Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone

June 1977

NTIS order #PB-273578
Establishing a 200-Mile” Fisheries Zone

OTA OCEANS PROGRAM STAFF

Robert W. Niblock, Program Manager

Peter A. Johnson, Project Director

Prudence S. Adler Emilia L. Govan

Kathleen A. Beil Richard C. Raymond

Thomas A. Cotton Judith M. Roales

Renee M. Crawford Bennett L. Silverstein

CONGRESS OF

THE UNITED STATES

Office of Technology Assessment

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600021

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C, 20402
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Chairman

National Ocean Policy Study

United States Senat e

Washington, D. C. 20510

The Honorable John P. Murphy

Chairman

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairmen:

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

we are forwarding to you the report, Establishing a 200-Mile

Fisheries Zone .

This report concludes OTA’s assessment of important problems

and opportunities which result from implementation of the

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which became

effective March 1 of this year.

The assessment was conducted in accord with a request from

the Senate National Ocean Policy Study in January 1974, and

a subsequent request by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee.
W ASHINGTO N , D.C. 2051 0

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Chairman of the Board

Office of Technology Assessment

U.S. Congress

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The enclosed report, Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone,

presents OTA’s analysis of important problems and opportunities

which result from implementing the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976.

The assessment which led to this report was requested by the

Chairmen of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study and the House

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The assessment was conducted by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with input from

representatives of the fishing industry and government agencie s

which are involved in carrying out provisions of the legislation

which extended U.S. jurisdiction over commercial fisheries out

to the 200-mile limit.

The report analyzes four major aspects of the new fisheries

law: 1) enforcement of fisheries regulations and U.S. jurisdiction over the fishery zone ; 2) management of the new fishery

zone; 3) information which will be needed for implementation of

the law; and 4) opportunities for expanding and revitalizing the

U.S. fishing industry as a result of implementation of the law.

Among the conclusions of the report are suggestions for four

pilot projects which could aid Federal agencies in determining

the most successful and cost-effective means of implementing

certain aspects of the law.

This transmittal includes two volumes: the assessment report

and working papers which provide back-up material for discussions in the report.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

. . .

Ill
Acknowledgements

The 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

Development 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 wishes to acknowledge the assistance of former OTA staff member

Cynthia Mercing, who worked on the early development of this study, and those other

people and organizations, both public and private, which reviewed and commented on

various draft documents circulated by OTA or provided other types of assistance:

William T. Burke , University o f

Washington

Francis T. Christy, Resources for the Future

Patrick J. Doody, Zapata-Haynie Corp.

David J. Etzold, Univeristy of Southern

Mississippi

Wade L. Griffin, Texas A & M University

Sig Jaeger, North Pacific Fishing Vessel

Owners Assn.

Lauriston R. King, National Science Foundation

Gilbert C. Radonski, Sport Fishing Institute

Courtland L. Smith, Oregon State University

Richard Stroud, Sport Fishing Institute

U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the

Oceanographer of the Navy

U.S. Department of State, Oceans and Fisheries Affairs

U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast

J.L. McHugh, State University of New York Guard

William G. Mustard, Atlantic States Fish- Lee Weddig, National Fisheries

cries Commission Walt V. Yonker, Association

Virgil Norton, University of Rhode Island Fisheries

Susan B. Peterson, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

Institute

of Pacific
Preface

This 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 requested 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 academia

who reviewed draft materials and provided guidance.

The work undertaken by the Office of Technology Assessment, and

reported 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 to

offer specific criticism of existing systems and specific suggestions for congressional action to further improve fisheries conservation and management.

The Technology Assessment Board, governing body of OTA, approves

the release of this report, which identifies a range of viewpoints on a significant issue facing the U.S. Congress. The views expressed in this report are

not necessarily those of the Board, the OTA Advisory Council, or of individual members thereof.
Table of Contents

PAGE

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

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

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 11

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

Chapter III

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

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Present Plans for Near-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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transponders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microwave Radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Over-the-Horizon Radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microwave Radiometry, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical and Electro-Optical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electromagnetic Intercept Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acoustic Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

x

1

7

19

21

21

23

24

27

29

38

42

43

43

45

46

47

50

52

53

55

57

57

58
PAGE

Chapter IV

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

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Optimum Sustainable Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Regional Fishery Management Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Preliminary Management Plans for Foreign Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Final Management Plans for Domestic Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Evaluation 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Status of Current Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Methods of Improving Information Base .,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

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

Status of Current Information, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

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

Chapter VI

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Stock Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

New Markets for Fish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Revitalization of Fishing Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter VII

GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Chapter VIII

FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Chapter IX

FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

. . . Vlll
List of Working Papers

Working Paper No. 1: Economic Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Extended 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 No. 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 Support Enforcement of the 200-Mile Fishing Zone by Stanford Research Institute
List of Figures

Figure No. Page

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

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 Number of Undetected Violations by Month Under “No Effort,” FY

75 Level, and Planned Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - New England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - Mid Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Potential of Remote-Sensing Technology To Support Enforcement 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 Service

Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appointed Voting Members of Regional Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Duties of Regional Council and National Marine Fisheries Service . . . . . . . .

Fishery Management Plans, as of February 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preliminary Management Plan Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1977 Northeast Stock Assessment and U.S. and Foreign Quotas . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Projected Program Costs for Economic Data Collection . . . . . .

Nature and Effect of Canadian Government Subsidies at Each Level of Canadian Groundfish Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fishermen’s Opinions of Their Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fishermen’s Sources of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

4

5

26

31

32

33

34

35

36

44

48-4 9

51

5 3

5 4

5 5

6 4

65-6 6

6 7

70

71

72

8 7

100

101

102

x
1. Introduction
Fish are an important part of man’s pattern

of survival.

Directly-that is, fish and shellfish consumed by man—fish provide about 14 percent

of the world’s supply of animal protein. The

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of

the United Nations has estimated that every

man, woman, and child in the world consumes an average of 26 pounds of fish each

year.

l However, that figure varies greatly

from country to country, ranging from only a

small fraction-of-a-pound per person per year

in Afghanistan to more than 86 pounds per

person per year in Iceland, In the United

States, the average consumption per person is

about 12 pounds of fish annually. z According

to FAO the consumption of fish is likely to increase through 1990 at a growth rate higher

than that of beef, pork, vegetables, cereal, or

milks This suggests increasing pressure on

already heavily utilized ocean resources

worldwide in the next 10 years,

Indirectly—in the form of meal and oil fed

to pigs and chickens which are in turn eaten

by man—fish provide another 10 or 11 percent of the world’s animal protein.4

Twenty years ago, the United States was the

world’s second largest fishing nations But by

1974 American fisherman were fifth, catching

only 4 percent of the world’s supply of fish.6

In that time, the U.S. catch had dropped only

about 8 percent, but the catch of some foreign

nations had increased by as much as 250 percent.7 In 1974, the world catch was nearly 70-

million metric tons. s Much of that was coming

from waters off the United States where, within 200 miles of the coasts, about one-fifth of

the world’s fishery resources are located. 9

Worldwide, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has projected that

the oceans can sustain an annual catch of only

100-million metric tons, a catch figure they

expect to be reached by 1980.10 Already, increased fishing has caused acute pressure on

some stocks, depleting the supply and

threatening their existence. For example, off

the coast of the United States about 20 species

of fish and shellfish are believed to be

seriously depleted11 (see figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1

U.S. Landings, Imports,

and Consumption of

Edible Fishery Products

87

6

4

2

0

Total Consumption

195 0 196 0 19’70

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration
%iot all stocks de@a&M

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Historically, access to fishing grounds has

been uncontrolled. Fish have been a commonproperty resource, available to any and all nations and individuals who seek to hunt them

and harvest them. This common-property

nature has prevented any one nation from

assuming management control and has made

regulation of the catch difficult. Conservation

of stocks has not been successful in spite of international agreements and treaties with other

fishing nations.

As a result, technically sophisticated foreign

fishing fleets have taken a heavy toll in traditional U.S. fisheries, particularly off the northeast and northwest coasts where there are

several species of prime interest to U.S. commercial fishermen and consumers. The decline

of the New England haddock fishery which

was reduced from a major commercial enterprise in 1950 to a relatively small activity

today, 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 20

times larger than it was in 1974.12 Total catch

of other important commercial species, such

as flounder and ocean perch, also declined as

overfishing reduced the amount of stock

available (see figure 3).

In response to widespread public concern

about overfishing, the U.S. Congress moved to

adopt a 200-mile fishery zone to give the

United States power to limit or exclude

foreign fishing off its coasts and impose on

both foreign and U.S. fishermen responsibilities for conservation and utilization of

the fishery resources within the zone.

In passing the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265), Congress officially noted that certain stocks of fish

off the coasts of this country “have been overfished to the point where their survival is

threatened and other such stocks have been so

substantially reduced in number that they

could become similarly threatened.”13

The law made it the policy of the United

States to establish a “workable and effective”

fisheries management and conservation

program based on the best scientific information available, involving interested States and

citizens, and drawing on Federal, State, and

academic capabilities to carry out research,

administration, management, and enforcement. 14

On March 1, 1977, the law went into effect.

A beginning was made toward reaching the

difficult goals of conserving, managing, and

developing the fisheries off U.S. coasts. To accomplish these goals, the law establishes

Regional Councils--groups which reflect the

expertise and interests of the States along each
Figure 3

Historic Worid and

U.S. Landings of

Fish and Shellfish

50

0’

195 0 1960 1970

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

fishery—to oversee implementation of the law

and become managers of the fish and shellfish

resources off their coast. Already these councils have been involved to some extent in the

National Marine Fisheries Service work to set

some 1977 catch limitations and draw up

preliminary regulations.

But this is just the outline of a system which

must be developed in future years as the councils, Government, fishermen, and the Nation

gain better information and understanding for

their job.

The task of husbanding the U.S. fishery

resources is a major one. At stake is not only a

major supply of animal protein, but also an

American industry which provides employment for more than a quarter-of-a-million

people 15 and has a $6.5 billion impact on the

U.S. economy.

16 It is a resource used by

foreign fishermen from more than 17 nations, 17 U.S. commercial fishermen, and an

estimated 30 million18 recreational fishermen,

whose catch is roughly equal in size and value

to the catch of edible fish by U.S. commercial

fishermen. 19

Managing such a resource will involve

scientific, social, and political problems for

many years to come. Not the least of these

problems is the fact that implementation of

the law will require the use of much information about all phases of the fishing industry—

information which has not been consistently

collected and analyzed in the past. But if the

principles established by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act are pursued,

there is substantial promise of a rational

system for resolving conflicts between the

needs of foreign, domestic, and recreational

fishermen and the need for conservation.

The major problems relate to how the

United States will determine and enforce new

management regulations, how it will build the

information base necessary for reaching

management decisions and laying conservation strategies, and how it will revitalize the

existing fishing industry and develop new opportunities. This report addresses some of

those problems which are amenable to possible solution by actions of the U.S. Congress.

Some potential actions for Congress and appropriate Federal agencies are identified.

Neither the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act or this report cover all

problem areas or possible solutions. For example, many species of inshore and migratory

high seas fisheries are still unregulated and

5
may be subject to increasing fishing pressures however, raise considerable hope for restoring

if stronger controls are placed on stocks in the stocks and encouraging the American fishing

200-mile zone. Tuna is the major commercial industry to expand. Some of the potential new

stock which is excluded from U.S. jurisdiction opportunities which may result are also disas a highly migratory species. The Act does, cussed in this report.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Photo

Fishermen bail their catch from a purse seine into the hold of the boat,
2 Summary
In March 1977, the Fishery Conservation

and Management Act of 1976 became effective, extending U.S. jurisdiction over offshore

fisheries within 200 miles of its coast and

possessions, and making it the policy of the

land to use some of the most advanced ideas

available about ways to mange marine fisheries.

Implementation of the law will require a

level of understanding about the fishing

resources and industry that has never before

been attempted by the U.S. Government. It

will require development of methods of

balancing biological, economic, and social factors relating to fisheries in order to best serve

the national needs. Most of the information

necessary for this process does not yet exist.

The law establishes Regional Councils to

work with the National Marine Fisheries

Service of the Department of Commerce in

managing fishery resources and setting out

regulations, including allocation of the catch

of commercial species between domestic and

foreign fishermen. Preliminary regulations

and catch allocations have been drawn up, but

better working relationships between all interested parties are needed and many changes

will be necessary in early management activities as experience is gained.

Management of the 200-mile fishery zone

will, of necessity, have enforcement of regulations as an integral part if it is to accomplish

restoration and conservation of fish stocks

and provide the domestic fishing industry

with incentive to grow. The U.S. Coast Guard

will be primarily responsible for enforcing

regulation of foreign fishermen and the National Marine Fisheries Service will oversee

domestic fishing. Both enforcement groups

are beginning their tasks by increasing existing activities. This appears appropriate for the

time being, but it is likely new enforcement

techniques and advanced equipment will be

needed in the future. Improvements are

needed in long-term evaluation of enforcement needs, costs and benefits, and attention

should be given to coordinating some military

information and equipment with Coast Guard

requirements for fisheries.

The Office of Technology Assessment’s

analysis of implementation of the new 200-

mile fisheries zone can be expressed in terms

of the conclusions reached during the assessment, the practical and organizational

problems which were discovered, and the

OTA suggestions for resolving those

problems.

The overall conclusions of the assessment

are given here for each of the major subject

areas of the report. These conclusions are

grouped as they relate to:

●

●

●

●

enforcement of the U.S. fisheries regulations and jurisdiction;

management of the new fisheries zone;

data which will be needed for implementation of the law; and

opportunities for expanding and

revitalizing the U.S. fishing industry

which may result from implementation

of the law.

These overall conclusions include four pilot

projects, which are OTA’s major suggestions

for determining the most successful and costeffective means of enforcing U.S. jurisdiction

in the 200-mile fisheries zone.

9
Enforcement

Also included in this Summary are some of

the specific problems which stand in the way

of full implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

It is the practice of the Office of Technology

Assessment to make an objective analysis of a

subject and not to recommend specific policy

actions to the US. Congress. Adhering to that

practice, OTA has made no policy recommendations in this report. However, due to the

practical nature of this report and the desires

of the congressional committee which requested this study, it seemed appropriate in

this case to make a number of specific suggestions for more effective implementation of the

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of

1976. These recommendations are outlined in

this section and discussed in more detail

where appropriate in later sections.

Throughout this Summary, page numbers

are noted after individual conclusions in order

to simplify reference to fuller discussion in the

main text of the report.

