determine the greatest overall benefitto recreational fishing; and

q to define fisheries on economically rele-

vant terms.71

The following is a discussion of what infor-ti i i t t i h f th

and employment d ata will also be required onsectors of the economy, such as processing,transportation, and sales outlets which havestrong links with the fishing industry and willfeel indu ced or secondary impacts of fisheriesmanagement.

2) Domestic Catch Projections. —How muchof the optimu m yield w ill be harvested by U.S.fishermen depends, to a large extent, on newinvestments which are influenced by theeconomic returns of fishermen. Domesticcatch, therefore, cannot be reliably projectedwithout a knowledge of the cost and revenuerelationships of the U.S. fleets. In addition to

the normal free-market forces which affectcost and revenue, there are various domesticand foreign policies which are important.Among these are vessel-construction sub-sidies, marketing progr ams, fisheries develop-ment policies, and trade barriers to U.S. ex-ports.

3) Efficiency in the Harvest Sector. —Effi-ciency in the harv est sector is one of the goalsof the various management schemes whichmay be implemented. Consideration of effi-

i i f l i t ti f bi l i

8/14/2019 7704


be caught in U.S. waters, processed in aforeign nation and exported to U.S. marketswith obvious imp lications for dom estic prices,employment, and incomes.

A more subtle import market effect may

also take place. A foreign nation m ay have in-ventories of fish products produced partlyfrom fish caught in U.S. waters and partly inwaters outside U.S. jurisdiction. Foreign sup-pliers could fill U.S. import demands withproducts made from fish caught outside U.S. jurisdiction and satisfy their own demands orother world markets with fish caught fromU.S. waters. Under these circumstances the

foreign nation could claim, correctly, that thefish captured in U.S. waters are not enteringU.S. markets. However, the end effect in U.S.markets is the same as if fish caught in U.S.waters had been directly exported to U.S.markets.

In terms of U.S. exports, domestic exportersmu st be able to deliver prod ucts at prices com-petitive with foreign producers. One of thefactors affecting competitive status is the levelof subsid ies received by foreign fleets and / or

Th t th i t ti l

m u s t s u p p l y c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . F o reconomic analysis, that data should includedirect information on major inputs and costsof foreign fleets, in a form which permits iso-lation of operating costs in transit to watersunder U.S. jurisdiction from the operatingcosts while in U.S. waters. It should also in-clude information on capital constructioncosts and foreign subsid ies. In ad dition, physi-cal data on vessel construction, vessel size,and gear characteristics collected for m anage-ment purposes may be useful in measuringtechnical efficiency of the fleets by analysis of variances in catch per unit of effort.

There is a further need for information onactivities of foreign fishing interests which hasarisen since the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act was passed. The need is foraccurate, up-to-date information in threeareas: a) foreign investments in U.S. ownedfishing vessels; b) foreign investment in proc-essing plants and wholesale operations; and c)the impact of these investments.

a) Foreign investment in U.S. owned fishingvessels: By law,

72the U.S. Mari t ime Ad-

i i i h f f

8/14/2019 7704


However, these ships can be returned to theUS. flag fleet by an equally simp le procedu re,and records should be m onitored to determineif this is happ ening in ord er to give foreign in-vestors access to U.S. fisheries.

There are also foreign investments of less

than major i ty ownership which may in-fluence the economics and activities of fishingvessels, But there are n o data at all on these in-vestments, although such investments mayultimately increase the number of U.S. vesselscompeting for scarce stocks. A larger numberof vessels may cause the r esource to be spreadamong more fishermen and make operationinefficient.

b) Foreign investments in processing plants and wholesale operations: The last look at foreign in-vestments in this category was a very limitedreport which resulted from a special survey of foreign d irect investmen t in th e United States,conduc ted by the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis of the Department of Commerce in1974.75

The report, prepared by the Economic andMarketing Research Division of NMFS inApril 1976, showed that 47 U.S. commercial

was from the United Kingdom, Japan, andCanada. Other countries investing were Den-mark, Iceland, Norway, Kuwait, and Mexico.The firms in which these countries investedoperate 107 facilities, located mostly in Alaskaand the State of Washington, but also spreadalong the east coast.

In its report, NMFS acknowledged that amajor reason for foreign investment is proba-bly the desire to gain a more certain access toa d d it io n al s u p p lie s o f fi sh e r y p r o d u ct sbeyond what the countries can harvest off their own coasts. As the United States andother coastal nations moved to extend their jurisdiction over fisheries out to 200 miles, in-

vestments in firms which could export prod-ucts appeared to be one way of keeping someaccess to fishing areas which might be closedto foreign vessels. Instead of being frozen outby the U.S. 200-mile fishery jurisdiction,foreign nations w ith investm ents in U .S. firmsshare in benefits and protections of the law.

Presently, there is no mandatory disclosureof the actual extent of foreign investment in

U.S. fish p rocessing and wh olesale operations.Such disclosure would be necessary in orderto determine if foreign investment has in

8/14/2019 7704


that foreign interests may directly or in-directly exert a political influence on policiesfor fisheries management and regulation.

76

Concerns about foreign investments in fish-ing vessels and processing or wholesaleoperations are that any of the following may

result:q Less processing of f ish may be done

locally, leaving part of the work to bedone in a foreign country by low-costlabor, thus reducing the value of the localindustry.

q It may be possible for a vertically inte-grated comp any to operate a fish pr ocess-

ing plant in the United States on abreakeven basis and take profits abroadthus escaping Federal and State taxes inthe United States,

qThe firms may be able to operate at lowercost or pay higher prices for fish, thusmaking competition difficult for firmswh olly ow ned by U.S. interests.

q

Large-scale export of products from U.S.plants owned by foreign investors maybe a way of avoiding catch quotas and

q

q

q

q

More money may be available for plantexpansion and product diversification.

Risk of production may be reduced byfirm commitments from foreign marketsfor fish prod ucts.

Good markets may be found for prod ucts

not currently saleable in the UnitedStates.

The fish trade deficit could be reducedwhich would be beneficial to the U.S.balance of paym ents.

As a resu lt of passage of the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act, NMFS is againpondering the meaning and impact of foreign

investments in the fishing industry, but nospecific studies have been undertaken yet todetermine if these investments will havefavorable or unfavorable impact on the over-all U.S. fishery and fishing industry. In orderto adequately address this problem, a widerange of economic information w ill be needed ,including investment and export d ata plus allthose factors already mentioned as necessary

for assessing the imp act of foreign fishing andimports,

8/14/2019 7704


involved, and frequently the same vessel canbe employed in fishing for several species. Inmany cases, the same vessel catches severalspecies simultaneously. Classification by typeof vessel and gear seems to be indicated foreconomic purposes, but there is no accurateinventory of vessels by size, gear, and fishing

effort.


Presently the responsibility for collectingeconomic information relative to U.S. fisheriesis left almost entirely to the Federal Govern-ment through the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS). There are no comprehensive

regional data collection programs to augmentthe Federal information base. Few of theregional studies which have been made arebased on primary data; most piece the Federaldata together with an assortment of ad hocstudies done in the region.

The information in regional studies is oftennot current by the time they are published and

the retrievability and validity of the raw datadecay quickly because continuity is lackingand the institutional context of the studies is

However , NMFS recent ly phased outEMRD. In view of the n ew econom ic informa-tion requirements of Public Law 94-265, thisdecision raises serious questions about thesources of data and analysis for carrying outprovisions of the law.

In the past, the two divisions of NMFS col-

lected information, either directly or fromState agencies, on landings by species, value,area of captu re, depth , fishing effort, and daysabsent from port for each vessel trip in theNew England offshore fisheries and the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. This information isstored on computer tape or market reportsheets and is available at the Northeast Fish-eries Center at Woods Hole, Mass., and at the

Washington, D. C., office of SMND. Amongthe other data series collected by NMFS are:

78

q

q

q

q

q

retail price data for major fish productsin New York,wholesale price data for selected fishproducts,ex-vessel pr ice data,production and cold-storage holdings for

many fish products,import-export data for various fish prod-ucts,

8/14/2019 7704


These are general ly accessible to theRegional Councils, but are of limited utilityb e c a u s e t h e f o r m a t i s g e a r e d t o w a r dresearchers rather than fisheries managers.Some, but not all, of these series are availablein published form. The published data aremore easily available to the Regional Coun-

cils, but are also likely to be of limited valuebecause of the time lag betw een collection andpublication.

There is another problem in gathering andusing economic information which must bethoroughly considered before the law can beeffectively implemented. That is the require-ment that “any statistics submitted to theSecretary (of Commerce) by any person in

compliance with any requirement (of P.L.94-265) shall be confidential and shall not bedisclosed except when required under courto r d e r . ”

79The law specifically directs the

Secretary to prescribe regulations to preserveconfidentiality.

As long as the data made available are insuch a form that individuals cannot be iden-

tified, there is probably no p roblem. How ever,the use of disaggregated data requires carefulplanning. Plans for using such data while still

Methods of Improving Information Base

The existing NMFS data base is deficient inseveral areas if it is to be used to carry out theintents of Public Law 94-265 cited at thebeginning of this section. The areas in whichadditional or more accurate economic infor-

mation are needed most urgently are vesselinventories; costs and earnings data; vesselconstruction costs; demand analysis data;vessel size, employment opportunities, skillsof the labor force; and recreational fishingbenefits.

A continuing annual data base is probablynot required in all these areas. However, con-tinuing information is required for vessel in-

ventories, costs and earnings, vessel construc-tion costs, and some components of demandanalysis. These data are needed for monitor-ing and management decisions, which arerepetitive and continuous. Data in the remain-ing areas are needed for w orking ou t variousisolated problems which arise and which in-volve more or less unique, nonrepetitive deci-sions. Special purpose studies or periodic up-

dating, such as once every 5 years, would beadequate for such pu rposes.

8/14/2019 7704


—

8/14/2019 7704


Social In formation

which the Regional Councils would wish tocontract outside the Federal Government forstud ies. Since only approximately eight-tenthsof 1 percent of the NMFS personnel areclassified as economists, NMFS has indicatedplans to add economics and statistics staffs to

each of the four regional Fisheries ResearchCenters. This would to some extent alleviatethe shortage which exists. There are caveats,however. The plan to create these staffs hasnot been implemented. Concurrent with this,the economic analysis capabilities of NMFShave almost disappeared with the demise of the EMRD. Furthermore, several economistsin the central office have left NMFS.