Need for Enforcement

Adequate management and strict enforcement offer the opportunity for future

increase in fish stocks and yields due to

tighter controls to prevent overfishing, less

pressure on stocks which are normally

taken as bycatch, less conflict among fishermen for certain grounds, less conflict between different types of equipment, and

assurance of workable allocation of catch

quotas among foreign and U.S. fishermen.

(See pages 27 to 29.)

The Existing Coast Guard Enforcement Plan

for Foreign Fisheries

The Coast Guard plan of increasing its

present fishery enforcement capabilities is a

reasonable first step in enforcement. It is

flexible in that resources can be added at a

reasonable first cost and the program can be

curtailed or accelerated as assumptions and

need are proven or disproven by experience. (See pages 29 to 31.)

Enforcement of Domestic Fisheries by NMFS

and USCG

The National Marine Fisheries Service’s

present approach to enforcing regulations

in domestic fisheries by means of dockside

inspections may be sufficient under the new

law if it is combined with a program of random at-sea inspections, However, if regulations for domestic fisheries duplicate the

kinds of gear restrictions and operational

controls used in foreign fisheries, more atsea enforcement capability will be needed.

(See pages 29 to 31.)

In the event that an at-sea enforcement

capability is needed in domestic fisheries,

the Coast Guard could use the same types of

equipment and techniques which are

planned for enforcement activities in

10
foreign fisheries. However, additional

facilities would be needed to cover the

different areas used by domestic fishermen

and the additional fishing vessels. (See

pages 29 to 31.)

Techniques To Improve Near-Term Enforcement Effectiveness

Several fairly simple strategies which

could be activated almost immediately for

enforcement have not been given favorable

consideration by the Coast Guard and the

National Marine Fisheries Service. Three of

these are:

1) establishment of an efficient reporting

system which would allow domestic fishermen to aid in observing foreign fishing

vessels,

2) more extensive use of observers onboard foreign fishing vessels, and

3) creation of specific guidelines to be

followed in granting annual fishing permits

and renewing Governing International

Fishery Agreements. (See pages 38 to 42.)

Extensive use should be made of observers in a dual role: to collect data needed for

management of fisheries and to observe

fishing operations for enforcement functions. A near-blanket program of observers

may be necessary for a dependable, costeffective enforcement program. (See pages

38 to 43.)

Planning Needed for Long-Term Enforcement

Remote-Sensing Systems for Future Enforcement Needs

The cost of most remote-sensing systems

is high and it will probably be necessary to

share the cost of such systems with other

users. However, remote-sensing devices

could be expected to improve enforcement

by better coverage, better performance, and

a reduction of the need for expanding conventional ship and aircraft patrols of fishing

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

Transponders have good future potential

for use in fisheries enforcement. Particularly when combined with Loran-C,

transponders can be used to detect, identify,

and classify fishing vessels. (See pages 47 to

49.)

New microwave radar equipment has the

technical potential to supplement or supplant existing airborne radar for fisheries

enforcement within the next 10 years, but

the cost would be very high. (See pages 50

to 52.)

Over-the-horizon radar techniques have

good potential for use in fisheries enforcement. However, due to both the classified

nature of most of the military work in the

field and the high cost, use of this system

will be contingent upon close cooperation

between the Department of Defense and the

Coast Guard. (See pages 52 to 53.)

It is likely that proposed near-term enforcement capabilities will not be adequate

for long-range demands. Therefore, plans

should be made for further improvements

in enforcement by use of remote-sensing

devices and other advanced technology.

(See pages 43 to 45.)

11
Recommended Pilot

Projects in Enforcement

Recommendations on Enforcement Levels

and Evaluation (see pages 24 to 29)

Problem 1: No desirable level of enforcement

has been determined, based on a policy decision, as to what level of enforcement is most

desirable.

Recommendation: In order to determine the

type of effort and equipment necessary, there

should be a specific definition of the desirable

level of enforcement, followed by regular

assessment of changing enforcement needs

and the actual level of enforcement which has

been achieved compared to the desired level.

In addition, the Regional Councils should

make a projection of desired enforcement actions in their areas, possible compliance inducements for fisheries in their areas, and potential domestic enforcement plans.

Problem 2: The existing Coast Guard analysis

of the appropriate level of enforcement was

made without benefit of an adequate method

for assessing the benefits and the cost (in

social, economic, political, and scientific

terms) of various enforcement strategies, that

is, the various combinations of aircraft, ships,

electronic devices, and imposition of penalties.

Recommendation: A general analytical

system is needed to provide quantitative estimates of the impacts of alternative management techniques and enforcement strategies

on the quantities and prices of fish available,

the state of recreational fishing, and other

measures of the benefits of management.

Problem 3: Fisheries management-modeling

efforts currently being supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, such as the one at Stanford University,

do not include enforcement components.

Recommendation: The Coast Guard should

develop the enforcement component, so that

its model could be used in conjunction with

one adopted by NOAA.

12

The cost of enforcing fishery regulations in

the new 200-mile zone may escalate as experience is gained in managing the fisheries,

and it may be learned that a higher level of enforcement is necessary than that which is now

planned. Therefore, a reasonable approach to

gaining experience with different enforcement

techniques is desirable in order to determine

which are the most successful and cost-effective methods of achieving the goals of the

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of

1976.

The research conducted during this study

suggests that such experience might be most

efficiently gained through a series of pilot

programs in various areas of enforcement.

The following four projects are an outline of

the types of work which may be useful. These

projects are suggested with the assumption

that in the long-run, the cost of gaining sufficient experience on which to make informed

choices and trade-offs in enforcement activities would be less than the cost of possible

erroneous decisions about the use of very expensive, electronic-surveillance systems, the

cost of adding large numbers of new and

possibly unnecessary air and sea craft, and the

cost of possibly failing to protect the fishery

resources by adequate enforcement of regulations.

Included in the project discussions are

rough-cost estimates whenever such fiscal information was available to OTA. However, it

should be pointed out that one of the primary

reasons for conducting these projects would

be to obtain information that will allow the

appropriate agencies to make estimates of the

costs of full-scale setup and operation of certain programs. Presently, such information

does not exist.
It is suggested that these projects should be

conducted for at least a year, possibly more, in

order to cover the entire fishing season and

range of activities on any given area. At the

end of the project, each should be evaluated

with special attention to determining the completeness of coverage provided, the cost, the

timeliness and usefulness of information obtained, and a comparison of each method with

traditional enforcement activities, and other

possible alternatives to the pilot method.

Shipboard Observers (for background discussion, see pages 38 to 42)

OTA’s analysis suggests that much could be

learned from a pilot project in which a foreign

fishery is nearly blanketed with shipboard observers who have both management and enforcement duties.

The New England region would be most

suitable for such a pilot project because the

fishing grounds are concentrated and foreignfishing practices are well known; many of the

foreign vessels fish in groups which could

simplify the arrangement of vessels with observers and control vessels without observers;

and the stocks in that region are generally

depleted and information for use in restoring

stocks is badly needed.

About 150 foreign vessels, on the average,

have traditionally fished within the 200-mile

zone off New England. At this writing, the

number of permit applications which had

been received suggested that this number will

probably go down because of the 1977 catch

allocations. Therefore, it appears that a total of

about 100 shipboard observers would be

suitable for the pilot project. These observers

should be selected on the basis of experience

in fishing practice and knowledge of fishery

matters. If they are given enforcement duties,

they should be Coast Guard personnel, instead of NMFS personnel. However, they

should receive some training from NMFS in

observing, collecting, and reporting information of value. Some familiarity with the nation

on whose vessel the observer serves would

also be helpful.

Based on NMFS estimates for their existing

limited-observer program the cost of a 100-

man pilot program would be roughly $2

million plus funds for an accurate evaluation

of the pilot.

Under the law, this cost is passed on to the

foreign vessels. However, other fees and

charges are also levied, under the law, to reimburse the United States for management and

enforcement activities in the 200-mile zone.

Since the observer program would presumably make some other expenditures covered by

these levies unnecessary, the gross-tonnage

fee or tax on ex-vessel value of the catch could

be reduced accordingly.

Transfer of Military Data (for background

discussion, see pages 43 to 44)

OTA proposes a pilot program utilizing one

of the existing military systems for the collection and transfer of available surveillance data

for one specific region. Some precedent for

such a project already exists at the Naval

Ocean Surveillance Information Center where

the Coast Guard has recently detailed one

officer to work on data which are of interest to

the Coast Guard and have not, in the past,

been processed by Navy personnel.

OTA has not investigated the feasibility of

using a specific system in any region, but it

appears that the Navy’s west coast network

could be a likely pilot region. Any pilot project should begin with an indepth investigation

of the Navy’s existing system and its ability to

13
provide information needed for fisheries enforcement.

Some funding would be necessary to add

personnel who would coordinate the transfer

of fisheries-related data from the Navy to the

Coast Guard district in charge of fisheries enforcement in that zone.

On one hand, there may be difficulties in

working with and protecting classified information and there may be a danger that this extra task might not receive adequate attention

in a facility oriented to an existing military

mission. However, such an information-sharing program could ultimately cut costs substantially by reducing duplication of effort

and facilities. It could also provide cooperative

experience which might lead to sharing of

other services and resources needed for enforcement and the opportunity to evaluate

new technology which may be of use in fisheries enforcement.

Joint Research (for background discussion,

see pages 45 to 46)

OTA suggests that a pilot project for

cooperation and joint research could bring

together the Coast Guard, Department of

Defense, and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration to develop new systems

and find efficient ways of using technology in

a multimission context.

Such a pilot project could include joint

preparation of long-range plans for determining the most appropriate research and

development strategy for new technologies,

identifying the needs of all potential users of

such technology, and analyzing the costs and

benefits of developing and utilizing new technology, especially remote-sensing devices.

Transponders with Loran-C (for background

discussion, see pages 47 to 49)

OTA suggests early implementation of a

pilot program utilizing transponders in two

specific regions-the Bering Sea off Alaska

and the Georges Bank off New England. Since

each of these areas are traditional fishing

grounds, but with very different prevailing

conditions, the usefulness of transponders

could be evaluated for a broad range of applications by this pilot project.

The pilot programs would require the

design and manufacture of Loran-C transponder equipment specifically for this purpose. The Loran-C network is already planned

or in operation in the regions proposed. A

licensing arrangement and installation technique for fitting transponders on each foreign

fishing vessel entitled to fish in the region

would need to be devised. Control stations

and receivers on patrol ships or aircraft would

need to be installed.

It is estimated that the transponder which

would go on board each foreign vessel would

cost less than $2,500. Once the system were

developed and installed, operational costs

would be roughly equivalent to the operational cost of the aircraft carrying each control

station, $1 million to $1.6 million annually.

Funds for evaluating the pilot project would

be in addition to these costs.

The Georges Bank pilot program would require about 150 transponder units and a control station most likely at a Coast Guard shore

base in New England. Each vessel entering the

200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishing

would be required to activate its transponder

which would automatically transmit identification and location to the shore base. The

shore base would keep plots of all foreign

fishing activity on the banks and give this to

patrol craft. Regular patrols of the region

would use this information to check on any

14
Management of New

U.S. Fishery Zone

fishing activity that was not reported by this

system.

In the Bering Sea region a similar network

of transponders could be required aboard

foreign fishing vessels. In this region it may be

desirable to combine the transponder network

with microwave radar systems already used

aboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiving stations also aboard the patrol craft. In this

way a specific region could be covered by

regular overflight, all vessels operating in the

region located by radar, each vessel interrogated to determine whether an approved

transponder is aboard stating identification

and location, and any vessels without transponders investigated. There are several advantages to a system thus described, especially

in Alaska where long distances and large areas

can best be covered by aircraft and where frequent cloud cover makes visual observation

difficult or impossible.

New Management Concepts Needed

New research concepts need to be

developed and much new data must be

gathered in order to obtain an integrated

view of all the fisheries of the United States

and to determine the optimum yield of each

fishery. Optimum yield is a judgmental

decision on the size of fish catch which will

achieve the most advantageous combination of biological, economic, and social

results. However, there is presently no

agreed-upon method of determining optimum yield. (See pages 62 to 63.)

Even when analytical methods and reliable data are generated, there will be uncertainty about stock assessments and other

projections used for fishery management.

Techniques for dealing with that uncertainty will be necessary. (See pages 62 to

63.)

Relationships Between Federal Agencies and

Regional Councils

It is possible that better accountability for

the existence and the reliability of data provided by the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) to the Regional Councils

could be achieved if the NMFS member on

the councils were the head of the regional

fisheries research center rather than, or in

addition to, the Regional Director. (See

pages 63 to 69.)

Conflicts can probably be expected in the

future between the Regional Councils and

the NMFS laboratories over the division of

research funds because of some local fishermen’s mistrust of national NMFS operations and council desires to break out of the

traditional NMFS research patterns. Conflicts may evolve over who does specific

research tasks. Such conflicts may delay collection of much-needed information or

cause duplication of research effort;

15
however, there is no framework--other

than informal negotiations between NMFS

and the councils—for resolving such conflicts. (See pages 63 to 69.)

NMFS Management Guidelines Needed

No decisions have been made within

NMFS as to who will be responsible for

research, data collecting, and development

of analytical methods. There is a division of

opinions among NMFS staff as to whether

recommendations on data and methods

should be made by NMFS to the councils or

by the councils to NMFS. (See pages 69 to

73.)

The preliminary management plans prepared by NMFS were not coordinated in

content or format. Guidelines for presentation of management plans were not promulgated. This failure to standardize operations with NMFS before the initial plans

were written may have complicated the

councils’ job of preparing succeeding plans

by failing to give them a model after which

to pattern their work. It may also perpetuate regional differences within NMFS and

complicate the national review process. (See

pages 69 to 73.)

Management Information Needed

Much must be learned about the effectiveness of management techniques and

presentation of plans. However, the most

pressing need for improvement is in the

area of developing and considering

economic, social, and biological data to be

used to modify the catch figures presented

in the preliminary plans. (See pages 69 to

74.)

Recommendation for Management Planning

(See pages 73 to 74.)

Problem: There is no deadline for preparation of domestic fishery-management plans

and no priority listing of domestic fisheries

for which management plans should be prepared.

Recommendation: NMFS should prepare a

priority listing of domestic fisheries for which

management plans are needed, delineating the

needs and citing available data.

16
Information Needed To Implement

Public Law 94–265

New Evaluation of Fisheries Stock Information Needed

The new Regional Councils could make a

substantial improvement in the old system

of making estimates of fishery yields and

advice about health of stocks available only

to international governing bodies. The

councils could interpret scientific data on

stocks, publish it widely, and provide an

opportunity for continual access to information and debate of the issues by interested parties. Input by and involvement

of users and other public parties is crucial to

the success of fishery management. (See

pages 77 to 79.)

Status of Stock Information

Present assessments of heavily utilized

stocks are quite accurate. However, projections of sustainable yields in the future are

subject to large uncertainties due to effects

of interspecies relationships, environmental

change, fishing effort, and other unknown

natural variations. (See pages 77 to 79.)

Presently no stock has adequate quantitative data on all items necessary to develop

estimates of maximum potential yields that

can be harvested without reducing the

parent stock. (See page 78.)

Stock Assessment Needs

upon a few key indicators of the health and

size of the stock rather than to attempt to

assess all possible indicators. (See pages 79

to 81.)

Because of pressures to expand existing

stock assessment methodologies to provide

data for near-term decisions, pressure to

treat fishery information as a precise

science, and the lack of validity for existing

methods of research, a program should be

undertaken to improve the stock assessment data which will be used and establish

future research priorities. (See pages 79 to

81.)

Foreign Investment Information

Mandatory disclosure of the actual extent

of foreign investment in U.S. fish processing and wholesale operations would be

necessary in order to determine if foreign

investment results in uncontrolled foreign

fishing or if it has an adverse effect on the

competitive position of U.S. firms.

However, such disclosure is not presently

required. (See pages 81 to 85.)

Economic Information Needs

Economics and statistics staffs are being

added to Regional Fisheries Research Centers, but these staffs are not likely to have

the time or direction to address national

Since estimates about the condition of a problems. These staffs cannot be considered

a substitute for a central economics research stock are basically judgmental anyway, it and planning capability in NMFS. (See may be far more cost-effective to agree pages 86 to 88.)

Information Needed on Social Effects of

Fisheries Management

The Regional Councils will need to know

the major social effects of the decisions

made under the new law in order to make

sensible alterations in fisheries regulations

as conditions continue to change. (See pages

88 to 92.)

17
Future Developments in the

Fishing Industry

Recommendation for Improved Management Information (See pages 81 to 86.)

Problem: Most of the regional economic

studies which have been done and the

economic and social data generated by NMFS

would be of limited use to the Regional Councils in their management work because it is

outdated or not maintained in a format applicable to fisheries managers.

Recommendation: The National Marine Fisheries Service consulting with the Regional

Councils could evaluate the economic and

social-data needs and the suggestions for improvement which are outlined in this report

and develop a comprehensive management

information system.

18

Information Needed To Evaluate Opportunities

In order to make decisions on how to improve an existing fishery or develop a new

fishery by enhancement techniques, new information is necessary. This includes an intensive and integrated examination of all

facets of a fishery: resource assessment,

harvest and processing technologies and

costs; market potentials; and institutional

factors including artificial barriers to trade.

None of this information presently exists

within the Federal agencies. (See pages 96 to

99.)

Sufficient data about various segments of

the fishing industry are not now available

for determining what, if any, actions should

be taken by the Government to encourage

growth in the fishing industry. (See pages

99 to 104.)

Underutilized Species Not Defined

In addition to the possible prices which

presently underutilized species might

bring, stock assessments and projections of

yield from the species are needed in order

to determine if the stocks can sustain a

market. (See pages 98 to 99.)

Recommendations for Addressing New Opportunities (See pages 95 to 104.)

Recommendation: Data collected by the

General Accounting Office, the Eastland

Resolution group, the Office of Technology

Assessment, and NMFS should be synthesized

and analyzed by a committee of the Regional

Councils which could identify missing information, fill the gaps itself or contract for

research, and make recommendations for congressional action or administrative changes

which would be helpful in revitalizing the

fishing industry.

Recommendation: The Federal fishery information structure that exists in Sea Grant and

NMFS should be expanded and improved to

reach a larger segment of the industry with a

variety of information from many sources.

Brief History of Fisheries Law

Background Enforcement

Management of the new 200-mile U.S. fishery zone will, of necessity, have enforcement

of regulations as an integral part if it is to accomplish restoration and conservation of fish

stocks and provide the domestic fishing industry with the potential and incentive to

grow, as mandated by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L.

94-265).

Management plans to be drawn-up under

provisions of the Act will lay the groundwork

for the types of regulations which will be required and which must be enforced. However,

fish resources are already scarce enough and

the demand for fish products high enough

that it is logical to conclude that foreign nations can justify the risk of violating these

regulations and the United States can justify

the effort and expense of enforcing them. In

fact, the U.S. Coast Guard, the agency primarily charged with the enforcement task, has

concluded in a report on its preparations for

increased fisheries duties that “the state of the

fish stocks today is too critical to allow for any

lapse in enforcement.”20

A discussion of enforcement problems and

opportunities is offered first in this report for

two reasons:

1) Clear and timely indication of U.S. intentions to strictly enforce fishery regulations within the 200-mile zone is imperative for gaining foreign cooperation.

2) Even the best of management plans cannot succeed without effective enforcement of its provisions.

Later sections of this report deal with the

problems and opportunities of managing the

200-mile fishing zone and with the need for

much additional information as Federal agencies and Regional Councils seek to refine and

improve management techniques.

The United States began to exercise control

over its coastal fisheries soon after it became a

country. Until the passage of the Bartlett Act,

in the middle 1960’s, however, enforcement

was essentially confined to the “territorial

sea”, the area within 3-nautical miles offshore.

The early control activities were generally

mild. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s and early

1900’s, that strong legislation was passed to

resolve fishery and marine mammal problems

in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, In the

early 1900’s, foreign fishing vessels were

seized and brought to American ports, and

fines were successfully levied against the

crews and vessels.

The Bartlett Act has been the primary fisheries law. Foreign fishing is not only

prohibited within the territorial sea, but also

is excluded within a contiguous 9-mile fisheries zone beyond the 3-mile territorial sea. In

addition, foreign fishermen cannot retain

creatures of the Continental Shelf (shellfish

and crustacean). Violations of the Bartlett Act

could result in fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of the vessel, gear, and catch.

There are a number of treaties and international agreements in which the United States

and other countries have agreed to manage

fishery resources, outside the 12-mile zone.

ICNAF (International Convention for the

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries) is an example of

one important treaty. Here, the 18 member

governments prepare the regulations, which

for the most part are concerned with quota

21
allocations. Inspectors may stop, board, and

examine member fishing vessels for violations

of the regulations, but prosecution and

punishment (if any) are carried out by the

“flag state”, the home country of the particular fishing vessel.

The United States was a member of ICNAF

for more than 25 years. However, it withdrew

from the convention after Congress passed the

Fishery Management and Conservation Act of

1976, unilaterally assuming jurisdiction over

most of the east coast waters in which

American fishermen work.

The growth in breadth and strength of enforcement of fisheries laws can be traced to

two primary interrelated occurrences:

● intense foreign fishing off our coasts, and

● depletion of many fish species due to

overfishing.

In 1975, there were 17 foreign nations fishing off our coasts.21 In June 1975, almost 1,000

foreign fishing vessels were sighted; the year’s

monthly average was more than 500.22 The

foreign vessels caught about three-quarters of

the 3 million metric tons of fish caught in the

200-mile zone that year.

From 1964 through September of 1976,

nearly 100 foreign fishing vessels were cited

for violation of U.S. fishing laws. The most

frequent offenders have been Japan, Canada,

Cuba, and the U.S.S.R. Fishermen from these

nations account for more than 70 percent of

the violations of U.S. law. In addition, approximately 100 treaty violations are documented

each year.23

OTAI Photo

Trawl nets on shrimp boats dry in the sun. Shrimp is one of the largest commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.

22
Requirements of the Law

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

● geographical intrusion, that is entrance

into forbidden areas, such as territorial

waters or closed areas; and

● catch and illegal retention of creatures

from the continental shelf, such as

lobsters and crabs.

Treaty violations take the form of:

●

●

●

●

improper fishing gear, which is

prohibited in certain areas by regulation;

illegal retainment of bycatch, that is,

catching and keeping prohibited species;

overfishing of quotas; and

violating administrative regulations,

such as improper keeping of log books or

not reporting required scientific data.

In the past, fisheries enforcement responsibility has been vested primarily in the U.S.

Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has provided

the ships and aircraft and much of the manpower to staff the vehicles, the sensing equipment and the command and control function

of operations. The National Marine Fisheries

Service, which is primarily concerned with

gathering management and scientific data,

assisted in enforcement. NMFS provided personnel with expertise on fishing gear, fishing

techniques, and fish identification and catch

rates. There was close cooperation between

the two groups, with personnel from both

agencies frequently onboard the same vessels,

The State Department has also played an

important role in fisheries law enforcement.

The State Department negotiated the various

treaties and international agreements, and in

the past, any foreign fishing vessel was seized

only after coordination with the Secretary of

State. A close liaison between the State

Department and the Coast Guard was needed

since any interference with foreign shipping,

warranted or not, could certainly affect U.S.

relations with the foreign country.

I .1 I,, < ~ - 7 ‘ -

The purpose and policies set out in Public

Law 94-265 have important effects on enforcement. The law vests the responsibility for enforcement in the Secretary of Commerce

(NMFS) and in the Secretary of Transportation (Coast Guard). Authorization is given to

arrest violators, to seize vessels and cargo, and

to issue citations.

In addition a number of specific instructions, which have a major effect on enforcement, are spelled out in the law:

1. No foreign fishing is permitted in the

fishery conservation zone except:

a. under agreements or treaties (new and

renegotiated), and

b. with a permit.

2. In every international agreement:

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g

The foreign country agrees to abide by

all 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,

The permit must be prominently displayed.

Appropriate position-fixing and identification equipment, such as transponders, if required by the Coast Guard,

are to be installed and maintained on

each vessel.

U.S. observers will be allowed to board

any vessel, the cost to be reimbursed to

the United States.

Foreign agents are to be sited in the

United States to deal with any legal

process.

The foreign nation acts in behalf of its

individual vessels.

23
Present Plans for Near-Term

Enforcement

3. An allocation of fishing level (fish

quotas) will be made to specific foreign

countries.

4. If a foreign vessel, with a permit, violates

the regulations:

a. The permit of that vessel could be

revoked.

b. The permit could be suspended.

c. Additional conditions could be imposed on the foreign nation and on

any of its permits,

5. Civil penalties for violations could be as

much as $25,000 per violation, where every day may be considered as an additional violation.

6. Criminal penalties for violations could be

as much as $100,000 and 10 years in

prison.

7. Any vessel, its fishing gear and cargo,

could be forfeited to the United States.

Since the passage of the Fishery Management and Conservation Act of 1976, some

concern has been voiced by Members of Congress, members of the Regional Councils, and

others, that foreign investments in U.S. fishing

operations and joint ventures between foreign

and domestic fishing and processing companies may provide a means of circumventing

controls on foreign fishing interests within the

200-mile zone. Such investments may

guarantee foreign firms the almost unlimited

access to fish stocks which is intended for

domestic fishermen and allow them to operate

outside certain regulations-such as gear

restrictions—which may be in effect only for

foreign fishermen. While such investments

may pose problems in enforcing the intent of

the Act, they are not, strictly speaking, an enforcement problem to be dealt with by the

Coast Guard and NMFS operational divisions.

The problems and benefits of foreign investments are discussed as management con24 cerns in other sections of this report.

Enforcement of regulations in the new 200-

mile fishery zone is complicated by the size of

the area and the fact that fishing is to be regulated not prohibited. The area encompassed

by the 200-mile-wide band surrounding the

United States and its possessions adds up to

almost 21/Q-million square miles of ocean. According to Coast Guard estimates, major fisheries cover approximately one-fourth of that

area. These prime fishing grounds will require

concentrated enforcement efforts during certain seasons, In addition, at least some level of

enforcement may be required in all parts of

the zone at some time during the year. A

dense mixture of marine traffic, including

merchant vessels, warships, tankers, recreational craft, and both domestic and foreign

fishing vessels, is found within the 200-mile

zone. From this mix of vessels, foreign fishing

craft must be located and identified by nation.

Further, in order to enforce any regulation in

any fishing area at any given time, fishing

vessels must be classified as fishing according

to the provisions of their permits and existing

regulations or in violation of these controls;

violators must be apprehended; and some

prosecutor action must be taken.

This detection, identification, and classification of foreign fishing activity must go on

under any sea conditions that permit fishing

itself. Experienced fishermen have indicated

that this means enforcement activities may be
necessary through at least sea state 7 (28- to

40-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 a

greater area, using sight and radar, and detect

more fishing vessels than will a cutter at sea

doing 15 knots. On the other hand, the aircraft

cannot put a boarding party on fishing

vessels, while a cutter can accomplish this

mission.

It is not now possible to project explicitly

what enforcement will be necessary to detect

and deter violations because the Regional

Councils, which are charged with creating the

regulations for fishery management, have not

yet formalized final plans which will include

the regulations which are to be enforced.

Regulations which have been drawn-up by

the National Marine Fisheries Service for implementation as of March 1, 1977, are merely

interim rules which will be supplanted once

the councils formulate regulations specific to

U.S. Coast Guard Photo

Under the new law, Coast Guard enforcement officers may board foreign fishing vessels to inspect the catch and fishing gear

25
their fisheries. The interim regulations are not

too different from those contained in the international agreements which have, in the

past, been the only means of controlling fishing activity. The major immediate changes

will be that the United States has taken on the

responsibility for enforcement, will board and

inspect foreign vessels for compliance with

U.S. regulations, and will prosecute offenders

itself instead of leaving that task to flag states.

But as experience with the fishery zone grows,

new types of regulations and enforcement

techniques will be needed and used.

Nevertheless, certain basic types of violations can be anticipated, such as illegal fishing

by 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 comply with data-reporting requirements.

The specific regulations to be enforced and

violations expected will affect the type of enforcement strategies and equipment to be

used, Figure 4 is a matrix of likely enforcement needs and techniques.

Source. OTA

26
Level of Enforcement

Just as important in determining what enforcement capabilities will be necessary is

determination of the desired level of enforcement. In other words, should enforcement

agencies mobilize to catch 50 percent of the

violators, 75 percent, or 100 percent—in

which case the costs could prove to be

astronomical. Without a quantified level of

enforcement, the allocation of enforcement

resources becomes a matter of intuition rather

than one of reasoned judgment.

Currently, the Coast Guard simulation

model used for costing purposes indicates that

the agency assumes it can catch or deter approximately 95 percent of the 2,150 expected

annual violators within the budget appropriation level requested. 24 That percentage,

however, does not appear to have been set as

an enforcement goal based on any policy decision as to what level of enforcement is desirable. 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

middle-ground approach is probably required

and a specific definition of that approach

would be desirable. This should be followed

by regular assessment of changing enforcement needs as well as the actual level of enforcement compared to the desired level.