Even if the additions are made, it is ques-tionable whether these regional staffs willhave the t ime or d i rec t ion to addresseconomic issues from the national perspectivewhich will be necessary in reviewing manage-ment plans. Therefore, although such regionaleconomics staffs are desirable, they are not asubstitute for a central economic research andplanning capability.

To date, among social scientists only theeconomists have begun to build up a body of data and theory which is applicable to fish-eries managem ent. Other kinds of social scien-tists on the whole have not addressed fisheriesproblems in the United States. Social data on

fishermen and the communities in which theylive are almost conspicuously absent from theliterature except for a small body of informa-tion on sociocultural systems of modern fish-ing communities in the United States andother industrialized nations. These data havebeen developed by anthropologists. Anthro-pologists have been attr acted to fishing largelybecause of a growing interest in maritime

communities and because traditional, ruralfishing communities can be studied with thes a m e s e t s o f c o n c e p t u a l t o o l s w h i c hanthropologists have developed for studyingsmall, traditional societies in oth er parts of theworld.

81

Anthropologists who are now interested,prepared, and trained to deal with the social,cultural, and historical dimension of fisheriesm a n a g e m e n t c o u l d f o r m t h e c o r e o f researchers who gather data on f ishing

l h ill b i d b fi h i

8/14/2019 7704


In order to develop a starting point in thisfield where little substantive work has beendone, OTA commissioned a study of existingresearch and needs. This study, which is in-cluded in Working Paper No. 2, representsone view of the type of research which needs

to be done in order to improve the social in-formation base on fisheries. The OTA Work-ing Paper suggests that three kinds of socialdata probably will be required by fisheriesmanagers to determine an optimum yield thattakes sociocultural factors into account, asmandated by the law:

82

q

q

q

baseline information on fishing com-mu nities in th e United States;

information on social and cultural factorsinfluencing the acceptance of fisheriesmanagement p roposals; andinformation on factors influencing thetype and rate of technological changewhich can be expected in the fishing in-du stry in the future.

1) Baseline Information on Fishing Com-

munities. --Baseline data is essentially a pictureof the total way of life of fishermen and thecommunities in which they live. The data will

families in the fishing business to obtaindata on family size; age and sex break-down; range of occupations; consump-tion patterns; ethnicity; kinship ties;work experience; educational levels;alternative skills; political affiliations;fishing gear used; annual round; speciescaught; income; associational involve-ment; and some kind of indirect indica-tors of commitment to the industry,political awareness, etc.

b) filling out a data sheet on every port inthe United States to obtain informationon transportation facilities; fish process-ing capabilities; size of community and

size of f ishing population; alternateemployment opportunities; fisherman’sorganiza t ions ; f i sh ing grounds andstocks; fishery statistics; fleet charac-t e r i s t i c s ; m a r k e t i n g p a t t e r n s ; a n dfacilities necessary for a fishing industry(e.g., hardware stores, repair facilities,docks, etc.).

Second, qualitative information needs to beobtained on the entire culture and social struc-ture of “typical” fishing communities in key

8/14/2019 7704


2) Information on A cceptance of Fisheries Management Plans--In the past, many effortsto m anage m arine fisheries to benefit stocks of fish and the consumer have failed, primarilybecause the proposals have been massivelyopposed by the fishing industry.

When p eople oppose proposals that involveplanned social change, there are usually tworeasons: a) the change is not economicallyprofitable for them, or b) the change is notcongruent with existing social institutions.

83

If fisheries management plans under PublicLaw 94-265 are to succeed, they must gainenough acceptance in the fishing industry that

they will not invite massive opposition. Togain that acceptance, it will be necessary tounderstand the costs and benefits of manage-ment and who is affected by each.

In most cases, imposition of new fisheriesregulations is likely to represent a loss of in-come to fishermen. This means that the costsof management ( in te rms of dec reasedcatches) will be borne by the m en currently inthe fishery. The benefits will be gained byfuture generations of fishermen. Even if theb fi f

This phenomenon of present fishermenbearing the cost of regulation while futurefishermen gain the benefits is another argu-ment for accurate information on foreign in-vestments in U.S. fishing vessels and govern-ment subsidies of the foreign fishing com-

panies which may make these investments.Such vessels m ay be able to bear short-term fi-nancial problems more easily than American-owned domestic vessels because the foreigninvestment or subsidy provides a cushion. Inaddition, the extra vessels made possible byforeign investm ents and subsidies will make itnecessary to spread domestic allocations overa larger number of vessels.

84This may have

social as well as economic impacts on the U.S.fishing community,

3) information on Technological Change.—Under the law, catch limitations may beestablished for all species of fish. Foreign fleetswill be allocated that part of the catch whichthe American fleet is incapable of harvesting.If the American fleet expands, in time foreignfishing efforts will decrease, perhaps cease en-tirely in some fisheries.

The boats that will do best under catch

8/14/2019 7704


will depend, in large part, on the degree towhich the people of coastal areas can take ad-vantage of the opportunities which arise.Fishermen can respond to the new economicopportunities presented by extended jurisdic-tion by adopting new boats and sophisticated

fishing equipment or by using existing equip-ment coupled with n ew fishing and marketingstrategies. If large nu mbers of p eople are w ill-ing and able to change existing practices or toinvest in new boats and processing equipmentembodying new technology, then the effectsthroughout the social and economic structure

of the coastal communities will be enormous.If fishermen cannot or will not respond,offshore fishing may be gradually taken overby large corporations.

A central problem th en is to und erstand theability of the people of the coastal areas to

adopt innovation, particularly sophisticatedfishing equipment. The effects of changes onthe r est of the social system cannot be assesseduntil this is understood.

In order to assess this ability, f isherymanagers must have the answers to severalbasic questions.

a) What assets must men have to suc-cessfully adopt new fishing technology?

To answer this question, it is necessary tohave d ata on ability to am ass capital, ability tosave, lend ing institutions, certain kind s of kin-ship ties, skills that influence the maintenanceand output of fishing boats and determinesuccess in commercial fishing, crew organiza-tion, social ties, and the norms which regulate

entry into fisheries.b) How m any men in a particular area have

h i f f l l

8/14/2019 7704


necessary for successful adoption of new tech-nology; the social, economic, and cultural fac-tors which in the very recent past have im-pinged on the decisions of men to innovate ornot; and biographic and motivational infor-mation on men who control the requirements

for adoption of new technology.


Almost none of the information is availableto complete the kinds of studies suggestedhere.

There are only a few monographs on

modern fishing communities and a few bookson ancillary topics such as organization of fishing crews and marketing. Of course, theNational Marine Fisheries Service compilesinformation on landings and fish prices. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service, however,collects little data about the fishing fleet andno information about fishing effort or anyother kind of data on social and political in-

stitutions or economic performance. TheBureau of the Census has compiled generaldata on fishing as an occupation and on com-

studies can to some degree draw on the infor-mation generated. It would be reasonable toexpect, if 10 to 15 community studies werebegun at the same time, a set of monographscould be completed in 2 to 3 years.

The second study should be a survey of at-titudes towards management proposals andfactors necessary for technical innovation. Thequestions to be included might very well de-pend on the part of the country being dealtwith.

The amount of time such a study wouldtake depends greatly on the number of inter-views needed to obtain statistical reliability. It

is estimated that as many as 6,000 interviewswou ld be necessary in the en tire coastal regionof the United States, and it could take a year ormore to collect and tabulate the data.

Once this information w as available, the re-maining studies on innovation and the accept-ability of management alternatives couldbegin. All of these would involve indepth in-

terviews—perhaps a t the same locationswhere the community studies were done.These studies would take another year of in-

8/14/2019 7704


6. Future Developments

in the Fishing Industry

8/14/2019 7704


Background

One of the purposes of the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act of 1976 is to en-courage the revitalization of the U.S. fishingindustry, particularly through developm ent of now underutilized stocks.

Development of the fishing industry is acomplicated subject abou t w hich little reliableinformation has been accumulated in the past.With the s t imulus provided by the Act ,however, new efforts are being made to deter-mine the needs of the indu stry and th e role of the Federal Government in meeting thoseneeds or aiding the industry in m eeting them.

B e c a u s e s e v e r a l o t h e r s t u d i e s85

w e r e

already underway dealing with the needs of the fishing industry, the OTA analysis of thissubject was limited to a very general look atthe industry. It was intended that once sur-veys mandated by the Eastland Resolution arecompleted, that information, together withdata collected by the General AccountingOffice and OTA, should be correlated andanalyzed before further study of the industry

is und ertaken.In the meantime, there appears to be

2) The Federal Government does not havemuch dependable information abouttechnology in the fishing industry.

3) Fishing technology is very u neven w ithinthe industry, ranging from very poorequipment which results in unsuccessfuloperat ions to modern, sophist ica tedequipment which results in highly suc-cessful op erations—all in u se in the sam efishery.

4) Assessment of fishing equipm ent and thede ve lopm e n t o f ne w e qu ipm e n t i sdifficult without “hands on” experiencein the fishing industry.

5) Established fishermen and boat operatorsgeneral ly do not favor Governmentdevelopment of new fishing technology.

6) The industry generally prefers that theGovernment limit itself to technologytransfer and information services ratherthan massive financial or research sup-port.

The following d iscussion of futur e develop-ments in the fishing industry is based on OTA

8/14/2019 7704


Stock Enh ancement

The Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of 1976 could be a stimulus for com-prehensive stock enhancement programswhich would improve many of the U.S. fish-eries. For example, the National Marine Fish-eries Service (NMFS) has projected that en-

ha nc e m e n t c ou ld r e su l t i n t he u l t im a terestoration and a 100 percent increase in thecatch of U.S. groundfish.

86

Basically stock enhancement is the use of procedures which w i ll increase the to ta lamount of edible biomass by increasing thenum ber of fish and / or the size of fish in thepopulation.