Determination of the level of enforcement

could also be enhanced by asking Regional

Councils to make a projection of desired enforcement actions in their areas, possible compliance inducements for fisheries in their

areas, and potential domestic-enforcement

plans.

A major shortcoming of the Coast Guard’s

analysis of the appropriate level of enforcement is the lack of an adequate method for

assessing the benefits that can be expected

from various enforcement strategies. Since

significant resources may be required to operate an effective enforcement system, the Coast

Guard’s current inability to systematically

estimate the expected value of enforcement is

a serious flaw. However, since the determination of appropriate enforcement strategies is

only one part of the broader process of fisheries management, what is probably needed is

a more general analytical system which could

provide quantitative estimates of the impacts

of alternative management techniques, including—but not limited to—the enforcement

strategies, on the catch and profits of commercial fishermen, the quantities and prices of fish

available to the domestic consumer, the state

of recreational fishing, and other measures of

the benefits of management.

One such general analytical system is currently being developed for NOAA by the

Center for Technology Assessment and

Resource Policy at Stanford University. This

system is based on a generalized computer

systems model which can integrate the best

available scientific information about any particular fishery in order to assess the quantitative impacts of various management techniques on the fishery. Since even the initial approach to enforcement is expected to cost

nearly $100 million per year, benefits should

be clearly identified and quantified to the extent

●

●

●

useful. Some of the benefits may include:

A future increase in stocks and yields due

to tighter controls to prevent overfishing.

Less pressure on stocks caught as bycatch

due to better controls on gear and areas

fished,

Less conflict among fishermen for certain

grounds and reduced gear conflict.

27
● Assurance of proper allocation of quotas

among foreign and U.S. fishermen.

An enforcement component is not presently

planned for the Stanford model. Such a component, which would translate various enforcement strategies into impacts on foreign

fishing activities, should be developed by the

Coast Guard. The Coast Guard could then use

its enforcement model in conjunction with the

Stanford model, or any similar one adopted

by NOAA, in order to determine the costs and

benefits of various levels or enforcement or

specific enforcement strategies.

The primary objective of the Coast Guard

simulation should be to evaluate the effectiveness and the cost of a mix of vehicles, sensors,

and personnel as they enforce the regulations

applicable to the 200-mile fishery zone.

Among other factors, the model should include:

● existing capabilities and possible future

systems of sensors, vehicles, and personnel;

● short- and long-range enforcement

needs;

● possible multipurpose use of systems and

equipment by the Coast Guard for accomplishment of several of its missions;

. likely levels of assistance from the Navy,

NASA, the Air Force, and NMFS;

● relative importance of various components of enforcement, such as surveillance, boarding, etc.;

● the effects of various types and levels of

penalties, such as fines and seizures;

. likely regulations of all types;

● explicit yardsticks of effectiveness, such

as percent of captured violators, amount

of protection given to stocks, value of

fines collected, value of regulation on

foreign relations, comparability with

other Coast Guard duties, etc.;

. behavior patterns of foreign and

domestic fishermen in reaction to regulations; and

● monetary cost of programs.

A model which does a more adequate job of

making cost-benefit estimates than the existing Coast Guard model will be exceedingly

difficult to prepare since the efficiency of enforcement involves intangible as well as tangible costs and results. For example, how does

the value of protecting and restoring a

depleted stock compare with the value of improved international relations which may

result in some specific sought-after agreement

in another field? However, the model could

present possible scenarios, impacts, and tradeoffs which may result from various levels of

enforcement or differing amounts of expenditures.

Although the analytical models to be used

by NOAA and the Coast Guard in fisheries

management and enforcement are an important tool, there is considerable feeling among

members of the Regional Councils and other

interested parties that modeling techniques

have already outstripped available data. The

results of the OTA study also indicate that existing models have already identified large

areas where there is insufficient information.

Therefore, immediate emphasis should be on

a program for long-term collection of consistent basic information. Models and modeling

techniques can be improved while this basic

data is being gathered.

28
Existing Capabilities

The existing capabilities for enforcing

Public Law 94-265 include three primary

groups, within the executive branch, which

would or could be involved in the future:

1. The Coast Guard has the primary responsibility for enforcement and exercises

almost complete jurisdiction over activities in the foreign fisheries.

2. The National Marine Fisheries Service

shares the enforcement function with the

Coast Guard by providing personnel

with scientific and biological expertise to

aid in planning and carrying out enforcement strategies in the domestic fisheries.

3. The Department of Defense normally will

have no enforcement function at all, except in the unlikely event that foreign

warships should appear within the 200-

mile zone to contest U.S. regulations. In

that case, U.S. military forces would be

called upon under the terms of a

memorandum of understanding between

the Coast Guard and the Department of

Defense. The memorandum and contingency plan for such a situation has

been worked out by the Joint Chiefs of

Staff and the highest levels of the Coast

Guard and is classified information,

The Department of State, which has been

involved in enforcement of fishery agreements in the past because of their international nature, has been given a limited role

under the new law.

The Department of State’s primary function

is to negotiate the Governing International

Fisheries Agreement, by which, foreign nations agree to accept the U.S. jurisdiction in

the 200-mile zone. The State Department is

also to exercise an advisory role, keeping the

Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries

Service, and the Regional Councils informed

on foreign policy implications of fishery

management.

Under the new law, as in the past, the State

Department is consulted by the Coast Guard

before any foreign fishing vessel is seized for

violation of U.S. regulations. There are undoubtedly legitimate instances when the

foreign policy or diplomatic implications of

some action should take precedence over the

fishery implications. However, the Coast

Guard routinely allows the State Department’s desire to avoid unpleasant diplomatic

incidents to influence enforcement actions.

There appears to be no formal mechanism to

assure that State Department decisions to intervene in a fishery action are made at an appropriate policy level and that the Coast

Guard exercises its statutory responsiblitity to

make final enforcement decisions, with advice

from the State Department being only one of

many factors to be considered. There is obvious need for a clear and simple procedure

which quickly leads to a decision-and review

of that decision by the Chief Executive when

necessary--on whether or not to seize a

foreign vessel which is violating U.S. law or

regulations.

The following discussion of the work of

these agencies in regard to enforcement is not

intended as a specific description of their

planned operations. Rather, it is an overview

and a critique of likely enforcement.

In its routine enforcement role, the Coast

Guard provides personnel, vehicles, and sensing equipment. Its enforcement capability

during 1975 came from its fleet of 39 aircraft,

39 ships, 94 helicopters, and various support

facilities. These facilities were not dedicated

29
solely to fishery enforcement, but were used

also for other Coast Guard duties such as investigating oil spills, sea search and rescue,

and general law enforcement. Approximately

2,500 days of ship time and 6,000 hours of

aircraft time were devoted to enforcing fishery

laws, regulations, and treaties during 1975,

about one-haIf million square miles were

patrolled, at a cost of $46 million for the year.

The Coast Guard spent about 5 percent of its

total annual operational budget on fisheries

enforcement .25

The Coast Guard’s original plan for enforcement under the new law called for increasing ship time by 951 days to provide

2,616 patrol days inside active fishing areas

and 823 patrol days in other areas; increasing

aircraft time by 7,553 hours to provide 8,446

hours of patrol in active fishing areas and

3,068 hours of patrol in other areas.26

U.S. Navy Photo Trawlers operating out of New England ports work in the ground fisheries of Georges Bank,

30
According to the Coast Guard plan, this,

theoretically, would reduce the number of

violations per year from the expected 2,150 to

about 110, based on the assumption that

detection and identification constitute enforcement (see figure 5). However, there is

some question about the wisdom of this

assumption since simple detection of a violation by an aircraft or other means does not

guarantee that the violation will cease and

that the violator will be penalized.

The Coast Guard plan would necessitate the

addition of 10 fixed-wing aircraft, 5 helicopters, and 6 high-endurance cutters. Procurement and operation of these new craft was

estimated at $275.4 million through fiscal Year

1978, After appropriation of the fiscal year

1977 budget, this strategy was reassessed and

it was determined that budget constraints dictated that initial enforcement focus on the active fishing areas only. For maximum effect in

that area with appropriated funds, the Coast

Guard 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 temporary overscheduling of the crews of five

others; and reactivation of one cutter—all of

which could be in operation close to the

March 1, 1977, effective date of the law. The

package, with necessary support facilities, was

estimated to cost $64.3 million.27

Most of the projected new vehicles are

scheduled for use where the new U.S. jurisdiction now takes in more extensive fishing

grounds, that is, in the Pacific Council area

and off the Alaskan coast. Since these areas

contain about 16 species of fish which have

been overexploited in the past, the allocation

of more vehicles to enforce regulations there

will also aid in the conservation and recovery

of these stocks. (See figures 6 through 10.)

Figure 5

Expected Number of

Undetected Violations by

Month Under “No Effort”,

FY 75 Level,

and Planned Enforcement

6 0 0

1

5 0 0

‘4 t ‘!1 f t [ ! ,

[ 1. ! I , .1,1. ,

El; ;, “,’,;; :,! ,’,1$

Source U S Department of Transportation Coast Guard

31
New England

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

“. .

● . .

.

. . .

. . .

. .

.

.

.

. .

● ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎✎☛✎ ✎

✎

✎

✎✎☛☛ ✎

✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

. ● .O . .

● ✎ ● “, ● ,

. .

. .

..O

● ● .*

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

. . . .

. . ●

✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎

✌ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎

✎

✎

✎

✎ ✎

✎

✎ ✎

✎

✎ ✎

✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎

✎

✎ ✌ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎

.

. .

. .

. .

.

. .*

. . “

. .

. . .

.

●

✌✎☛ ✎

● ✎☛ “

.

. . . . .

. .

.

. . .

● . . .

.

.

.

. . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

. ..*

. ● .*

. .

.

.

.

.

● ✎ ✎

.

. . .

.

. . .

.

. . .

. . . .

. . .

● ✎ ✎ ✎ “.*

. .

● . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

..* ”

.

. . .

. . . . . . ““” ””.... .

. . . .

. . .

.

.

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

..”

. .

. .

. ● . .

.

.

.“ . .

. ..”

. .

.

0 80

& , .

Miles

,

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
Mid Atlantic

Figure 7

Planned Coast Guard

. .

“ .

“ .

.

. . . .

. “ . .

. “. ●

.

. . .“ .

.

.

“ .

.

. ‘. .

.

. ● .

.

Entrance

190 M i

1.25 Hr

Jan-Feb

.

.

.

.

●

✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎

.

.

.

.

‘ .

.

.

.

.

.

760 Miles

5 Hrs

Jan—May

o 6 0

k a

Miles

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
Gulf of Mexico

\

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard

34
West Coast

Figure 9

Pianned Coast

1070 Miles

7.5 Flt Hr

Apr—Nov

0 6 0

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
Alaska

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard 36
On the other hand, there are also many

species in danger in the east coast and gulf

fisheries. Three new aircraft have been

assigned to the New England area and one to

the Gulf of Mexico, but it seems reasonable

that additional vehicles may be desirable on

the east coast in the future even though fishery areas there are concentrated and not

greatly increased by the move to the 200-mile

jurisdiction.

As outlined by the Coast Guard, the

planned enforcement strategy of increasing

present capabilities is a reasonable first step. It

is flexible in that enforcement resources will

be added over a period of time and at a

moderate first cost. As experience is gained,

additional resources can be curtailed or accelerated if original assumptions do not prove

out.

The Coast Guard enforcement strategy is,

however, limited to preventing violations by

foreign fishermen. Presently, there is no planning within the Coast Guard to deal with

possible at-sea violations of the domestic fishery regulations. Only two domestic management plans have been drawn-up so far, but

other plans will be a major order-of-business

facing the Regional Councils in the future.

In the past, enforcement in the domestic

fishery has been carried out by NMFS from

shore, where officials observe offloading,

weigh and inspect fish, and identify bycatch.

NMFS will continue its enforcement of

domestic fisheries from shore under the new

law. If this dockside effort were to be combined with a program of boarding domestic

vessels for inspections, it would probably be

sufficient in most situations.

However, if regulations for domestic fisheries duplicate many of the gear and operational 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, the

Coast Guard could use the same types of

equipment and techniques planned for foreign

fisheries, but would need additional facilities

in order to cover the different areas used by

domestic fishermen and the many additional

fishing vessels of a greater variety of sizes and

types.

Available information indicates that about

7,000 domestic vessels may spend most of

their fishing time in the 3- to 200-mile zone.28

Although the domestic vessels catch far less

than the foreign vessels, domestic fisheries enforcement—in terms of fishing units to be

dealt with—is on a larger scale than foreign

enforcement. The cost of any deterrence

gained 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

fisheries. However, this OTA assessment indicates that at-sea enforcement will also be

necessary in domestic fisheries in the near

future and planning for such a job should be

started as soon as possible.” This will be a particularly sensitive enforcement job because

fishermen, a politically powerful group, have

traditionally enjoyed a great deal of freedom

in how they conduct their activities.

37
Other Possibilities for

Near-Term Enforcement

The OTA study of enforcement strategies

seems to indicate that several fairly simple

techniques which could be activated almost

immediately have not been given favorable

consideration by the Coast Guard or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Among these are:

1)

2)

3)

the establishment of an efficient reporting system which would allow domestic

fishermen to aid in observing foreign

fishing vessels,

extensive use of observers onboard

foreign fishing vessels, and

formulation of specific guidelines to be

followed in granting annual permits

and renewing the Governing International Fisheries Agreements.

The lesser of these strategies is the reporting

system, which could be simply a well-defined

and published procedure, which domestic

fishermen could follow in notifying the Coast

Guard by radio with information on the location of foreign vessels or on suspected violations of fisheries regulations.

The Coast Guard is not now planning a

reporting system because of concern that it

will increase the number of bogus complaints

of violations and tax the already limited manpower and facilities of Coast Guard in the

area. The Coast Guard argues that if fishermen

suspect serious violations, they will-and

already do—report these to the nearest Coast

Guard facility,

Extensive use of a reporting system may not

be likely because many domestic fishermen

maintain radio silence in order to protect the

location of their fishing areas. Still, it is likely

that the lack of formal procedures for reporting may, in the future, cause the same kind of

gap in coverage that was demonstrated when

fishermen testified to congressional committees that some recent oil spills might have

been prevented if fisherman had some system

for reporting on the location of foreign

tankers which are sited outside of established

traffic lanes.29

Another minor improvement in enforcement could probably be gained by formulating a detailed list of specific criteria which will

be taken into account in renewal of the

Governing International Fisheries Agreements (GIFAs) with foreign governments and

in annually granting fishery permits to the

vessels.

The National Marine and Fisheries Service

is now drafting civil procedure regulations

which outline the sanctions, such as permit

revocation, suspension, or modification,

which may be used against violators or

38

U.S. Navy Photo

Much of the fishing activity is still conducted by hand,

such as the job of emptying large nets.
against those countries which have not paid

fines and assessments. However, these procedures are not expected to include specific

numbers or types of violations which would

mandate nonrenewal of GIFAs or nonissuance

of permits.

The Coast Guard has indicated that recording violations on the permits of individual

fishing vessels may constitute one of the most

potent regulatory tools available.30 A system

which works much like the points system

used in revocation of drivers licenses and setting insurance rates is probably worth investigating in connection with fisheries permits. Such a system could be used initially in

foreign fisheries, but would be equally useful

in the domestic fisheries should some form of

limited entry be adopted.

Under the law, GIFAs are negotiated by the

State Department. However, the State Department has been given no regulatory functions.

Therefore, the law may have to be amended in

order to charge the State Department with

preparing such guidelines for its negotiations

or these guidelines could be prepared by

NMFS along with guidelines to be considered

in granting permits. Without these specific

guidelines as to what violations constitute

grounds for nonissuance of permits or GIFAs,

it is likely that uneven and inefficient use of

this potential tool will result.

It appears that the second strategy, the extensive use of observers onboard foreign fishing vessels, could be vital to the success of enforcement in the 200-mile zone.

Current plans call for placing observers onboard 10 to 20 percent of the foreign vessels

granted permits to fish in U.S. waters. These

observers will be NMFS personnel who will

have no enforcement duties. They will be

assigned randomly to vessels of foreign nations which in the past have been suspected of

giving NMFS incomplete or inaccurate reports

on their fishing activity.

!1- 172 ( I - 77 - J

The present plan is to place about 20 observers on vessels in the Georges Bank area of the

Northeast fisheries and slightly fewer in the

Northwest fisheries, primarily Alaska. The

National Marine and Fisheries Service has

estimated 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 weeks. Under

the terms of Public Law 94-265, which requires that foreign fishing vessels pay

reasonable fees to compensate the United

States for expenses incurred in the course of

fishery conservation, management, research,

administration, and enforcement, costs for observers will be billed to the individual ship

carrying the observers. 32

The cost will probably make little difference

to vessels from countries which subsidize

their fishermen, However, such a charge may

not be taken lightly by fishermen who are independent operators. Since the vessels to carry

observers will be chosen randomly within any

particular country, levying the charge against

the individual vessels may strain relations between foreign fishermen and the observer

who must live onboard their vessel for extended lengths of time and make it much more

difficult for the observer to gather accurate

data. In the interests of easing this relationship, OTA suggests that charges for observers

be spread evenly among all the ships in the

fishing fleet of a particular nation. The law requires that the fee schedule which sets out

charges to foreign fishermen be determined by

the Secretary of Commerce in consultation

with the Secretary of State.ss Therefore, a

revised billing procedure for observer costs

could be recommended to Commerce by State

based on its negotiations with foreign nations.

39
NMFS has used some observers for the past

2 years, primarily on Japanese vessels, and has

termed the experience very successful as a tool

for collecting information.

From the NMFS viewpoint, the observers

are ideal for gathering scientific and management data, The observers could visually examine the rate of fish catch, effectiveness of

fishing gear, and types and sizes of fish

caught. This is information which will be vital

to NMFS and the Regional Councils for use in

the formulation of management plans for the

foreign fisheries. Yet, none of these jobs can be

adequately carried out by surveillance vessels

or any of the remote-sensing devices which

will be discussed later in this section. For these

reasons, much more extensive use should be

made of observers, in a dual role:

1) to collect data needed for management

of the fisheries and

2) to observe operations for enforcement

functions.

Observers could be utilized by the Coast

Guard as part of its enforcement network.

Among other enforcement-related duties, the

observers could:

●

●

●

●

verify proper use of specific fishing gear;

check on bycatch or fish caught incidental to the species sought (In some fisheries more than half of a typical landing

is not used and is dumped overboard.);

communicate actual practices and fishing

information quickly to a control center;

and

note violations, notify the Coast Guard,

and even personally collect fines.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Photo

Observers on board fishing vessels may be in the best

position to inspect catch for illegally retained species

40
The Coast Guard has stressed the need for

easily enforceable regulations as an important

factor in successful enforcement. Aiming

toward that goal, the Coast Guard favors a

NMFS proposal to reduce most regulations to

limitations on the amount of effort expended

fishing or the number of days spent in a certain area. Such limitations are next to

meaningless, however, because there is no dependable equation for measuring catch rates

based on vessel time in an area. Past data used

in such calculations haven’t been verified. In

addition, new technology and improvements

in fishing techniques make any equation subject to constant change. Shipboard observers

would be in the best position to provide

analysis of the relationships between vessel

time, fishing effort, and catch rate.

Foreign fishermen will realize that from

their view the observer is primarily a policeman. The potential penalties for violations

noted by the observer could be high, but the

value of an illegal catch may be even higher.

Therefore, foreign fishermen may attempt to

bribe, harm, or deceive the observers, frustrating their scientific and enforcement functions.

Present thinking at the Coast Guard is that

such drawbacks exceed the enforcement value

of onboard observers although the observers

would be very useful for collecting scientific

and management data for NMFS.34

OTA research suggests otherwise: a nearblanket program of mandatory shipboard observers may be the simplest way to obtain the

detailed information about fishing activities

and response to fisheries regulations which

will be necessary in developing a dependable,

cost-effective enforcement program.

Councils the option of charging a fee for illegal bycatch. Some council members feel that

such a fee, based on actual bycatch figures

provided by observers, would be more successful than gear restrictions in reducing the

actual amount of bycatch because it would

force fishermen to find their own means of not

catching fish which cut into their profit. 35

The observer program is an area in which

there are a wide range of opinions among the

many parties interested in enforcement of

fisheries regulations. However, the limited use

of observers to date provides no basis for

resolving these differences. A pilot project

would offer actual experience on which to

evaluate the cost

in a combined

gathering role.

and usefulness of observers

enforcement - information

In addition, the Federal Government’s

failure to implement an extensive observer

program will remove from the Regional

41
Recommended Pilot Project

The Office of Technology Assessment’s

analysis suggests that much could be learned

from a pilot project in which a foreign fishery

is nearly blanketed with shipboard observers

who have both management and enforcement

duties,

The New England region would be most

suitable for such a pilot project for the following reasons:

they should be Coast Guard personnel, instead of NMFS personnel. However, they

should receive some training from NMFS in

observing, collecting, and reporting information of value. Some familiarity with the nation

on whose vessel the observer serves would

also be helpful.

Based on NMFS estimates for their limitedobserver program, the cost of a 100-man pilot

program would be roughly $2 million plus

funds for an accurate evaluation of the pilot.36

●

●

●

●

●

The fishing grounds are concentrated Under the law, this cost is passed on to the

and foreign fishing practices are well foreign vessels. However, other fees and

known. charges are also levied, under the law, to reim -

Many of the foreign vessels fish in burse 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 observers bly make some other expenditures covered by and control vessels without observers. these levies unnecessary, the gross tonnageThe stocks in that region are generally fee or tax on ex-vessel val

depleted and information for use in be reduced accordingly.

restoring stocks is badly needed.

Questions about bycatch are most significant in the area.

There are important problems with

gear restrictions and gear conflicts in

the area.

About 150 foreign vessels, on the average,

have traditionally fished within the 200-mile

zone off New England. At this writing, the

number of permit applications which had

been received suggested that this number will

probably go down because of the 1977 catch

allocations. Therefore, it appears that a total of

about 100 shipboard observers would be

suitable for the pilot project. These observers

should be selected on the basis of experience

in fishing practice and knowledge of fishery

matters. If they are given enforcement duties,

ue of the catch could

42
Possibilities for LongRange Enforcement

It is likely that the proposed near-term enforcement capabilities described earlier will

not be adequate for long-range demands. Factors like the following may contribute to the

need for more sophisticated enforcement

tools:

●

●

●

●

●

Individual Regional Fishery Management

Councils are likely to develop some

unique regulations which demand more

knowledge of vessel locations;

Developments in technology may result

in more efficient and effective equipment,

for instance, land-based electronics

systems could supplant some aircraft

flights;

There may be pressures for increased

foreign fishing off our shores, such that

the value of illegal fish could exceed the

cost of being apprehended;

Scientific data might reveal a greater

danger to fishery resources than is presently realized or danger to resources in

new areas not now covered;

The costs of traditional enforcement may

grow to a level that could not be easily

justified in terms of resources conserved.

Such factors as these lead to the conclusion

that plans should be made for further improvements in enforcement capabilities by use

of remote-sensing devices and other advanced

technology.

It is probably in the national interest to actively plan and pursue interagency use of

some of these new technologies, especially

those in which there already has been significant investment in development. However, it

is unlikely that military agencies which now

have such advanced technology will volunteer

or be receptive to suggestions that they share

their capabilities for use in enforcing fishery

regulations.

In addition to the fact that such equipment

is dedicated to military application and reportedly already heavily used, it would be necessary to develop a fast and efficient

clearinghouse for processing and distributing

information from the sensors before joint use

of sensing equipment would be possible. The

military has already developed specialized

systems for correlating information from

many sensors; however, these systems are

crowded and translation of fisheries data

would receive low-priority treatment.

It may be desirable to pursue the development of new facilities which could receive

data from many sources, including such

groups as the military, Bureau of Customs,

NMFS, Coast Guard, and State and Federal

law enforcement networks. This facility could

correlate data, protecting classified or privileged information if necessary, and display

all maritime activity, including that of fishing

vessels37 (see figure 11).

Such a data correlation and display center

for coverage of the complete fishing zone

would be costly, but it could also provide information on oil tankers, commercial cargo

carriers, surveillance for search and rescue

missions, and other similar activities. The

Office of Technology Assessment’s Working

Paper No. 5, which discusses such a facility,

estimates the initial set-up cost at $1.5 million

for a correlation facility to receive the information. Computer time would cost at least

$14,000 a month for operation of the facility.

Expense to the Coast Guard for installation of

hardware compatible with the correlation

facility and operation of Coast Guard functions would be an additional cost which has

not been determined.

Recommended Pilot Project

OTA proposes a pilot program utilizing one

of the existing military systems for the collec43
San

Routine

● Amver

● Fit. Weather

● Port Data, VTS

● USCG Ships, Aircraft

Special

● NOSIC

(Naval Ocean Surveillance

Information Center)

● HF/DF

(High Frequency/Direction

Finding)

● Dept. of Motor Vehicles

Computer

● U.S. Customs Computer

• U.S. Treasury Dept.

Computer

• Federal/State Law

Enforcement Networks

Source: Lockheed Corp.

44
New Technologies

tion and transfer of available surveillance data

for one specific region. Some precedent for

such a project already exists at the Naval

Ocean Surveillance Information Center where

the Coast Guard has recently detailed one

officer to work on data which are of interest to

the Coast Guard and have not, in the past,

been processed by Navy personnel.38

The Office of Technology Assessment has

not investigated the feasibility of using a

specific system in any region, but it appears

that the Navy’s west coast network could be a

likely pilot region. Any pilot project should

begin with an indepth investigation of the

Navy’s existing system and its ability to provide information needed for fisheries enforcement.

Some funding would be necessary to add

personnel who would coordinate the transfer

of fisheries-related data from the Navy to the

Coast Guard district in charge of fisheries enforcement in that zone.

After a period of operation, the pilot project

should be evaluated with special attention to

determining the completeness of coverage

provided, the cost, the timeliness and usefulness of data provided, and a comparison of

this method with other methods of surveillance.

On one hand, there may be difficulties in

working with and protecting classified information and there may be a danger that this extra task might not receive adequate attention

in a facility oriented to an existing military

mission. However, such an information-sharing program could ultimately cut costs substantially by reducing duplication of effort

and facilities. It could also provide cooperative

experience which might lead to sharing of

other services and resources needed for enforcement and the opportunity to evaluate

new technology which may be of use in fisheries enforcement.

Use of new technology, particularly

remote-sensing devices, may make it possible

to improve enforcement of fisheries regulations in the future by better coverage, better

performance, and a reduction of the need for

expanding conventional ship and aircraft

patrols. Although it may be possible for

several agencies (such as the Coast Guard, the

military, and NASA) to share the cost of new

remote-sensing devices, these systems are extremely expensive and their use should be

thoroughly evaluated before any one system

is adopted. Any analysis of benefits and costs

of remote-sensing systems should not ignore

the argument that national security could be

compromised by making some of these

systems available for other than military missions. Most of the security risks and financial

costs of remote-sensing systems could be considered now; however, a clear analysis of the

benefits or improvements that could result

from the use of such new technology is not

possible until overall strategies of enforcement and specific regulations are defined.

When these strategies and regulations have

been drawn up, it will be desirable to prepare

a long-range plan; for example, a 5- to 10-year

plan that would include specific analysis of

the introduction of new technologies and

techniques into enforcement plans.

The Coast Guard is presently in the process

of formulating a research and development

program for future enforcement of fisheries

laws. 39 Such a program could make good use

of an improved version of the existing computer model or a new model such as the one

suggested in an earlier section for joint preparation by NOAA and the Coast Guard. The

research program is expected to include plans

for studying hardware and procedures for improving monitoring and surveillance, communications, data integration and analysis,

and general operations.

45
At present, the research and development

program is directed toward bringing new enforcement technology into use in 10 years or

more. It could be possible, however, to accelerate the applied development of new technology for which most of the research has

already been completed by others so that it

could meet some Coast Guard needs in about

5 years.

Because the budget for fisheries enforcement is only a small part of the overall Coast

Guard budget (about $50 million out of $1.2

billion), the agency has determined that

research funds in support of such enforcement

can best be spent for technology transfer and

for additions to related research contracts in

other agencies.40

The Coast Guard is also following developments in the Department of Defense where

much of the work on technology which may

be applicable to long-term fisheries enforcement is classified.

If conservation and management of the 200-

mile fisheries zone is judged to have value to

the United States beyond the present monetary value of fisheries-related products and

employment, support for increased research

at the Coast Guard level may be warranted.

Further research should include determination of the best methods of utilizing classified

systems for other than defense purposes.

It appears that a pilot project for cooperation and joint research could bring together

the Coast Guard, DOD, and NASA to develop

new systems and find efficient ways of using

technology in a multimission context. Such a

pilot project could include joint preparation of

long-range plans for determining the most appropriate research and development strategy

for new technologies, identifying the needs of

all potential users of such technology, and

analyzing the costs and benefits of developing

and utilizing new technology, especially

remote-sensing devices.