Stock enhancement is a complex subject,and in spite of erratic periods of intense in-terest by various private and governmentalgroups, detailed studies are not numerous. Ingeneral, certain fisheries, such as salmon, arebetter understood in terms of stock enhance-ment than others. Various reasons can begiven for this lack of data, but one major fac-tor is the problem of control and recovery of

stock by the government responsible for theenhancement activities. By extending fisheryjurisdiction to 200 miles the United States has

Paper No. 4. The heavy fishing of these speciesin the past, with the depletion of stocks of some, and the ex is t ing we l l -deve lopedmarkets for products of these species maket h e m l i k e l y t a r g e t s f o r e n h a n c e m e n t .However, if a comprehensive program were

to be undertaken in reality, careful analysisshould go into the selection of the species forenhancement and the specific enhancementmethods to be used with each species.

The most commonly used methods of en-hancement are control of the harvest, recruit-ment, development of new stocks, habitatmanagement, and aquiculture. The followingis a brief description of how each of thesemethods is used:

1) Control of harvest: I f the amount of biomass removed from the stock is prop-erly regulated, then the maximum sus-tainable yield can be achieved. However,a depleted stock, such as haddock, mightincrease in biomass by natural processesif the amount of fishing is decreased. The

levels of harvest which allow this naturalrecovery are not always easily deter-mined and mu st be evaluated constantly

8/14/2019 7704


3) Development of new stocks: Utilizing stand-ard breeding and genetic selection tech-niques, new stocks which have desirabletraits, may be developed and introducedinto marine waters or into conf inedwaters for aquiculture purposes.

4) Habitat management and environmentalquality: Some species spend a portion of their life cycle in estuaries, rivers, or nearshore environments. Poor water qualitycan have a detrimental effect on the sizeof the stock either through a marked in-crease in mortality or sublethal effectssuch as stunted growth. Programs of pollution abatement will assist in stock

enhancement. In addition, some attemptsat habitat manipulation may increase theavailability of a suitable habitat for aspecies, such as artificial reefs or an in-crease in the level of nutrients by ar-tificial upwelling. These nutrients stimu-late the growth of phytoplankton, mak-ing more food available.

5) Aquiculture or mariculture: Animal hus-bandry of marine organisms has been ex-tensively tried within the 3-mile limit;

an understanding of the genetic and func-tional differences—the different stocks orpopulations—that exist within one species of fish. Most of the economic, social, and stock assessment information mentioned in the pre-vious section would also be necessary to

d e s i g n a n d i m p l e m e n t e n h a n c e m e n tprograms which carry out the spirit of PublicLaw 94-265.

Decisions for improving an existing fisheryor developing a new fishery by enhancementtechniques would require an intensive andintegrated examination of all facets of a fish-ery: resource assessment, harvest and process-ing technologies and costs; market potentials;

and institutional factors including artificialbarriers to trade. But the absence of viable in-dustry for the fishery make it likely thatspecial studies will be necessary to collect dataand project economic effects. If the enhance-ment efforts were successful, these specialstudies could become the starting point for thecontinuous monitoring and periodic collec-tion of statistics which w ill be part of man age-

m e n t a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n p r o g r a m s i nestablished fisheries.

8/14/2019 7704


New Markets for Fish

Extended jurisdiction will undoubtedlyopen new markets for species now caught aswell as markets for species not caught by U.S.fishermen at present. It is reasonable toassume that the response to these economicopportunities will be highly varied. Some of the factors influencing acceptance or rejection

of these opportunities are similar to thoseaffecting technical innovation. In addition, theresponsiveness of fishermen to new marketsdepends on their ability and willingness tocatch new species and to process them in waysthat make them saleable. Two questions areparamount:

1) Under what conditions will fishermenexploit new species and markets?

2) How man y fisherm en w ill exploit a set of species under a given set of conditions?

Studying the condi t ions under whichf i s h e r m e n w i l l e x p l o i t n e w s p e c i e s i ssimplified by the fact that fishermen nowoften exploit many different species over thecourse of the year. At present, it appears thatprice is one of the p rimary factors influencingthe decision of fishermen to catch variousspecies. That is, they choose the species which

In order to study the social, cultural, andeconomic factors influencing the decision of fishermen to enter certain markets at present,two kinds of studies are needed:

1) Data needs to be gathered comparingfishing practices of boats which exploit a

wide range of species over the annual cy-cle with practices of those that do not.Emphasis should be placed on such fac-tors as the prices paid for fish, the catchof various species, the locations wherefish are caught, etc. Interviews should beobtained with f ishermen concerningtheir decision to enter a given market(i.e., exploit a given species requ iring cer-

t a i n h an d l i n g an d p ro ces s i n g p ro -cedures), and the social and cultural fac-to rs inh ib i t ing them f rom en ter ingothers.

2) A set of questionnaires might be ad-ministered to a carefully selected sampleof fishermen to obtain data on theirpreferences concerning entry and exitfrom particular fisheries,

3) Information needs to be gathered to iden-tify factors which affect th e p rice paid for

8/14/2019 7704


Revitalization of Fishin g Ind ustry

Presently, the fishing industry may be un-able to take advantage of opportunities whichcould be offered by stock enhan cement or newmarkets because many sectors of the industryare experiencing economic difficulty and areunable to attract capital and labor. Yet, no

coherent program has been developed toassist the industry or fishermen,

As noted in the previous section of thisreport, economic information about the fish-ing industry is not available in the quality orquanti ty which is necessary to evaluateproblems in any segment of the industry. Thestatus of investment in new harvesting tech-nology and systems, however, has been usedas a measure of economic well-being. Manystudies of the New England fishing industryconclude that technology is old and ineffi-cient. It is clear that investment in new shipsand harvesting technology in New Englandfisheries was at a low point until passage of the Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of 1976 was assured. The Act stimulatednew confidence in the future of the fishing in-du stry and at least 20 new boats were orderedfor fishing fleets in New Bedford, Mass., and

States and Canada share access to many fishstocks. The Canadian Federal and ProvincialGovernments have traditionally providedgrants, boun ties, and other forms of direct andindirect subsidies to their groundfish industryand the cumulative effect of these grants and

subsidies has been calculated to reach 35 cents(Canadian) a pound for some types of fishproducts. In 1975, 150 million pounds of ma-

jor groundfish species which may havebenefited from such subsidies were exportedfrom the Atlantic fishery in Canada to theUnited States.

89

By law,90

the Bureau of Customs may levy aduty on imported products which are pro-duced with the support of a foreign govern-ment subsidy or increase an existing duty if there is proof the import is injuring a U.S. in-dustry, Such duties could help protect boththe U.S. fishery resources and U.S. invest-ments in fishing vessels. They could also, of course, raise the p rice of foreign fish prod uctsto U.S. consumers and possibly encourageretaliation by foreign governments againstsome U.S. prod ucts.

Under existing practices91

the Tariff Affairs

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


ticular subsidized imports have caused declin-i n g p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ,unemployment, or decreased markets for U.S.products. Therefore, large corporations withexperienced tariff attorneys are frequentlysuccessful in winning their cases, and smallindustries and fishing groups which generally

develop their own cases are less successful orare discouraged from making a request,

To date, in spite of the ur ging of fishermen ,no overall review of duties on subsidized fishimports has been made in order to determinehow the U.S. fishing industry in general isaffected. Such a review would allow investorsto assess the competition from foreign prod-

ucts accurately before putting money intovessels or other fishing operations. SomeRegional Council mem bers feel that encourag-ing U.S. interests to invest in the fishing in-dustry is unrealistic and counterproductiveuntil such basic assessments can be made.

In add ition, there has been a general declinein some fisheries which has been evident interms of technology and investment, employ-ment and income, productivity and profit.

To provide some insight into conditions of

Source: OTA

quality of their gear; and half or slightly more

8/14/2019 7704


q development of a multipurpose, smallscale mid-w ater traw l; and

q more efficient equipment to freeze, han-dle, and store fish onboard fishingvessels.

Although more than one-third of the fisher-men responding expressed an interest inmodernizing equipment and using electronicsonboard the i r vesse ls , many f ishermenemphasized that the job could better be doneby private industry than Government.

However , Government assis tance wasstrongly advocated for work in several areasof more public concern, such as:

q

q

q

q

q

habitat improvement;

location of fish;

identifying m igration patterns of fish;

improving dissemination of weather andwater-surface temperature data to fisher-men;

finding solutions to localized pollutionproblems;

t i th d f ti d

Source: OTA

The National Marine Fisheries Service andsome industry sources also provide informa-tion, but only 40 percent of the respondents

found it useful.

A small group of fishermen got their infor-

8/14/2019 7704


system could make use of a clearinghouseconcept that gathers and distributes data andperhaps dai ly NOAA radio repor ts withweather forecasts, water temperature, weeklyreports of fish landings, announcements of current research p rogram s, results of research,

and information on grants and f inancia lassistance available to fishermen. Such infor-mation could be provided with relatively littleeffort and expense. Other information whichwould be useful to fishermen, but would re-quire additional research and expense, in-cludes reports on foreign fishing techniques,data on migration patterns of fish, and reportson stock assessment, marketing, distribution,

and handling of fish.The equipment and information needs of

the industry will inevitably be debated by theRegional Councils in the course of formulat-ing regulations for the domestic fishery. Gearparticularly will come under scrutiny as thecouncils consider gear restrictions as a meansof regulating catch. Such restrictions will limitthe efficiency of existing gear and are sure to

be challenged by the fishermen. The resultmay be an increased need for innovations in

i b h il ill b f d

should also be charged with sharing withother regions what knowledge they havegained about industry practices and problems,proposed Government actions, and successfulor unsuccessful management techniques.

Revitalization of the U.S. fishing industry is

the subject of a recent report by the GeneralAccounting Office

92and a study by the East-

land Fisheries Survey w hich w ill be completedsoon. Programs for assisting the industry orremoving constraints are being proposed byboth groups. But sufficient data about varioussegments of the fishing industry are not nowavailable for evaluating what revitalizationproposals are justified. At least the following

questions should be addressed for each indus-try segment so that Government agencies,fisheries managers, and private industry candetermine what programs are needed andwhat actions are best suited to each group:

1) What is the status of the fish product in-volved, including history and trends of catch, value, prices, market demand, and

distribution? What competition with im-ports exists?