46

Remote-Sensing Devices

Since it appears that remote sensing will be

an important enforcement tool as fisheries

management develops, OTA commissioned a

study of the technology of such systems. The

following is a brief summary of the OTA

study of remote-sensing devices and findings

relative to the remote-sensing techniques

which were analyzed for potential usefulness

in fisheries enforcement. Figure 12 compares

the various techniques for usefulness and cost.

Of the seven devices studied, microwave

radar appears to have the best potential for

use in fisheries enforcement. High-frequency,

over-the-horizon radar was also judged to

have good potential, but is not as highly

developed for commercial application as

microwave radar. Other remote-sensing

systems in this group appear to have only

limited 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 on

these systems.

By definition, remote sensing includes any

method of obtaining information about an object from a distance without any physical connection to the object. It must be remembered

that remote sensing is a detection and identification tool only; it is not useful in apprehension.

For purposes of this study, research personnel with broad knowledge and experience in

remote sensing have analyzed potential techniques for use in fishery enforcement and

have determined that some of these techniques can be applied to fishery enforcement

without resorting to the kind of high-priority,

high-cost research and development used in

defense and space exploration programs.
Based on past experience and based on

Navy and Coast Guard ocean surveillance

functions, it is likely that a combination of

sensors may be required to maintain an adequate picture of activity. When properly correlated and analyzed, information from

visual, radio, and radar sensors can provide a

picture that is much more complete and of

greater validity than could be provided by any

one or a few sensor systems. Ultimately, the

problems of patrolling a 200-mile fishing zone

may require the acquisition, correlation, and

analysis of multisensory data.

The Department of Defense is the principal

developer and user of most of the remotesensing technology which may be applicable

to the fisheries enforcement problem. To a

lesser extent, the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration are also developers and

users of new sensing technology. The Coast

Guard is now working with these other agencies to determine what technologies would be

suitable and how they could be utilized in

fisheries enforcement.

Transponders

A transponder is an active beacon which

can be used in conjunction with radar or other

electronic transmission system to enhance the

detection and location of foreign fishing

vessels. The transponder transmits energy on

the same frequency as the radar signal, but at a

level several times higher than that which

would result from unaided reflection of the

signal.

Some transponders can be hooked into

Loran–C receivers. Loran–C is a navigational

aid by which the location of a vessel is

automatically pinpointed by triangulation,

using continuous signals from two shorebased

stations at known locations. After the location

is identified by Loran–C, the information is

passed to the transponder which retransmits

it, along with the vessel’s identification, to a

control station. These systems have good

future potential for use in fisheries enforcement as an extension of patrols by cutters and

aircraft.

Transponders can be built that emit a standard, preset signal or that respond to interrogation by a remote-sensing device by transmitting a wide variety of identification and fishing status information. The sophistication of

transponders is limited primarily by cost considerations. However, the state-of-the-art in

transponders is advancing rapidly, d u e

largely to advances in digital storage and

processing technology, so that improved performance at lower cost is possible in the

future. From a fisheries enforcement standpoint, the major drawback of most transponders is that cooperation on the part of the

vessel fitted with the transponder is required.

A transponder that simply enhances detection

or supplies a preprogrammed identification and

location signal can operate independently on

any input from the target, but to supply additional information such as fishing status or

catch data the vessel must provide the information to be transmitted. Guaranteeing that

such input would be provided or that input

would be accurate could prove to be a serious

problem, In addition, since such transponders

could only be placed aboard vessels which

had permits to fish, they would do nothing in

identifying vessels which had illegally entered

an area without permit status.

It has been suggested that in lieu of requiring transponders on foreign fishing vessels,

such devices could be supplied to domestic

fishing craft to emit a signal that would immediately identify them as ships with which

the enforcement agency need not be concerned.

47
The Coast Guard has a research program

underway to develop prototype transponder

equipment. The Loran–C system is one of

several alternatives being considered. 41 The

Coast Guard is also following related hardware-development projects within other

agencies, such as the Navy, and has added

some of its needs to research contracts already

48 underway in other agencies. 42

Classified

As the lead agency in developing transponder technology for use in fisheries

enforcement, the Coast Guard is seeking to

determine the specific contributions that can

be made by existing equipment and to develop

small, tamper-proof packaging for transponders to be placed on foreign vessels.

Estimates are that a minimum of 2-years

work will be necessary before a suitable
Figure 12 (continued)

Summary of the Potentiai of Remote-sensing Technology To

Support Enforcement of the 200 nmi Fishing Zone

Classification Capability

Fishing

Vessel?

Beacon

Required

Foreign

Fishing Vessel’

Coded Beacon

Required

Beacon Coded Beacon

Required Required

Beacon Coded Beacon

Required Required

1

Good;

Requires lowto MediumAltitude

Approach

Limited;

Requires

Target

Cooperation

No Capability

Beacon

Required

Fair; Requires

Very LowAltitude

Approach

Limited;

Requires

Target

Cooperation

No Capability

Coded Beacon

Required

I I

Fishing? IPermit? ICatch?

Cooperative Transponder Required

Cooperative Transponder Required

No Capability No Capability No Capability

I I

Good, with Cooperative Fair, if Catch

Direct Tele- Transponder Visible on

Photo Required Deck

Inspection

Cooperative Transmission Required

No Capability No Capability No Capability

Cooperative Transmission Required

Rough Cost Estimates ($ thousands)

I

Initial

I

Yearly Operating

250-500 Per Principality Aircraft

Aircraft* Operating Costs

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

48,000 for

I

1,800 for Complete

Complete Coverage* Coverage

100-200 Per 10% of Aircraft

Aircraft* Operating Costs

10-500 Per Aircraft 10% of Aircraft

Operating Costs

125 Per Station 110 Per Station

N/A N/A

Classified Classified

● NOTE: Beacons or transponders on each fishing vessel would be in addition to the above and cost $500 to $2,500 per vessel.

Source: OTA

system can be put onboard foreign vessels and

that as much- as 7 years may be required

before an ideal system with the best long-term

application is devised.43

Recommended Pilot Program. —The Office of

Technology Assessment suggests early implementation of a pilot program utilizing transponders in two specific regions—the Bering

Sea off the coast of Alaska and Georges Bank

off the New England coast. Since each of these

areas is a traditional fishing ground, but with

very different prevailing conditions, the

usefulness of transponders could be evaluated

for a broad range of applications by this pilot

program.

The pilot programs would require the

design and manufacture of Loran–C transponder equipment specifically for this pur- 49
pose. The Loran–C network is now planned

or in operation in the regions proposed. A

licensing arrangement and installation technique for fitting transponders on each foreign

fishing vessel entitled to fish in the region

would need to be devised, Control stations

and receivers on patrol ships or aircraft would

need to be installed.

It is estimated that the transponder which

would go onboard each foreign vessel would

cost less than $2,500. Once the system were

installed, operational costs would be roughly

equivalent to the operational cost of the

aircraft carrying each control station, $1

million to $1.6 million annually. Funds for

evaluating the pilot project would be in addition to these costs.

The Georges Bank pilot program would require about 150 transponder units and a control station most likely at a Coast Guard shore

base in New England. Each vessel entering the

200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishing

would be required to activate its transponder

which would automatically transmit identification and location to the shore base. The

shore base would keep plots of all foreign

fishing activity on the banks and give this to

patrol craft. Regular patrols of the region

would use this information to check on any

fishing activity that wasn’t reported by this

system. At the end of one season, an evaluation of the usefulness of this system could be

made.

In the Bering Sea region a similar network

of transponders could be required aboard

foreign fishing vessels, In this region it may be

desirable to combine the transponder network

with microwave radar systems already used

aboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiving stations. In this way a specific region could

be covered by regular overflight, all vessels

operating in the region located by radar, each

vessel interrogated to determine whether an

approved transponder is aboard stating ID

and location, and any vessels without transponders investigated.44 There are several advantages to a system thus described, especially

in Alaska where long distances and large areas

can best be covered by aircraft and where frequent cloud cover makes visual observation

difficult or impossible. After a season of

operations with such a system a comparative

evaluation of its usefulness would determine

whether it could be beneficial to expand use or

coverage.

Microwave Radar45

Microwave radar has been used for ocean

surveillance by aircraft and ships for almost

40 years. The technology is highly developed

and the design principles are so well known

that it is possible to predict with high confidence the performance of any given design

chosen for use. Microwave radar has better

potential for large area coverage than any

other system now in use.

Microwave radar operates by transmitting

pulses of energy from a directional antenna,

The pulses are reflected by any material object

encountered. The reflected energy is subsequently received and analyzed to determine

the position and characteristics of the reflecting objects. The direction of the objects can be

determined by tracking the reflected signals

and the distance is determined by measuring

the time delay from pulse transmission to

reception of the reflected signal.

The basic information for fisheries enforcement which can be supplied by microwave

radar is:

● the presence or absence of a vessel in a

given area;

50
● the position of a detected ship at a given

point in time;

● course and speed of a vessel when a

series of position updates are available;

and

● estimates of gross shape and size.

However, microwave radar by itself has

almost no potential to classify vessels by type,

nationality, or operation. Some classification

may be possible by continuous tracking to

establish movement patterns, but microwave

radar’s primary contribution to classification

is in guiding patrol ships or aircraft to a position where identification can be made by

visual means. Detection of fishing vessels by

radar is enhanced, and identification and

classification made possible, by adding transponders onboard permitted foreign fishing

vessels.

Any modern commercial or military shipboard radar can easily detect fishing boats at a

distance of up to 12- to 18-nautical miles

(nmi), Existing ground-based, surface-search

radars, such as the sea surveillance radars

developed for the Pacific Missile Test Center

by the Navy Electronics Laboratory Center,

can detect fishing vessels at a distance of up to

40 nmi from the land base. These systems are

already in use by the Coast Guard which has

some of the best available equipment.

The opportunities for improving the use of

microwave radar lay in the use of more advanced radar systems from aircraft or

satellites and the addition of transponders onboard fishing vessels in order to exploit the information-gathering potential of the combination. It is estimated that a single aircraft with

radar could patrol the west coast out to and

beyond the 200-mile fishing zone once every 4

hours (see figure 13), For satellite surveillance, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) has estimated that

Figure 13

Useful Surveillance Coverage by a

State-of-the-Art Microwave Radar

on a 70-kft Altitude Aircraft

/

<

I

Source: Stanford Research Institute

twice daily imaging of the

zone could be provided by

entire U.S. fishery

eight satellites.

Microwave radar technology operated from

satellites is being developed by the Department of Defense and NASA and mav be

available within 10 years, The system has the

potential to supplement or supplant airborne

51
radar, but the cost would be high and probably would have to be shared by several agencies.

Over-the-Horizon Radar46

Use of over-the-horizon radar (OTHR)

techniques would allow detection of fishing

boats at much greater distances and would

allow coverage of much larger areas than

those covered by microwave radar.

This is because remote sensing using signals

in the microwave and other very high frequency ranges is constrained by the essentially line-of-sight nature of the signal. For all

practical purposes, this means that the sensors

must be elevated in order to operate over significant distances.

The use of over-the-horizon radar reduces

this constraint by making use of signals in the

high frequency range in which energy waves

are 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

radio. The technology for generation,

transmission, and reception of high frequency

energy is well developed and the effects of the

atmosphere and ionosphere on the signals are

well understood. However, some aspects of

using high frequency signals are not so well

understood. Among these are the reflection

characteristics of material objects at high frequency, Means of concentrating and coding

high frequency transmissions to enhance

radar operation and the processing of radar

returns in order to extract more information

about the object detected also are still being

developed.

OTHR has been developed primarily for

military use and several experimental

systems, capable of performing a number of

useful functions, have been built by the Naval

Research Laboratory, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, and other

groups.

Two types of OTHR might be useful

cries enforcement, a skywave mode

groundwave mode:

Skywave OTHR takes advantage

in fishand a

of the

refractive property of the ionosphere, which

causes the radar to curve back to earth at distances ranging from 500 to 2,000 nmi (see

figure 14). Thus wide area coverage is possible

from a single site. For instance, a single

skywave OTHR located in Utah could provide

surveillance coverage over the entire Pacific

Coast (see figure 15).

Groundwave OTHR, in which radio energy

travels along the curved earth surface, provides much more limited coverage, but may be

useful in specific regions. Groundwave OTHR

has an operational radius of a few hundred

miles. Thus, while ships out to and beyond the

200-mile zone could be detected from a shore

station, many stations would be required to

cover the entire coast.

Both systems can provide continuous surveillance of very large areas so that the general

location of all fishing boats of at least a certain

minimum size can be monitored on a full-time

basis. If transponders are installed on the

boats, detection can be enhanced and other

useful information can be obtained,

Because of their capability to cover greater

distances and larger areas, OTHR techniques

have good potential for use in fisheries enforcement. However, due to both the classified

52
Figure 14

Over-the-Horizon Radar

Surface of the Earth

-

2000 n m i

Source: Stanford Research Inst!tute

nature of most of the military work in the field

and the high cost of OTHR, use of this system

will be contingent upon close cooperation between the Department of Defense (DOD) and

the Coast Guard,

Microwave Radiometry47

Microwave radiometers operating alone

offer very little promise as a means of identifying fishing vessels or their catch. However,

if combined with transponders onboard ship,

they are a promising system which would

locate, identify, and classify ships in almost

any weather, day or night and provide other

data on sea state, sea ice, and rainfall rates as

well.

Location

A radiometer is merely a sensitive detector

which receives and measures the brightness

temperature of microwave energy naturally

emitted and reflected by surfaces. Detection of

a ship is possible because the microwave

energy thus reflected by a ship is different

than that of the surrounding ocean. A wooden

ship appears radiometrically “warmer” and a

steel ship “cooler” than the ocean. It is an entirely passive system, as opposed to active

techniques which measure the reflection of

signals which have been transmitted by radar.

One of the advantages of the passive system is

that it allows surveillance without radiation,

therefore, the target does not know it is being

observed.

Microwave radiometers have been used

routinely in satellites to measure whether con53
54 Source: Stanford Research Institute
ditions and airborne radiometers have been Figure 16 successful in mapping weather fronts and sea Airborne Scanning Microwave states. Radiometric measurement of oil spills

have been made with limited success and Radiometer

radiometers have been frequently suggested

for use in missile terminal guidance systems.

Although there do not appear to be any

operational systems at present that are

specifically designed for detection of ships,

such systems have been studied and prototypes have been tested. The existing technology is more than adequate for the detection

of fishing vessels.

However, constraints on maximum fre- h = 62

quency and the detectability of relatively small

ships severely restrict the height from which a

radiometer can effectively operate. Satellites

could not be used for radiometer detection of

fishing vessels, and aircraft would be limited

at altitudes of about 6,000 feet. At that altitude

fishing vessels could be located to within

2,000 feet in range and 2 degrees in bearing

(see figure 16).