8/14/2019 7704


5) What is the status of the resource? Isthere foreign competition for the sameresource or another species in the sameecosystem ? C a n t h e r e s o u r c e b eenhanced or the yield increased? A r ethere other underuti l ized resources

available for the same industry?6) What is the economic cond ition of the in-

dustry? What future changes are likelywith assistance programs and would theyprovide short-term or long-term solu-tions?

These questions could be tested on specifici n d u s t r y s e g m e n t s a n d w i t h s p e c i f i c

revitalization proposals in order to develop acomprehensive program which addresses na-tional needs most completely.

That job could be undertaken by a commit-tee of representatives from each of theRegional Councils. The council committeecould synthesize information on industryneeds which has been collected by the East-land Survey, the General Accounting Office,

OTA, and NMFS. The council committeecould then identify important information

8/14/2019 7704


7. Glossary

8/14/2019 7704


acoustic—relating to, containing, producing,arising from, actuated by or carrying sound .

aqu icultu re —cultivation of natural faunaresources of water.

biomass—the dry weight of living matter, in-

cluding stored food, present in a speciespopulation and expressed in terms of agiven area or volume of the habitat.

catch effort—the ratio of amount of fishcaught to some measure of fishing effortsuch as the number of days a typical vesselis fishing.

demersal fish—living at or near the bottom of

the sea.electro-optics—the study of the influence of

an electrical field on optical phenomena, asin the electro - optical Keer effect and theStark effect. Also known as optoelectronics.

ex-vessel—price received by fisherman forfish, shellfish, and other aquatic plants andanimals landed at the dock.

f in f i sh—c la s se s c yc los tom a ta , e l a sm o-branchin and pieces of the phylum ver-

gill net—a wall of webbing suspended ver-tically in the water by means of weights(lead) on the bottom line and corks on thetop line. The webbing may be made of cot-ton, linen, or synthetic material. The meshis selected according to the fish which will

be captured .groundfish—broadly, fish that are caught on

or near the sea f loor . Bottom f ishes,rockfishes, and flatfishes, cod, haddock,pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch.

hydroacoustics-study of the propagation of sound waves in water, especially in theoceans, and of phenomena produced by

these sound waves. Also known as under-water acoustics.

landings—commercial quantities of f ish,shellf ish and other aquatic plants andanimals brought ashore and sold. Landingsmay be in terms of round (live) weight ordr essed weight. Landings of crustaceans aregenerally on a live-weight basis except forshrimp which may be on a heads-off basis.

Loran-C-a low frequency radio navigationsystem by which hyperbolic lines of posi

8/14/2019 7704


mesh size-a size of screen or of particlespassed by it in terms of the nu mber of open-ings per linear inch. Also known as mesh.

microwave radiometry—a receiver for detect-ing microwave thermal radiation and simi-lar weak wide band signals that resemblenoise and are obscured by receiver noise;examples include the Dicke radiometer,subtract ion type radiometer and two-receiver radiometer.

over-the-horizon radar—long range radar inwhich the transmitted and reflected beamsare bounced off the ionosphere layers toachieve ranges far beyond the line of sight.

pelagic fish-organisms living in the opensea, including both plankton and nekton.

population—a group of organisms occupyinga specific geographic area.

recruitment—young fish that just becomeavailable (vulnerable) to the fishing gear. Inlong-lived species only a portion of a yearclass may be recruited each year untilfinally all are vulnerable.

remote sensing sensing by a power supply

stock assessment- the s tudy of individualpopulations of fish in order to determinethe size and composition of the populationas well as estimates of possible yields.

stock enhancement—procedures whereby thetotal amount of edible product (biomass) isincreased by increasing the number of animals and/ or s ize of animals in thepopulation.

trolling—method of angling whereby an ar-tificial line or natu ral bait is dr awn behind amoving boat at any depth from the surfaceto the bottom and at varying speeds accord-ing to the species of fish being sought. Ac-

complished in all types of craft.trophic level—any of the feeding levels

through which the passage of energythrough an ecosystem proceeds, examplesare photosynthetic plants , herbivorousanimals, and micro organisms of decay.

utilization—use of all fishery products bothedible and inedible. Estimated disap-

pearance of the total supp ly of fishery p rod -ucts both edible and inedible on a round-weight basis without taking into considera

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

,“Resources of the Oceans,” Bulletin of the American Fisheries Society,Vol. 1, N. 3 (May - June 1976) p. 20.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Fisheries of the United States, 1975, CurrentFishery Statistics No. 6900 (Washington,D. C.: Governmen t Print ing Office, March1976) p. 73.

Comptroller General of the Un ited States,The U.S. Fishing Industry—Present Condi-tion and Future of Marine Fisheries, Reportto the Congress, V o l . 1 Pubn. N o .

CED-76-130 (Dec. 23, 1976) p. 7.Op . cit., “Resources of the O ceans,” p. 20.

Op. cit., The U.S. Fishing Industry—Present

Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, p.11.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Op. cit., Fisheries of the United States, 2975,p. 31.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20 .

21 .

Fishery Conservation and Management Act

of 1976, P.L. 94-265, 16 USC 1801 (1976),Sec. 2 (a) Findings (2).

Ibid., Sec. 2 (c) Policy.

Op. cit., Fisheries of the United States, 1975,

p. 82.Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation, p. 3.

US. Department of Transportation, U.S.Coast Guard, “Study of Coast Guard En-forcement of 200-Mile Fishery Conserva-tion Zone, (PL 94-265),” 1976 (Internal,Xeroxed) Appendix A.

Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation, p. 1.


Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, p.22.

Op. cit., “Study of Coast Guard Enforce-ment of 200-Mile Fishery ConservationZone (PL 94-265),” p. II-8.

Ibid., p. A-1.

b d B 1

8/14/2019 7704


28.

29.

30 .

31 .

32 .

33 .

34 .

Sig Jaeger, North Pacific Fishing VesselOwners Association, to Peter Johnson,Washington, D. C., May 21, 1976, Com-mentary on Draft Copy of USCG Plan forDisposition of Enforcement Resourcesand Estimated Effectiveness Under PL94-265.

Commerce Committee hearing, January24, 1977.

Op. cit., Interview, Ocean OperationsDivision.

Ibid.

Interview, Office of Program Planning

and Evaluation, National Marine Fish-eries Service, Washington, D. C,, February4, 1977 (By Telephone).

National Marine Fisheries Service, DraftFe e Sche du le , “ Fi sh ing by F o r eignVessels in Waters Under the Jurisdictionof the United States of America,” Federal Register 41, N. 248, December 23, 1976, p.55925.

Op. cit., Interview, Ocean OperationsDivision.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50 .

51 .

52 .

53.

54.

U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.Coast Guard, “R & D Plan for the 200-

Mile FCZ” , Washington, D. C., Januarv 7,1977. Draft (Xeroxe~).

-“

Op. cit., Interview, OceanDivision.

Ibid.

Working Paper No. 5.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Op. cit., Fishery Conservation

rnent Act of 1976, Sec. 3 (2).

Operations

and Manage-


Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries.Op. cit., Fishery Conservation and Manage-

A f 1976 S 3 (18)

8/14/2019 7704


61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70 .

71 .

72 .

73 .

74

Op. cit., “Part 601—Regional FisheryManagement Councils.”

Ibid.

Working Paper No. 3,

Ibid.



Op. cit., Interview, Office of PolicyDevelopment and Long Range Planning.

~“NOAA P r o g r a m L e v e l s , ”Marine Fish Management, Vol. 3, N. 1(January 1977) p. 1.


Ibid.


Shipping Act of 1916, Sects. 9 and 37.

State of Alaska , Division of Economic En-terprise, Japanese Investment in Alaska

( A l a s k a : D e p a r t m e n t o f E c o n o m i cDevelopment, August 1974) p. 13.

U S D f C M i i

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

Op. cit., Japanese Investment in Alaska.

Ibid.


Op. cit., Fishery Conservation and Manage-ment Act of 1976, Sec. 303 (d).

Op. cit., “Part 601—Regional FisheryManagement Councils”.


Ibid.

Ibid.

O p . c i t . , I n t e r v i e w , N e w E n g l a n d

Regional Fishery Council.Op . cit., The U.S. Fishing Industry—Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheriesand The Eastland Resolution FisheriesSurvey Report to be published in 1977.

Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation.


O p . c i t . , I n t e r v i e w , N e w E n g l a n dRegional Fishery Council.

8/14/2019 7704


,

8/14/2019 7704


q

8/14/2019 7704


P u b l i c L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

9 4 t h C o n g r e s s , H . R. 2 0 0A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6

To provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries, and forother purposes.

Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and policy.Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I—FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF THEUNITED STATES

See. 101. Fishery conservation zone.Sec. 102. Exclusive fishery management authority.Sec. 103. Highly migratory species.Sec. 104. Effective date.

TITLE 11—FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERYAGREEMENTS

Sec. 201. Foreign fishing.Sec. 202. International fishery agreements.Sec. 203. Congressional oversight of governing international fishery agreements.Sec. 204. Permits for foreign fishing.Sec. 205. Import prohibitions.

TITLE III—NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Sec. 3 0 1 .sec. 302.Sec. 303.Sec. 304.

Sec.. 305.

sec. 300.sec. 307.sec. 308.sec. 309.

sec. 310.sec. 311.See. 312.

National standards for fishery conservation and management.Regional fishery management councils.Contents of fishery management plans.Action by the Secretary.Implementation of fishery management plans.State jurisdiction.Prohibited acts.Civil penalties.Criminal offenses.

Civil forfeitures.Enforcement.Effective date of certain provisions.

TITLE IV MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

16 USC 1801note.

P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 2 - Apr i l 13 , 1976

These fishery resources contribute to the food supply, economy,

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 3- P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, thei i ld f h fi h

8/14/2019 7704


and h ealth of the Nation and p rovide recreational opportunities.(2) As a consequence of increased fishing pressure and because

of the in adequacy of fishery conservation and management prac-tices and controls (A) certain stocks of such fish have b een over-fished to the point where their survival is threatened? and (B)other such stocks have been so substantially reduced in num berthat the could become similarly threatened.

(3) Commercial and recreational fishing constitutes a majorsource of employment and contributes signifi cantly to the economyof the Nation. Many coastal areas are dependent up on fishing andrelated activities, and their economies have been bad ly damagedby the overfishing of fishery resources at an ever-increasing rateover the past decade. The activities of massive foreign fishingfleets in waters adjacent to su ch coastal areas have contributedto such damage, interfered with domestic fishing efforts, andcaused destruction of the fishing gear of Un ited States fishermen.

(4) International fishery agreements have not been effective inpreventing or terminating the overfishing of these valuable fisheryresources. There is danger that irreversible effects from overfish-ing will take place before an effective international agreement onfishery managemen t jurisdiction can be negotiated, signed, rati-

fied, and immplemented.(5) Fishery resources are finite bu t renewab le. If placed und er

sound management before overfishing has caused irreversibleeffects, the fisheries can be conserved and maintained so as to pro-vide optimum yields on a continuing basis.

(6) A national program for the conservation and managemen tof the fishery resources of the United States is necessary t o p r e -vent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to insure conserva-tion, and to realize the full potential of the Nation’s fisheryresources.

(7) A national program for the development of fisheries whichare underutilized or not utilized by United States fishermen,including bottom fish off Alaska, is necessary to assure that ourcitizens benefit from the employment, food supply, and revenuewhich could be generated thereby.

(b) PURPOSES.—It is therefore declared to be the purposes of theCongress in this Act—

(1) to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fisheryresources found off the coasts of the United States, and theanadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by establishing (A) a fishery conservation zonewithin which the United States will assume exclusive fisherymanagemen t authority over all fish, except highly migratoryspecies, and (B) exclusive fishery managemen t authority beyondsuch zone over such anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources;

(2) to support and encourage the implemen tation and enforce-ment of in ternational fishery agreements for the conservation andmanagement of highly migratory species, and to encourage thenegotiation and implementation of add itional such agreements asnecessary;

(3) to promote domestic commercial and recreational fishingunder sound conservation and management principles;

(4) to provide for the p reparation and implementation, inaccordance with n ational standards, of fishery management plans

optimum yield from each fishery;(5) to establish Regional Fishery Management Coun cils to pre-

( )pare, monitor, and revise such plans under circumstances Awhich will enable the States, the fishing industry , consumer andenvironmental organizations, and other interested persons to par-ticipate in, and advise on, the establishment and administrationof such plans, and (B) which take into account the social andeconomic needs of the States; and

(6) to encourage the developmen t of fisheries which are cur-lirently underutilized or not uti zed by United States fishermen,

including bottom fish off Alaska.(c) POLICY.—It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress

in ‘this Act—(1) to maintain without change the existing territorial or other

ocean jurisdiction of the United States for all purposes otherthan tile conservation and m anagement of fishery resources, asprovided for in this Act;

(2) to authorize no impedim ent to, or interference with, recog-nized legitimate uses of the high seas, except as necessary for theconservation and managemen t of fishery resources, as providedfor in this Act:

(3) to assure that the national fishery conservation and m an-agreement program utilizes, and is based u pon, the best scientificinformation available: involves, and is responsive to the needs of,interested and affected States and citizens; promotes efficiency;draws upon Federal. State, and academic capabilities in carrying

out research, administration, management, an d enforcement; andis workable and effective:(4) to permit foreign fishing consistent with the provisions

of this Act; and(5) to support and encourage continued active United States

efforts to obtain an internationally acceptable treaty. at the ThirdUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which providesfor effective conservation and m anagement of fishery resources.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.. 16 USC 1802.

As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requ ires—(1) The term “anadromous species” means species of fish

which spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the United Statesand w hich migrate to ocean w aters.

(2) The term “conservation and management” refers to allof the ru les, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures(A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and whichare useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery

resource and the marine environment; and (B) which are designedto assure that-(i) a supply of food and other products may be taken.

and that recreation ben efits maybe obtained, on a continuingbasis;

(ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fisheryresources and the marine environment are avoided.; and

(iii) there will be a mu ltiplicity of options available withrespect to future u ses of these resources.

(3) The term “Continental Shelf” means the seabed andsubsoil of the subm arine areas adjacent to the coast, but outsidethe area of th e territorial sea, of the Un ited States, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the sup er-

90 STAT- 332 90 STAT. 333

P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 4 - A p r i l 13, 1976

jacent waters adm its of the exploitation of the natural resourcesof such areas.

(4) The term “Continental Shelf fishery resources” means

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 5 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and(6)The term "Fish"all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marinemammals, birds, and highly migratory species.

8/14/2019 7704


(4) The term Continental Shelf fishery resources meansthe following:

COLENTERATA

Bamboo Coral—Acanella spp.;Black Coral-Antipathes spp.;

Precious Red Coral —Corallium spp.;Bamboo Coral-Keratoisis spp,; and

Gold Coral—Parazoanthus spp.

CRUSTACEA

Tanner Crab-Chionoecetes tanneri;Tanner Crab-Chionoecetes opilio;Tanner Crab-Chionoecetes angulatus;Tanner Crab-Chionoecetes bairdi;King Crab-Paralithodes camtschatica;King Crab-Paralithodes platypus;King Crab-Paralithodes brevipes;Labster—Homarus americanus;Dungeness Crab-Cancer magister;Cal! forma King Crab-Paralithodes californiensis;California King Crab-Paralithodes rathbuni;Golden King Crab-Litholdes aequiispinus;Northern Stone Crab-Litholdes maja;Stone Crab-Menippe mercenaria; and

Deep-sea Red Crab- Geryon quin quedens.

MOLLUSKS

Red Abalone—Haliotis rufescens;Pink Abalone-Haliotis corrugata;Japanese Abalone—Haliotis kamtschatkana;Queen Conch—Strombus gigas;Surf Clam—Spisula solidissima; andOcean Quahog-Artica is landica.

S P O N G E S

Glove Sponge—Hippiospongia canaliculata;Sheepswool Sponge-Hippiospongia lachne;Grass Sponge-Spongia graminea; andYellow Sponge-—Spongia barbera.

Publication in If the Secretary determi nes, after consultatio n with the Secretary

FederalRegis- of State, that living organisms of any other sedentary speciester. are at the harvestable stage, either-

( A) immobile on or under the seabed, or(B) unable to move except in constant physical contact

with the seabed or subsoil,of the Continental Shelf which appertains to the United States,and p ublishes notice of such determination in th e Federal Register,such sedentary species shall be considered to be added to theforegoing list and included in s u c h t e r m for purposes of th is Act.

(5) The term “Coun cil” means any Regional Fishery Man age-ment Council established und er section 302.

mammals, birds, and highly migratory species.(7) The term “fishery” m eans-

(A) one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as aunit for pu rposes of conservation and management and wh ichare identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, tech-nical, recreational, and economic characteristics; and

(B) any fishing for such stocks.(8) The term “fishery conservation zone” mean s the fishery

conservation zone established by section 101.

(9) The term “fishery resource”’ means any fishery, any stock of fish, any species of fish, and any habitat of fish.(10) The term “fishing” m eans-

(A) the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish;(13) the attempted catching, taking, or harvesting of fish;(C) any other activity which can reasonably be expected

to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish; or(I)) any operations at sea in sup port of, or in preparation

$0:: any activity described in subparagraphs (A) through

Such term does not inclulde any scientific research activity whichis conducted by a scientific research vessel.

(11) The term “fishing vessel” means any vessel, boat, ship,or other craft which is used for, equipped to be used for, or of atype which is normally used for—

.

(A) fishing; or(B) aiding or assisting one or more vessels at sea in the

performance of any activity relating to fishing, including,but not limited to, preparation, supply, storage, refrigeration,

transportation, or processing.(12) The term “foreign fishing”’ means fishing by a vessel

other than a vessel of the Un ited States.(13) The term “high seas” means all waters beyond the ter-

ritorial sea of the United States and b eyond any foreign nation’sterritorial sea, to the extent that such sea is recognized by theUnited States.

(14) The term “highly migratory species” means species of tuna w hich, in the course of their life cycle, spawn and m igrateover great distances in waters of the ocean. -

—

(15) The term “international fishery agreement” means anybilateral or mu ltilateral treaty, convention. or agreement w hichrelates to fishing and to which the United States is a party.

(16) The term “Marine Fisheries Commission” means theAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf StatesMarine Fisheries Commission, or the Pacific Marine Fisheries

Commission.(17) The term “n ational standards”’ means the national stand -ards for fishery conservation and management set forth in sec.t i o n 3 0 1 .

(18) The term “optimum”, with respect to the yield from afishery, means the amount of fish—

(A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to thenation, with particular reference to food production andrecreational opportunities: and

(B) which is prescribed as su ch on the b asis of the maxi-mum sustainable yield from such fishery, as modified by anyrelevant econom ic, social, or ecological factor.

90 STAT. 334 90 STAT. 335

P u b . L a w 9 4 -2 6 5 - 6 - A p r i l 13, 1976

(19) The term “person” means any individual (whether or

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 -7 - P u b . La w 94-265

TITLE II—FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNA-

8/14/2019 7704


USC prec.title 1.

16 USC 1811.

16 USC 1812.

16 USC 1813.

16 USC 1811note.

(19) The term person means any individual (whether ornot a citizen or national of the United States), any corporation,partnership, association, or other en tity (whether or not organizedor existing un der the laws of any State), and any Federal , State,local, or foreign government or any entity of any such government.

f (20) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary o Commerceor his designee.

(21) The term “State” means each of the several States, theDistrict of Columbia, the Comm onwealth of Puerto Rico, Amer-

ican Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other Common-wealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(22) The term “stock of fish” means a species, subspecies, geo-graphical grouping, or other category of fish capable of m anage-ment as a unit.

(23) The term “treaty” means an y international fishery agree-ment w hich is a treaty within the mean ing of section 2 of articleII of the Constitution.

(24) The term United States”’, when used in a geographicalcontext, means all the States thereof.

(25) The term “vessel of the United States” means any vesseldocumented under the laws of the United States or registeredunder the laws of any State.