Optical and Electro-Optical Techniques48

With existing technology a variety of optical and electro-optical sensors can be built

which could perform many useful functions

in enforcement of the 200-mile fishery zone.

This category of sensors includes the traditional visual, aided visual, and photographic

techniques—ranging from the human eye to

electronically augmented viewing systems

and film cameras--and the more sophisticated, recently developed methods of electrooptics such as low-light-level television and

infrared or thermal mapping systems. These

systems are likely to play supporting or auxiliary, rather than primary roles, in enforcement.

Source: Stanford Research Institute

55
Optical detection and surveillance systems

can be operated from satellites, aircraft, or

ships. The combination of timeliness of

coverage and operational economics makes

aircraft seem the most useful surveillance craft

for the near future, with some data being

derived from existing or projected satellites,

and with final follow-up performed by surface vessel.

One of the major problems of optical sensors is the processing and handling of rawdata output. Photographic film requires

chemical development, usually at the end of a

reconnaissance mission (that is, when the

aircraft lands or ejected film capsules have

been retrieved from satellites). In some cases,

film from aircraft can be rapid processed in

flight to allow for examination or data

Coast Guard surveillance aircraft can be used for visual observation of the fishing grounds,

facilitating detection and identification of foreign vessels

56
transmission within minutes, for immediate

interpretation of close-up photography. But

images from long-range, high-altitude

satellites need more extensive and detailed examination, often requiring several hours or

even days by expert photo-interpreters before

useful, specific data are developed. Most of the

electro-optical systems can provide realtime

outputs capable of immediate display and examination in the form of electrical signals

readily amenable to interpretation or

transmission to a shore-based facility.

Optical and electro-optical techniques vary

widely and the choice of specific systems

would depend on the enforcement strategies

chosen.

Electromagnetic Intercept Techniques49

Because all ocean-going vessels are already

equipped with radio equipment and most

with navigational radar, it is possible to detect

and classify foreign fishing vessels by intercepting and analyzing their radio or radar

emissions.

Two techniques have potential in fisheries

enforcement activities: the use of direction

finding equipment to determine the position

of detected vessels and the use of information

from the intercepted transmissions to identify

and classify the vessel.

The technology for both direction-finding

and communications interception and

analysis is highly developed and numerous

systems have been developed for both military and civilian use. These systems can be

operated from shore bases, ships, aircraft, or

satellites. At high frequencies intercept is not

limited to, but does work best, within line-ofsight of the detected vessel. An aircraft moving at 300 knots could have line-of-sight access to 200,000 square miles of sea surface per

hour.

In the past, direction-finding equipment

was used primarily for location of aircraft and

ships in distress. Currently, however, it is in

use largely for monitoring and surveillance.

The Federal Communications Commission

maintains a network to locate illegal radio

transmitters and sources of radio interference;

the Department of Defense operates several

networks for surveillance and intelligence

data collection.

It is possible that some signal intercept information from DOD files can be made available to the Coast Guard for fishery enforcement, However, most of the DOD operations

are mission-oriented and are flown in areas of

military interest, therefore it is unlikely much

time is spent tracking fishing fleets. The

feasibility of assigning military aircraft for

fishery patrols would be expensive and would

have to be worked out with DOD.

The Coast Guard could supply personnel to

sort out fishery information collected by DOD

or an entire direction-finding station could be

dedicated to Coast Guard fisheries work.

Because of the security implications of much

of the data handled by DOD facilities, such

coordination may prove difficult.

Magnetic Techniques50

Magnetic anomaly detector systems have

been built and used for the detection of submarines and there is no reason why they

would not be equally successful in detecting

fishing vessels. The systems operate by detecting local changes in the direction and strength

of the earth’s magnetic field caused by any object, such as a steel-hulled vessel, with mag57

+
netic properties. However, because detection

is possible only at a much shorter range than

with radar or visual systems and because no

classification of vessels is possible, magnetic

techniques presently have little potential for

use in fisheries enforcement.

Acoustic Techniques51

Detection and classification of fishing

vessels by use of acoustic techniques is possible because the technology for the generation,

transmission, and reception of acoustic energy

is well established and the factors that influence acoustics in the ocean and atmosphere

are well known.

The use of acoustic techniques for the detection of fishing vessels can be extrapolated

from the Navy’s experience in submarine

detection. However, new equipment and new

methods of use would have to be developed.

Since most of the existing acoustic systems are

highly classified it is not possible to describe

them, except to say the equipment is very

complex and costly to operate. Much development would be needed to determine the

usefulness of these systems for fisheries law

enforcement.

OTA Photo

Oceanographic vessels, such as the Albatross II of Woods Hole, will be used in some fisheries research

58
4. Management of New

U.S. Fisheries Zone
Background

The Fishery Conservation and Management

Act of 1976 (P.L, 94-265) is potentially the

most significant institutional change in the

history of U.S. fisheries management. The law

extends the limits of U.S. jurisdiction out to

200 miles and incorporates some advanced

ideas about ways to manage marine fisheries

in the United States, Implementation of this

law will require a level of understanding

about the infrastructure of the fishing industry that has never before been attempted by

the U.S. Government. Eventually it will require a thorough description of the entire cycle from spawning fish to fish on the dinner

table. In the past, each section of the fishing

industry—i e., fishing, processing, retailing,

etc.—was concerned only with its own aspects

of the cycle. There has been little correlation of

information and no indepth analysis of the interdependence and the interrelatedness of the

various segments of the industry. A better understanding of the fishing industry as a whole

will be necessary in order to implement the

management theories put forth in the new

law.

Management, according to the law, means

the use of “rules, regulations, conditions,

methods, and other measures (A) which are

required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and

which are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or

maintaining, any fishery resource and the

marine environment; and (B) which are

designed to assure that:

(i) a supply of food and other products

may be taken and that recreational

-benefits may be obtained, on a con-

(ii)

(iii)

tinuing basis;

irreversible or long-term adverse

effects on fishery resources and the

marine environment are avoided;

and

there will be a multiplicity of options

available with respect to- future uses

of these resources.”52

Public Law 94-265 implies that proper

management of U.S. fisheries will result in

conservation of fish stocks, which means a

reduction in overfishing of some species, increased fishing of underutilized species, and

enhancement of stocks which are currently

overutilized or depleted.

International pressures now exist to take

the last available ton of some popular species

from the ocean each year. For example, in its

latest report to Congress under the terms of

the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, NOAA concludes that about

10 to 15 major finfish and shellfish stocks

have been overfished, primarily by foreign

fleets; other stocks are in danger of being

overfished, and numerous others are “intensively exploited.”53

In this study, OTA examined many elements of fisheries management that are contained in Public Law 94-265--elements that

many people believe have been neglected in

the past-and that seem to be of great importance in effectively managing fishery

resources in the future. The major elements of

fishery management which were examined by

OTA are:

. development of and use of the concept of

optimum yield;

. establishment and operation of fishery

management councils;

● preparation of preliminary management

plans for foreign fisheries;

● preparation of final management plans

for domestic fisheries; and

. evaluation of management effectiveness.

This section describes the status of these

management elements, discusses some of the

planning which is needed for future management, and describes specific information

which will be needed for adequate management. The information needs were determined

by special studies commissioned by OTA.

These studies are referenced throughout this

report as working papers and are being

published separately. 61
Optimum Sustainable Yield

One of the most important management

principles set out in the law is that management plans should result in optimum yield.

Optimum yield, according to the broad definition in the Act, is the allowable catch which

(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to

the Nation, with particular reference to food

production and recreational opportunities;

and (B) which is determined as such on the

basis of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)

as modified by any relevant economic, social,

or ecological factors.54

Implicit in optimum yield is the idea that

the concepts and data from all the fields indicated in the Act should be integrated and not

treated as separate entities. Management plans

based on the finest concept will do little good

if their implementation results in dangerous

depletion of the fish stocks or massive social

disruption with attendant political agitation.

Unfortunately, integration of biological,

economic, and social information poses major

problems.

In the past, it was considered adequate to

analytically determine the total allowable

catch that each species could sustain without

damage to the parent stock. That figure was

known as the maximum sustainable yield

(MSY). However, most fishery experts would

now agree that MSY cannot be determined for

any species because there are too many

unknown biological factors which influence

the size and health of fish stocks. This situation is further complicated by the traditional

common-property nature of fish resources

and incomplete knowledge of the entire

marine ecological system.

In addition, social and economic factors are

of considerable importance in a free society

and do, in fact, have a major effect on actual

utilization of each species. The concept of optimum as opposed to maximum (or “best” as

opposed to “most”) is to take these social and

economic factors into consideration.

Like an MSY figure, a precise optimumyield figure for each fishery is not attainable at

this time. However, a process can be sought

for considering all factors and reaching a compromise set of guidelines to follow for good

management.

Such optimum yield concepts should be

adaptable to changes in resource priorities,

knowledge about the resource, information

about its use, and the trade-offs that result

from management. Optimum yield is the core

of each management plan which will probably

include such other items as: quantities and

types of fish to be harvested; methods and

techniques to be used; and measurements and

evaluations to be conducted.

No specific process for seeking optimum

yield for a fishery has been established yet.

The yield figures used by the National Marine

Fisheries Service in drawing up preliminary

management plans are estimates based on existing data, which is mostly biological in

nature. However, NMFS and the Regional

Councils are wrestling with the problem of

how to pursue optimum yield. A workshop of

council members and Federal officials is being

planned for purposes of devising a method of

seeking the optimum yield for each fishery.

New concepts need to be developed and much

new information must be gathered in order to

obtain an integrated view of the fisheries of

the United States and to determine the optimum yield of a fishery. In the meantime, it is

clear that at least the following factors should

be considered:

62
Regional Fishery Management

Councils

. biologically based estimates or predictions of the maximum yield which can be

expected from each stock without future

depletion of that stock;55

. quality of the predictions or the range

within which they are likely to be accurate so that safety margins can be built

into catch figures; 56

● such relevant ecological factors as water

quality, destruction of breeding grounds,

disasters such as oil spills or severe

weather; and

. economic and social factors of individual

fisheries which will be relevant in determining the effect of management options

on such interested parties as commercial

fishermen, sport fishermen, food processors, marketing groups, fish-food consumers, and the general public.57

In reality, the exact meaning of optimum

yield and the best method of determining it

will be determined by the Regional Councils

through their decisions in the coming years.

In the absence of an analytical method, judgments may be used to modify a maximumyield figure to reflect the factors listed above.

If data on these factors are not available or are

unreliable, further judgments may be used.

Even with an analytical method and reliable

data, there will be uncertainty and techniques

for dealing with that uncertainty will be

necessary.

Public Law 94-265 establishes eight

Regional Councils which will set standards,

develop plans, and prepare regulations for the

management of fisheries in each region, The

regions and their jurisdiction are shown in

figure 17. Each council includes members

from industry and other parties of interest in

the region as well as representatives of State

fisheries offices, the Regional Director of the

National Marine Fisheries Service, a Coast

Guard representative, and a representative of

the Department of State. The Secretary of

Commerce, who appoints the voting members

of the councils from lists of potential members

submitted by the Governors of the States in

each region, has been asked to seek an amendment to the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act which would require that

environmental interests be represented on the

councils. Similar consideration should probably be given to consumers. Figure 18 lists the

councils and their memberships on the effective date of Public Law 94-265.

The Regional Councils have broad

authority to recommend fishery management

plans to the Secretary of Commerce for approval and implementation. The management

plans which the councils will be formulating

must, under the law, take into consideration

domestic fishing, foreign fishing, and recreational fishing. Once it is determined what portion of the allowable catch can be harvested by

U.S. vessels, the remainder is to be allocated as

foreign catch.

The general responsibilities of the councils

are clear (see figure 19), but their relationship

to the future operation of already established

Federal agencies is not so clear. The Federal

agency with the major responsibility in fishery management is the National Marine Fishery Service in the Department of Commerce.

The National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS)

has a dual-role of providing services to the

councils, mostly in the form of biological stock

63
Source: OTA
New England

Gulf of Mexico
Figure 19

Duties of Regional Counciis and National Marine Fisheries Service ‘

Required b

Regional Councils

Modify preliminary management plans prepared

by NMFS for foreign fisheries

Prepare fishery management plans for domestic

fisheries.

Determine information, data and analysis needed

to prepare management plans

Test and evaluate techniques for determining

optimum sustainable yield and other management

factors

Secure needed information from NMFS or other

regional sources as necessary to complete

management plans

Source: OTA

67
estimates and other data, and of assuring that

management plans adequately reflect the national interest and are consistent with national

management standards. The Council and

NMFS will also work with two other Federal

agencies—the Coast Guard and the Department of State—in enforcing regulations and

determining foreign fishing allocations and

regulations to control foreign fishing.

With all this complex organizational and

procedural set-up, it will undoubtedly take

some time to develop a smooth operation. It

appears that an important aspect of smooth

operations is close-working arrangements between the Federal and regional levels. To date,

there are no written requirements for work to

be done by the councils and no firm criteria

for use by NMFS in judging the plans

developed by the councils.58 At present it appears that communications between Federal

groups and the Regional Councils will be

through NMFS regional offices when services

or data are needed but through the NMFS

Washington office when management plans

are submitted for approval.

Presently, the NMFS representative on each

council is the Regional Director. However, it is

possible that better liaison with the councils

could be accomplished if the director of the

regional fisheries research center were the

representative instead or in addition to the

present appointee. The research centers conduct the service function of NMFS and will be

supplying the councils with scientific and

other types of data to be used in drawing up

management plans. Presently the councils

have no mandatory policy-level link with

these centers and must work instead through

nonpolicy-level representatives to the councils

or through the Regional Director who has no

authority at the centers. Placing the center

director on the Regional Council could force

the centers to be more accountable for the existence and reliability of data requested by the

68

councils and improve working relations between the two groups.

Close coordination will be required in three

areas of major problems which have not yet

been resolved:

1. What budget allocations will the councils

receive from NOAA and how much discretion will they have in spending funds

for collection of regional data not available from NMFS and data not considered

reliable enough for management decisions?

Roughly $30 million are programed in the

fiscal year 1978 Department of Commerce

budget for implementation of the 200-mile

fishery zone. Of this, about $10 million will go

to NMFS for its work, the work of its regional

laboratories, and the work of the Regional

Councils. The rest of the moneys go to NOAA

for administration; Sea Grant for research by

member universities; and the National Ocean

Survey for operation of research vessels.