TITLE I—FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITYOF THE UNITED STATES

SEC. 101 FISHERY CONSERVATION ZONE.There is established a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the

United States to be known as the fishery conservation zone. The innerbound ary of the fishery conservation zone is a line coterminous withthe seaward boundary of each of the coastal States, and the outerboundary of such zone is a line drawn in such a manner that eachpoint on it is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which theterritorial sea is measured.

SEC. 102. EXCLUSIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITYThe United States shall exercise exclusive fishery management

authority, in the mann er provided for in this Act, over the following:( 1 ) All fish within the fishery conservation zone.(2) All anadromous species throughout the migratory range of

each such species beyond the fishery conservation zone; exceptthat such managem ent authority shall not extend to such speciesduring the time they are found within any foreign n ation’s terri-torial sea or fishery conservation zone (or the equ ivalent), to the

extent that such sea or zone is recognized by the United States.(3) All Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the fishery

conservation zone.

SEC. 103. HIG HLY MIGRATO RY SPECIES.The exclusive fishery managemen t authority of the United States

shall not include, nor shall it be construed to extend to, highlymigratory species of fish.

SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall trike effect March 1, 1977.

90 STAT. 336

TITLE II FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNA-TIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS

SEC. 201. FOREIGN FISHING. 16 USC 1821.

(a) IN GENERAL.—After February 28, 1977, no foreign fishing isauthorized within the fishery conservation zone, or for anadromousspecies or Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the fisheryconservation zone, unless such foreign fishing-

(1) is authorized under subsection (b) or (c);(2) is not prohibited by subsection (f); and(3) is conducted under, and in accordance with, a valid and

applicable permit issued p ursuant to section 204.(b) EXISTING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.—Foreign

fishing described in subsection (a) may be conducted pu rsuant to aninternational fishery agreement (subject to the provisions of section202 (b) or (c) ), if such agreement-

(1) was in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and(2) has not expired. been renegotiated, or otherwise ceased to be

of force and effect with respect to the United States.(c) GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISH ERY AGREEMENTS.-Foreign

fishing described in subsection (a) may be conducted pursuant to aninternational fishery agreement (other than a treaty) which meetsthe requirements o this subsection if such agreement becomes effec-tive after application of section 203. .Any such international fisheryagreement shall hereafter in this Act be referred to as a “governinginternational fishery agreement”. Each governing international fishery

qgreement shall acknowledge the exclusive fishery managementauthor-it of the United States, as set forth in this Act. It is the sense Terms andof the Congress that each such agreement shall include a binding conditions.commitment on the part of such foreign nation and its fishing vessels,to comply with the following terms and conditions:

(1) The foreign nation, and the owner or operator of anyfishing vessel fishing pursuant to such agreement, will abide b yall regulations promulgated by ‘the Secretary pursuant to this Act,including any regulations promulgated to implement any appli-cable fishery management plan or any preliminary fishery man-agement plan.

(2) The foreign nation, and the owner or operator of anyfishing vessel fishing pursuant to such agreement, will abide by therequirement that-

(A) any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of thisAct (as provided for in section 311) be permitted— Post p. 358.

(i) to board, and search or inspect, any such vesselat any time,

(ii) to make arrests and seizures provided for insect ion 311 (b) whenever such officer has reasonable causeto believe, as a result of such a search or inspection, thatany such vessel or any person has committed an actprohibited by section 307, and Post p. 355.

(iii) to examine and make notations on the permitissued p ursuant to section 204 for such vessel;

(B) the permit issued for any such vessel pursuant tosection 204 be prominently displayed in the wheelhouse of such vessel;

(C) transponders, or such other appropriate position-fixing and identification equipm ent as the Sec retary of thedepartment in wh ich the Coast Guard is operating determines

90 STAT. 337

P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 8 - A p r i l 13, 1976

to be appropriate, be installed and maintained in workingorder on each such vessel;

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 9 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

Secretary and the Secretary of State that such nation extends sub-stantially the same fishing p rivileges to fishing vessels of the United

S d f i fi hi l

8/14/2019 7704


;(D) duly authorized United States observers be permitted

on board any such vessel and that the United States bereimbursed for the cost of such observers;in advan ce: fees required u nder section 204(b) (10) he p aid

(F) agents be appointed and maintained within the UnitedStates who are authorized to receive and respond to any legalprocess issued in the United States with respect to such owner

or operator; and(G) responsibility be assumed, in accordance with any

requirements prescribed by the Secretary, for the reimburse-ment of Un ited States citizens for any loss of, or damage to,their fishing vessels, fishing gear, or catch which is caused byany fishing vessel of that nation;

and w ill abide by an y other monitoring, compliance, or enforce-ment requirement related to fishery conservation and managementwhich is included in such agreement.

(3) The foreign nation and the owners or operators of all of the fishing vessels of such nation shall not. in any ear, exceedsuch nation’s allocation of the total allowable level of foreignfishing, as determined under subsection (e).

(4) The foreign n ation will—(A) apply , pursuant to section 204, for any required

permits;(B) deliver promptly to the owner or operator of the

appropriate fishing vessel any permit which is issued un derthat section for such vessel: and

(C) abide b , and take appropriate steps under its ownlaws to assure that all such own ers and operators comply with,section 204(a) and the ap plicable conditions and restrictionsestablished und er section 204 (b) (7).

(d) TOT AL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FOREIGN FISHING.—The totalallowable level of foreign fishing, if any, with respect to any fisherysubject to the exclusive fishery managemen t authority of the UnitedStates, shall be that p ortion of the optimum yield of such fishery whichwill not be harvested by vessels of the United States. as determinedin accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(e) ALLOCATION O F ALLOWABLE LEVEL.-Tbe Secretar y of State. incooperation w ith the Secretary, shall determine th e allocation am ongforeign nations of the total allowable level of foreign fishing which ispermitted w ith respect to any fishery subject to the exclusive fishermanagement authority of the United States. In making any suchdetermination, the Secretary of State and the Secretary shall con-

sider—(1) whether, and to what extent, the fishing vessels of such

nations have traditionally engaged in fishing in such fishery:(2) whether such nations have cooperated with the United

States in, and made sub stantial contributions to. fishery researchand the iden tification of fishery resources:

(3) whether such nations have cooperated with the UnitedStates in enforcement and with respect to the conservation andmanagement of fishery resources: and

(4) such other matters as the .Secretary of State. in cooperationwith the Secretary. deems appropriate.

(f) Reciprocity.—Foreign fishing shall not be au thorized for thefishin g vessels of any foreign nation un less such nation satisfies the

States, if any, as the United States extends to foreign fishing vessels.

(g) PRELIMINARY FISHERY MA NAGEMENT PLANS.—The Secretary,when notified by the Secretary of State that any foreign nation hassubmitted an application under section 204(b), shall prepare a pre-liminary fishery management plan for any fishery covered by suchapplication if the Secretary determines that no fishery management

lp an for that fishery will be prepared and implemented, pursuant totitle III, before March 1, 1977. To the extent practicable. each such

p l a n - (1) shall contain a preliminary description of the fishery and apreliminary determination as to the optimum yield from suchfishery and the total allowable level of foreign fishing with respect

to such fishery;(2) shall require each foreign fishing vessel engaged or w ish-

ing to engage in such fishery to obtain a permit from the Secre-tary;

(3) shall require the sub mission of pertinent data to the Secre-tary, with respect to such fishery, as d escribed in section 303(a)(5) ; and

(4) may, to the extent necessary to prevent irrevesible effectsfrom overfishing, with respect to such fishery, contain conserva-tion and managemen t measures applicable to foreign fishing

(A) are determined to be necessary and appropriate forthe conservation and management of such fishery,

(B) are consistent with the national standards, the other

provisions of this Act, and other app licable law, and(C) are described in section 303(b) (2), (3), (4), (5), and

(7)Each preliminary fishery management plan shall be in effect withrespect to foreign fishing for wh ich permits have been issued until afishery management plan is prepare and implemented, pursuant totitle III, wit respect to such fishery. The Secretary may, in accord-ance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, also prep are andpromulgate interim regulations with respect to any such prelimin aryplan. Such regulations shall be in effect until regulations imp lementingthe applicable fishery management plan are promulgated pursuant tosection 305.

SEC. 202. INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.

( a ) NEGOTIATIONS.-The Secretary of State-(1) shall renegotiate treaties as provided for in su bsection (b);(2) shall negotiate governing international fishery agreements

described in section 201 (c);

(3) may negotiate boundary agreements as provided for insubsection (d) ;

(4) shall, upon the requ est of and in cooperation with the Sec-retary, initiate and condu ct negotiations for the purpose of enter-ing into international fishery agreements-

(A) which allow fishing vessels of the United States equi-table access to fish over which foreign nations assert exclusivefishery management authority, and

(B) which provide for the conservation and managementof anadromous sp ecies and highly migratory species; and

90 STAT. 339

Regulations.

16 USC 1822.

90 STAT. 338

8/14/2019 7704


Pub. Law 94-265 - 12 - Apri l 13 , 1976

(C) Motions to p ostpone, made in the House of Represent-atives with respect to tile considerate ion of any fishery agree-ment resolution anti motions to proceed to the consideration

A p r i l 13, 1976 - 13 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

(3) CONTENTS.—Any application made under this subsectionshall specify—

(A) the name and official number or other identification

8/14/2019 7704


Debatelimitation.

ment resolution, anti motions to proceed to the considerationof other business, shall be decided without debate.

(D) All a p p e a l s from the decisions of the Chair relatingto the application of the Rules of the House of Representa-tives to the p rocedure relating to an y fishery agreement reso-lution shall be decided without debate.

(E) Except to the extent specifically provided in the pre-ceding provisions of this sub section, considerate ion of an y

fishery agreement resolution shall be governed by the Rulesof the House of Representatives applicable to other bills andresolutions in similar circumstances.

(5) FLOOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.—(i) A motion in the Senate to p roceed to the consideration

of any fishery agreement. resolution shall be privileged andnot debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be inorder, nor shall it be in order to m ove to reconsider the voteby wh ich the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.

(B) Debate in the Senate on any fishery agreement resolu-tion and on all debatable motions and app eals in connectiontherewith shall be limited to not more than 10 hours. Thetime s h a l l b e e q u a l l y divided b etween, and controlled by, themajority leader a n d t h e monority leader or their designees.

(C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion orappeal in connection with any fishery agreement resolutionshall be limited to not more than 1 hour. to be equally dividedbetween, and controlled by,the mover of the. mot ion or appeal

and th e manager of the resolution, except that if th e managerof the resolution is in favor of any such motion or appeal, thetime in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the minor-it y l e a d e r or his designee. The majority lender and th e minor-it}’ leader , or either of them. may allot add itional tim e toany Senator during th e consideration of an y debatable motionor appeal, from time un der their control with respect to theapplicable fishery agreement resolution.

(I)) A motion in the Sen ate to further limit debate is n otdebatable. A motion to recommit any fishery agreement reso-lution is not in order.

16 USC 1824. SEC. 204. PERMITS FOR FOREIGN FISHING.

(a) IN GENERAL.-AFTER FEB R U A R Y 28, 1977, no foreign fishin gvessel shall engage in fishing within the fishery conservation zone, orfor anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery resources beyondsuch zone. unless such vessel ha s on board a valid permit issued underthis sect ion for such vessel.

(b) APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS UNDER GOVERNING INTERNATIONALFISHERY AGREEMENTS.—

(1) ELIGIBILITY.-Each foreign nation with which the UnitedStates has entered into a governing international fishery agree-ment shall submit an application to the Secretary of State eachyear for a permit for each of its fishing vessels that wishes toengage in fishing described in subsection (a).

(2) FORMS.-The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretaryof State and the Secretary of tile department in w hich the CoastGuard is operating, shall prescribe the forms for permit applica-tions submitted under this subsection and for permits issuedpursuant to any such application.

(A) the name and official number or other identificationof each fishing vessel for which a perm it is sought, togetherwith the name and address of tile owner thereof;

(B) the tonnage. capacity, speed, processing equipm ent,type and quantity of fishing gear, and such other pertinentinformation with respect to characteristics of each such vesselas the Secretary may require;

(C) each fishery in w hich each such vessel wishes to fish;(D) the amount of fish or tonnage of catch contemplated

for each such vessel during the time su ch permit is in force;a n d

(E) the ocean area in which, and the season or periodduring wh ich, such fishing will be conducted:

and shall include any other pertinent information and materialwhich the Secretary may require.

(4) TRANSMITTAL FOR ACTION.-Upon receipt of any applica-tion which complies with the requ irements of paragraph (3), theSecretary of State shall pu blish such ap plication in the FederalRegister and shall promptly transmit-

(A) such application, together with his comments andrecommendations thereon, to the Secretary;

(B) a copy of the application to each app ropriate Counciland to tile Secretary of the department in which the CoastGuard is operating: and

(C) a copy of such material to the Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and

tot he Committees on Commerce and Foreign Relations of theSenate.

(5) ACTION BY COUNCIL.-.After receipt of an application trans-mitted un der parp grapph (4) (B), each app ropriate Council shallprepare and sub mit to the Secretary such written comments on theapplication as it deems appropriate. Such comments shall b e sub-mitted within 45 days after the date on which the ap plication isreceived by the Council and m ay include recommendations withrespect to approval of the ap plication an d, if approval is recom-mend ed, with respect to appropriate conditions and restrictionsthereon. Any interested person may submit comments to suchCouncil with respect to any such ap plication. The Council shallconsider any such comments in formulating its subm ission to theSecretary.

(6) APPROVAL.-After receipt of any application transmittedunder paragraph (4) (A), the Secretary. shall consult with theSecretary of State and, with respect to enforcement, with theSecretary of the department, in w hich the Coast Gu ard is operat-ing. The Secretary, after taking into consideration the views an drecommendations of such Secretaries. and any comments submittedby any Council under paragraph (5), may approve the applica-tion, if he determines that the fishing described in the applica-tion w-ill meet the requirem ents of this Act.

(7) E S T A B L I S H M E N T OF CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS .-Th C

Secretary. shall establish conditions and restrictions which shallbe included in each permit issued pursuant to any applicationapproved under p aragraph ( 6 ) and which must be complied withby the owner or operator of the fishing vessel for which thepermit is issued. Such conditions and restrictions shall includethe following:

Publication inFederal Regis-ter.

Transmittal tocongressional

committees.

Writtencomments.

90 STAT. 34290 STAT. 343

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 18 - Apr i l 13 , 1976

Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) (1) (C) (at least one of whom shall b e appointed from each such State)

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 19 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

(c) NONVOTING MEMBERS.--(1) The nonvoting members of eachC il h ll b

8/14/2019 7704


whom shall b e appointed from each such State).(7) NORTH PACIFIC COUNCIL.-The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council shall consist of the States of Alaska. Wash-ington, and Oregon and shall have authority over the fisheriesin the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea. and Pacific Ocean seaward of Alaska. The North Pacific Council shall have 11 voting members,including 7 appointed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection(b) (1) (C) (5 of whom shall be appointed from the State of

Alaska and 2 of whom shall be appointed from the State of Washington n ).(8) WESTERN PACIFIC COUNCIL.-The Western p acific Fishery

Management Coun cil shall consist of the State of H awaii, Ameri-can Samoa, and Guam and shall have authority over the fisheriesin the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The Western PacificCouncil shall have 11 voting members, including 7 appointed bythe Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) ( 1 ) (C) (at least oneof whom shall be appointed from each such State).

Each Council shall reflect the expertise and interest of the several con-stituent States in the ocean area over which such Council is grantedauthority.

(b) VOTING M EMBERS .-(1) The voting mem bers of each Councilshall be:

(A) The principal State official with marine fishery m anage-ment responsibility and expertise in each constituent State, whois designated as such b y the Governor of the State, so long as theofficial continues to hold such position, or the designee of such

official.(B) The regional director of the National Marine Fisheries

Service for the geohgpap hic area concerned, or his designee, exceptthat if two such d irectors are within such geographical area, theSecretary shall designate which of such directors shall be the vot-ing member.

(C) The members required to be appointed by the Secretaryshall be appointed by the Secretary from a list of qualifiedindividuals submitted by the Governor of each applicable con-stituent State. With respect to the initial such app ointments. suchGovernors shall subm it such lists to the Secretary as soon as prac-ticable. not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of

“List of qua- this Act. As used in this subp aragraph, (i) the term “list of quali-lified indi- fied individuals” shall include the n ames (including p ertinent bio-viduals. “ graphical data) of not less than three such in dividuals for each

"Qualified applicable vacancy, and (ii) the term “qu alified individual” m eansm l an individual wh o is knowledgable or experienced with regard to

the management, conservation, or recreational or commercial har-vest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned.Term. (2) Each voting member appointed to a Council pursuant to para-

graph (1) (C) shall serve for a term of 3 years; except that, withrespect to the members in itially so appointed, the Secretary shall desig-nate up to one-third thereof to serve for a term of 1 year. up to one-third thereof to serve for a term of 2 years, and the remainin g suchmembers to serve for a term of 3years.

(3) Successorsto the voting members of any Council shall beappointed in the same manner as the original voting members. Anyindividual ap pointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to th e expirationof any term of office shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.

90 STAT. 348

Council shall be:(A) The regional or area director of the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service for the geographical area concerned, or hisdesignee.

(B) The commander of the Coast Guard district for the geo-graphical area concerned, or his designee; except that, If twoCoast Guard districts are within such

graphical area, the

commander designated for such purpose by the commandant of

the Coast Guard.(C) The executive director of the Marine Fisheries Commission

for the geographical area concerned, if any, or his designee.(D) One representative of the Departmen t of State designated

for such purp ose by the Secretary of State, or his designee.(2) The Pacific Council shall have one add itional nonvoting mem -

ber who shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, theGovernor of Alaska.

(d) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.-The voting memb ers of eachCouncil, who are not employed by the Federal Government or anyState or local government, shall receive compensation at the daily ratefor GS-18 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual per-formance of duties for such Council. The voting members of eachCouncil, any nonvoting m ember described in subsection (c) (1) (C),and the n onvoting member app ointed pursuan t to subsection (c) (2)shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in the p erformanceof such duties.

(e) TRANSACTIONOF

BUSINESS.—(1) A majority of the voting members of any Council shallconstitute a quorum, but one or more such mem bers designatedby the Coun cil may hold hearings. All decisions of any Councilshall be by majority vote of the voting members present andvoting.

(2) The voting memb ers of each Council shall select a Chair-man for such Council from among the voting members.

(3) Each Council shall meet in the geographical area con-cerned at the call of the Chairman or upon the request of amajority of its voting members.

(4) If any voting mem ber of a Council disagrees with respectto any matter which is transmitted to the Secretary by suchCouncil. such member may submit a statement to the Secretarysetting forth the reasons for such disagreement.

(f) STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION.—(1) Each Coun cil may appoint, and assign duties to, an execu-

tive director and such other full- and part-time administrative

employees as the Secretary determines are necessary to the per-formance of its functions.

(2) Upon the request of any Council, and after consultationwith the Secretary, the head of any Federal agency is authorizedto detail to such Council, on a reimbursable basis, any of thepersonnel of such agency, to assist such Council in the performanceof its functions und er this Act.

(3) The Secretary shall provide to each Council such admin-istrative and technical support services as are necessary for theeffective functioning of such Council.

(4) The Admin istrator of General Services shall furnish eachCouncil with such offices, equipment, sup plies, and services ashe is authorized to furnish to any other agency or instrumentalityof the United States.

5 USC 5332note.

90 STAT. 349

P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 20 - Apri l 13 , 1976

(5) Tile Secretary and the Secretary of +State shall furnish eachCouncil with relevant information concerning foreign fishingand international fishery agreements.

(6) E h C il h ll d t i it i ti d

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 21 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

(6) conduct any other activities which are required by, orprovided for in, this Act or which are necessary an appropriateto the foregoing functions.

SEC CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS 16 USC 18 53

8/14/2019 7704


(6) Each Council shall determine its organization, and pre-scribe its practices and p rocedures for carrying out its functionsunder this Act, in accordance with such uniform standards asare prescribed by the Secretary. Each Council shall publish an dmake available to the public a statement of its organization,practices, and procedures.

(7) The Secretary shall pay—(A) the compensation and expenses provided for in sub-

section (d) ;(B) appropriate compensation to employees appointed

under paragraph (1) ;(C) the amounts required for reimbursement of other

Federal agencies under p aragraphs (2) and (4) ;(D) the actual expenses of the members of the committees

and p anels established und er subsection (g) ; and(E) such other costs as the Secretary determines are nec-

essary to the performance of the functions of the Coun cils.(g) C Ommit teeS AND PANE L S .—

(1) Each Coun cil shall establish and maintain, and appointthe m embers of. a scientific and statistical committee to assist itin th e development, collection, and evaluation of such statistical,biological, economic, social, and other scientific information asis relevant to such Council's development and amendment of anyfishery management plan.

(2) Each Coun cil shall establish such other advisory panels asare necessary or appropriate to assist it in carrying out its fu nc-tions under this Act.

(h) FUNCTIONS.—Each Council shall, in accordance with the pro-visions of this Act—

Fishery manage- (1) prepare and sub mit to the Secretary a fishery managem entment plan. plan w ith respect to each fishery within its geographical area of

authority and, from time to time, such amend ments to each suchplan as are necessary:

Comments. (2) prepare comments on any application for foreign fishingtransmitted to it under section 204(b) (4) (B), and any fisherymanagemen t plan or amendm ent transmitted to it under section304(C) (2) :

Public hearings. (3) conduct pu blic hearings, at appropriate times and in appro-priate locations in the geographical area concerned, so as to allowall interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the develop-ment of fishery management plans and amendments to such p lans.and with respect to the administration and implementation of the provisions of this Act:

(4) submit to the Serretarv-(.4) a report. before February 1 of each year, on the Coun-

cil’s activities (during th e imm ediately preceding calendary e a r ,

(B) such periodic reports as the Council deems appropriate,and

(C) any other relevant report which may be req uested bythe Secretary:

(5) review on a continu ing b asis, and revise as appropriate, theassessments and specifications made pursuan t to section 303(a)(3) and (4) with respect to the optimu m yield from, an d the totalallowable level of foreign fishing in, each fishery within itsgeographical area of authority; and

Reports.

Review.

90 STAT. 351

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS. 16 USC 18.53.

(a) REQUIRED Provisions.-kIY fishery management plan whichis prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to anyfishery, shall-

(1) contain the conservation and management measures, ap-plicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the UnitedStates, which are-

(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation and

management of the fishery;(B) described in this subsect ion or subsect ion (b), or

(C) consistent with the national standards, the other pro-visions oft his Act, and any other applicable law;

(2) contain a description of the fishery, including, but not lim-ited to, the number of vessels involved, the type and quantity of fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their locationthe cost likely to be in curred in management, actual and potentialrevenues from the fishery, any recreational interests in the fishery,and the nature and extent, of foreign fishing and Indian treatyfishing rights, if any;

(3) assess and specify the present and probable future condi-tion of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yieldfrom, the fishery, and include a summ ary of the information uti-lized in making su ch specification;

(4) as.. and specify—

(A) the capacity and the extent to wh ich fishing vessels of the United States, on an an nual b asis, will harvest the. opti-mum yield specified under paragraph (3), and

(B) the portion of such optimu m yield which, on an ann ualbasis, will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the UnitedStates and can be m ade available for foreign fishing; and

(5) specify the pertinent data which shall submitted to theSecretary with respect to the fishery, including, but not limited to,information regarding the typ e and qu antity of fishing gear used,catch by species in numbers of fish or weight thereof, areas inwhich fishing was engaged in, time of fishing, and number of hauls.

(b) D ISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS.-hy fishery management planwhich is prep ared by an y Council, or by the Secretary, with respectto any fishery, may—

(1) require a permit to b e obtained from, and fees to be paid to,the Secretary with respect to any fishing vessel of the UnitedStates fishing, or wishing to fish, in th e fishery conservation zone,

or for anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery resourcesbeyond such zone;

(2) designate zones where, and p eriods when . fishing shall belimited, or shall not be permitted, or shall be p ermitted only byspecified types of fishing vessels or with sp ecified types and quan-tities of fishing gear;

(3) establish specified limitations on the catch of fish (based onarea, species, sire, number, weight, sex, incidental catch, totalbiomass, or other factors), which ar e necessary and appropriatefor the conservation and m anagement of the fishery;

90 STAT. 350

P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 22 - Apri l 13 , 1976

(4) prohibit, limit, condition, or require the use of specifiedtypes and qu antities of fishing gear, fishing vessels, or equipment

A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 23 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5

it is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of this Act and any other app licable law In carrying out such review

8/14/2019 7704


types and qu antities of fishing gear, fishing vessels, or equipmentfor such vessels, including devices which may be required tofacilitate enforcement of th e provisions of th is Act;

(5) incorporate (consistent with the national standards, theother provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law) therelevant fishery conservation and management measures of thecoastal States nearest to the fishery;

(6) establish a system for limiting access to the fishery in order

to achieve optimum yield if, in developing such system, the Coun-cil and th e Secretary take into account.-(A) resent participation in the fishery,(B) historical fishing p ractices in, and depend ence on, the

fishery,(C) the economics of the fishery.(D) the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery to

engage in other fisheries,(E) the cultural and social framework relevant to the

fishery, and(F) any other relevant considerations: and

(7) prescribe such other measures, requirements, or conditionsand restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropr i -ate for the conservation and management of the fishery.

(c) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.–Any Council may prepare any pro-posed regulations wh ich it deems necessary and app ropriate to carryout any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any fisherymanagement plan, which is prepared by it. Such proposed regulations

shall be sub mitted to the Secretary, together with such plan or amend-ment, for action by the Secretary pursuant to sections 304 and 305.

(d) CON FIDENTIALITY OF STATISTICS.-Any statistics submitted tothe Secretary by any person in compliance with any requirement un dersubsection (a) (5) shall be confidential and shall not be disclosedexcept when required under court order. The Secretary shall, by regu-lation. prescribe such procedures as may be necessary to preserve such

confidential ity., except that the Secretary may release or make publicany such statistics in any aggregate or summ ary form wh ich does notdirectly or indirectly disclose the identity or bu siness of any p ersonwho submits such statistics.

16 USC 1854. SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECR ETARY.

(a) ACTION BY THE SECRETARY AFTER RECEIPT OF PLAN.—Within 60days after the Secretary receives any fishery management plan, orany amend ment to any such plan, which is prepared b y any Council,the Secretary shall—

(1) review such plan or amend ment pu rsuant to sub section (b) ;

an d(2) notify such Council in writing of h is approval, disapproval,

or partial disapproval of such plan or amendment.In the case of disapproval or partial disapp roval, the Secretary shallinclude in such notification a statement and explanation of th e Secre-tary’s objections and the reasons therefor, suggestions for improve-ment. a request to such council to change such plan or amendm ent tosatisfy the objections, and a requ est to resubmit the plan or amend -ment, as so mod ified, to the Secretary within 45 days after the dateon wh ich the Council receives such n otification.

(b) REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY.-The Secretary shall review anyfishery management plan, and any amendment to an y such plan,prepared by any Council and submitted to him to determin e whether

90 STAT. 352

this Act, and any other app licable law. In carrying out such review,the Secretary shall consult with—

(1) the Secretary of State with respect to foreign fishing;an d

(2) the Secretary of the dep artment in w hich the Coast Guardis operating with respect to enforcement at sea.

(c) PREPARATION BY THE SECRETARY.-(l) The Secretary may pre-pare a fishery managem ent, plan, with respect to any fishery, or an

amendm ent to any such plan, in accordance with the national stand-ards, the other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law,if—

(i) the app ropriate Council fails to develop and subm it to theSecretary, after a reasonable period of time, a fishery manage-ment plan for such fishery, or any necessary amendmen t to sucha plan, if such fishery requires conservation and management;or

(B) the Secretary disapproves or partially disapproves anysuch plan or amendmen t, and the Council involved fads to changesuch plan or amendm ent in accordance with the n otification madeunder subsection (a) (2).

In preparing any su ch plan or amendm ent, the Secretary shall consultwith the Secretary of State with respect, to foreign fishing and withthe Secretary of the departmen t in which the Coast Guard is operat-ing with respect to enforcement at sea.

(2) Whenever, pursuant to paragraph (1) the Secretary preparesa fishery management plan or amendment, the Secretary shall p romptlytransmit such plan or amendm ent to the appropriate Council for con-sideration and comment. Within 45 days after the date of receipt of such plan or amendment, the appropriate Council may recommend,to the Secretary, changes in such plan or amendment, consistent withthe national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any otherapplicable law. After the expiration of such 45-day period, the Secre-tary may implement such plan or amend ment pursuant to section 305.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (l), the Secretary may not includein any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any such planprepared by him, a provision establishing a limited access systemdescribed in section 303(b) (6), unless such system is first approvedby a majority of the voting members, present and voting, of eachappropriate Council.

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES.—The Secretary shall by regulation Regulations.establish the level of any fees which are authorized to be chargedpursuant to section 303(b) ( 1). Such level shall not exceed the admin-istrative costs incurred by the Secretary in issuing such permits.

(e) FISHERIES RESEARCH.—The Secretary shall initiate and main-tain a comprehensive program of fishery research to carry out andfurther the purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act. Such programshall be designed to acquire knowledge and information, includingstatistics, on fishery conservation and management, including, but notlimited to, b iological research concerning th e interdepend ence of fish-cries or stocks of fish, the im pact of pollution on fish, the impact of wetland and estuarine degradation, and other matters bearing uponthe abun dance and availability of fish.

(f) M ISCELLANEOUS DUTIES.-(1) If any fishery extends beyondthe geographical area of authority of any on e Council, the Secretarymay.—

(A) designate which Council shall prepare the fishery manage-ment plan for such fishery and any amendment to su ch plan; or

90 STAT. 353

8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


8/14/2019 7704


Documents

7704