The councils’ requests for funds must be approved by NMFS and NOAA before the

moneys are made available. According to an

NMFS spokesman, there is presently no conflict between the councils and the NMFS

laboratories over funding for research work.

However, conflicts over the division of the

funds between NMFS laboratories and the

Regional Councils can probably be expected in

the future because of some local fishermen’s

lack of confidence in national NMFS operations and council desires to break out of the

traditional NMFS research pattern. According

to NMFS, “every consideration” will be given

to the councils’ requests for research funds;

however, council funding will reflect NMFS

decisions on who can best conduct specific

research in the most cost-effective way. 59

Presumably, the councils will be more successful in requesting money for research into

social and economic areas, where little expertise now exists within NMFS, and less successful in requests for funds to conduct
Preliminary Management Plans for

Foreign Fisheries

biological research which is already welldeveloped by the NMFS labs. However, NMFS

is already buttressing each of its four regional

research staffs with the addition of a sevenman economic and statistical team. Conflicts

may evolve over who does specific research

tasks. There is presently no framework, other

than informal negotiations between NMFS

and the councils, for resolving such conflicts.

2. What national data and methods or

analysis will NMFS undertake to collect

and publish for the use of all councils in

management planning?

When this report was written, no decisions

had been made within NMFS as to how

research and development of analytical

methods would be divided. There was a division of opinions among NMFS professionals

as to whether recommended data and

methods should flow from NMFS to councils

or from the councils to NMFS. Early work was

of necessity under the constraints of a March

1, 1977, deadline undertaken by NMFS, but no

firm guidelines have been drawn-up yet as to

who, in the future, should do what specific

types of tasks.

3. How will optimum yield be determined

and can an analytical method be applied

which will improve management planning ?

As noted earlier, it was not possible to

determine the optimum yield for foreign fisheries in time to include the figures in preliminary management plans. Some judgments

regarding social, economic, and ecological factors were used in determining optimum yield

for the two domestic plans which have been

proposed. Although a workshop is planned

jointly by NMFS and the councils for

mid-1 977 to investigate methods of determining optimum yield, there is now-as the councils prepare their first domestic plans and prepare to modify the preliminary foreign

plans—no agreed-upon method.

Since the Regional Councils were not able

to develop management plans for those fisheries with foreign fishing in time for the

March 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 the

councils. Plans were prepared for 16 fisheries 60 in four general regions covered by six

councils. However, only two regions have the

major significant foreign fishing effort—the

Northeast region, covered by New England

and Mid-Atlantic Councils, and the Northwest and Alaska Region, covered by the

Pacific and North Pacific Councils. Figure 20

lists the plans prepared for these regions.

In the preparation of these plans, no attempt was made to consider all the factors

specified in the Act or to determine optimum

yield which takes into account the economic,

social, and ecological factors. Most of the

preliminary plans state that the councils will

determine the specific factors to be used to

calculate optimum yield sometime in the

future. In the meantime, NMFS has used totalallowable catch figures determined, for example, by the International Commission on

North Atlantic Fisheries in the place of optimum yield figures which have not yet been

determined by the councils.

The preliminary management plans

establish a total allowable catch for species

which are subject to foreign fishing effort,

estimate the share of that catch which U.S.

fishermen could harvest, and set a surplus

figure which is available to foreign fishermen.

It is this surplus which is allocated among

those countries applying for permits to fish

within the 200-miIe zone. Allocations contained in the preliminary management plans

(as of January 1977), excluding allocations for

species under 10,000 tons and species with no

allocations, are shown in figure 21.

69
Source: OTA

70
men in the same areas in 1974 and about 3.63-

million metric tons in 1972. While some

reduction in foreign allocations is contained in

the preliminary plans in order to reserve certain stocks for US. fishermen, the overwhelming reduction in allowable catch is assumed to

be for the purpose of conserving stocks which

have been substantially overfished in the past

(see figure 22).

As in enforcement of fishery regulations,

the Department of State may, in some cases,

exert a practically unquestioned influence on

foreign allocation figures. For example,

foreign allocations for pollock were increased

100,000 metric tons by NMFS this year in

response to State Department comments on

the environmental impact statement relative

to trawl fishery management plans for the

Bering Sea.

As with enforcement, the foreign policy implications of some management actions and

allocations may at times be more important

than the fishery implications. However, some

mechanism should be established to assure

that fisheries managers are not intimidated by

the Department of State and that Department

of State requests are based on clear evidence

that the allocations or other aspects of the

management plans would be harmful for

some reason.

These preliminary management plans are

the first step in a complex process aimed at

regulating foreign fishing. Because they are

the prime management tool, they are of great

importance and need careful scrutiny. As

written and published before the March 1,

1977, implementation date, the preliminary

management plans prepared by NMFS for

regulation of foreign fisheries are not coordinated in content or format. In fact, NMFS has

reserved the task of writing and publishing

regulations for the presentation of management plans until after the law has gone into

effect, Other rules and regulations for opera71

Figure 21

Preliminary Management

Plan Allocations -

Metric Tons

Total

Allowable

Catch

Foreign

Fishery Allocation

Northwest and Alaska Reglon

Trawi Fisheries*

(Inciudes poiiack, sole,

mackerel, flounder, ocean

perch, rock fish, pacific hake) 1,783,000 1,672,000

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

King and Tanner Crabs 142,000 10,000

Shrimp

Region Total

50,000

2,014,000

164,000

None

1,710,000

Northeast Region

Red and Silver Hake 128,000

79,000 41,000

50,000

Squid

Mackerel 55,000

40,000

150,060

468$000

16,00 0

Other Finfish

Region Total

.

● Theae are listed in three separate plans acc

Source: Preliminav Management Pians

The total foreign allocation for the year

1977 will be about 2.04-million metric tons.

This compares to about 2.72-million metric

tons which was harvested by foreign fisher-

, 1 -117., f ) - 7; . ,,
tion of the councils and preparation of

management plans, in very general language,

were published in the Federal Register in draft

form in September, 1976.

61 This failure t.

standardize operations within NMFS before

the initial plans were written may have complicated the councils’ job of preparing succeeding plans by failing to give them a model

after which to pattern their work. It may also

perpetuate regional differences within NMFS

and complicate the national review process.

As the councils consider the preliminary

plans and attempt to develop the management

process, much must be learned about the

effectiveness of management techniques and

presentation of plans. The most pressing need

for improvement, however, is in the area of

developing and considering economic, social,

and biological data to be used to modify the

catch figures presented in the preliminary

plans.

Source: National Fisherman

72
Final Management Plans for

Domestic Fisheries

As the councils become operational, they

will assume their principal responsibility of

developing management plans for domestic

fisheries. There is no deadline for issuing

specific plans. However, serious problems

with heavily fished species have been recognized in two areas and emergency domestic

management plans have been prepared to take

effect simultaneously with the preliminary

management plans for foreign fisheries. These

plans were prepared by NMFS and there is

some concern that they will not be well

received by domestic fishermen because of the

lack of local input to the regulations.

This possibility could have been avoided—

and can be avoided in the future if additional

emergency plans are deemed necessary before

the councils are working fully—if NMFS were

to detail or loan personnel to the councils for

preparation of the plans. Such an arrangement

would put the councils in charge of the preparation and ensure the input of industry and

other interested segments of the pubIic.

Although there are well-known administrative problems and costs in detailing

personnel, such a system should be investigated because of its potential for making

professional staff members available to the

councils on an as-needed basis without the

necessity of building up bureaucracies within

the councils themselves.

Two draft domestic management plans

were prepared by NMFS. One of the New

England fishery for haddock, cod, and

yellowtail flounder and one for the Pacific

fishery for salmon.

For New England, some judgmental increases and decreases were made in maximum

sustainable yield figures supplied by the

NMFS lab and an attempt was made to set an

optimum yield which reflects economic and

social factors. The draft plan determines that

there is to be no foreign catch and allocates the

domestic catch between commercial and

recreational fishermen. The plan also recommends that the stock be protected by some

fishing regulations such as ones on mesh size,

minimum catch size, and tying the allowable

catch to the number of crew members per

boat.

In the Pacific, the domestic catch is allocated

among commercial, recreational, and native

American fishermen and regulations are set,

including fishing season, area closures, and

bag and size limits.

Beyond these two emergency plans, there is

no priority list of domestic fisheries for which

management plans should be prepared. Since

NMFS now has the most information on U.S.

fisheries and the status of stocks in general,

and since NMFS has the power to prepare

domestic management plans if the councils do

not do so, it would be helpful if NMFS would

compile a listing of fisheries where management plans are needed. Such a listing should

be a priority ranking and should delineate the

needs for management plans in each case.

Such a list would help focus the councils’ early

work and would be helpful in projecting their

information needs.

National Oceanic and Atmosperic Administration Photo

Small net handling boats close the purse seine around the

catch before transferring it aboard a larger vessel 73
Evaluation of Management

Effectiveness

Both the councils and the Federal Government have the responsibility of measuring the

effect of the new management systems that are

being developed. In its interim regulations for

the operation of the Regional Councils, NMFS

has slightly expanded on the standards set

forth in the law to be considered in evaluating

management plans. These standards are:62

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Conservation and management measures

shall prevent overfishing, while achieving on a continuing basis, the optimum

yield from each fishery.

Conservation and management shall be

based upon the best scientific information available.

To the extent practicable, an individual

stock of fish shall be managed as a unit

throughout its range and interrelated

stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit

or in close coordination.

Conservation and management measures

shall not discriminate between residents

of different States. If it becomes necessary

to allocate or assign fishing privileges

among various U.S. fishermen such

allocation shall be (1) fair and equitable

to all such fishermen, (2) reasonably

calculated to promote conservation and

(3) carried out in such manner that no

particular individual, corporation, or

other entity acquires an excessive share

of such privileges.

Conservation and management measures

shall, where practicable, promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery

resources; except that no such measure

shall have economic allocation as its sole

purpose.

6. Conservation and management measures

shall take into account and allow for

variations among and contingencies in,

fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

7. Conservation and management measures

shall, where practicable, minimize costs

and avoid unnecessary duplication.

However, scientific data are not available to

backup these standards and it would be

desirable to establish a baseline for evaluation

as soon as possible. Later sections of this

report and Working Papers Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4

describe the lack or unreliability of necessary

data for fisheries management. Until such

data and analytical methods are developed, it

is unlikely that management plans can be

evaluated in any way which meaningfully

reflects whether the plans have been effective

in the past and what measures will be effective

in the future.

74
5 Information Needs for

Implementation of Public

Law 94-265
Biological Information

Fisheries management has traditionally

been based on biological considerations.

Therefore biological data are more sophisticated and research concepts are better understood than those for economic or social information, and biological research has been

funded at a high Ievel by Federal and State

agencies concerned with fisheries management.

The principal biological data tool is stock

assessment, 63 the study of marine fish populations in terms of their potential commercial

yield, as well as the limits of that yield, Stock

assessment attempts to develop an understanding of marine ecosystems and the effects

of man’s activities upon them. The mechanisms that drive marine ecosystems, as well as

those that drive fishing activities, if understood and if properly applied, serve as one

means to predict the effects of future activities.

Therefore, stock assessments can and do contribute to fisheries management decisions.

Stock assessments seek to develop information on what the maximum sustainable yield

(MSY) of a fishery is. That is, fisheries are

viewed as a renewable resource, dependent

upon:

●

●

●

●

the introduction of young fish into the

population (recruitment);

their rate of growth;

their natural mortality;

the mortality caused by fishing activities.

The management goal is to not remove

more from the population than can be

replaced, thus allowing maintenance on a

steady basis of an allowable surplus over and

above the parental stock necessary to produce

that surplus. The principle that catch should

not exceed the MSY has found nearly universal acceptance in the international fishing

community.64

Stock assessment has traditionally served

two purposes: provision of information and

data for the development of new fisheries, and

provision of information to maintain a stock

or to restore depleted fisheries.

There exist a large number of uncertainties

with existing stock assessment science:

problems with the data generated and more

importantly, problems concerning the use of

that data.65 Of paramount importance is the

fact that offshore marine fisheries, particularly

ground fish (demersal species), constitute

populations that are nearly impossible to observe until harvested, As a result, assessment

must depend upon inference, statistical probabilities, and the measures developed to understand the complicated and interrelated

marine environment. As such, assessments

depend upon the analysis of past information

and trends to predict future fisheries developments.

Fishing activities have continually changed

as technologies have developed. These

changes force adjustments in past-data

analysis to reflect future realities. Further, as

fishing activities have varied, there are environmental fluctuations and trends that are

long-term in nature and are, as yet, poorly understood. This understanding is extremely

difficult when technological changes continually alter the data simultaneously.

77
Status of Current Information

In the past, estimates of fisheries yields and

advice on the health and viability of stocks has

been given to management bodies like the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) without disclosure to

the general public and with little involvement

of domestic fishermen or other interest

groups. The new Regional Councils could

make a substantial improvement in this procedure by interpreting scientific data on

stocks, publishing and widely disseminating

stock data and advice, and providing an opportunity for continual access to information

and debate of the issues by interested parties.

Good scientific data by itself will not promote

conservation or adequate management of

stocks. Input by and involvement of users and

other public parties is crucial.

At present, most population estimates of

heavily utilized stocks appear to be quite accurate, in spite of some problems in gathering

information and evaluating the effects of fishing activity decisions. However, projections of

sustainable yields in the future are subject to

large uncertainties due to effects of interspecies relationships, environmental

change, fishing effort, and other unknown

natural variations.

Public Law 94-265 has put tremendous

pressure on the stock assessment science to

provide a major part of the data base upon

which quotas are set and restoration strategies

are determined. However, presently no stock

has adequate quantitative data on all items

necessary to develop estimates of maximum

potential yields that can be harvested without

reducing the parent stock. The information

necessary includes:66

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

an understanding of species-stock

biology;

quantification of the commercial indices

which allow trends in abundance to be

followed;

survey information that demonstrates

changes in total stock abundance and age

composition;

survey information giving pre-recruit indices;

accurate knowledge of species/stock

abundance and area location;

accurate age and size composition;

historical catch-effort data;

understanding of movements and migrations;

knowledge of the effect of such factors as

temperature and water quality; and

knowledge concerning the interrelatedness among species.

Historically stock assessment has studied

individual populations of fish, and the

biological basis for management has thus concentrated on the “single species” approach.

This approach has assessed the resource potential of one or another species of fish that

has had commercial value to fishermen or that

has promise of future value, However, to be of

the most use in setting optimum yields, stock

assessments must take a multispecies approach, looking at the relationship of one

species to the survival of another. Biologists

have not yet developed a multispecies approach which is generally accepted by the

scientific community.67

78
Methods of Improving Information Base

The National Marine Fisheries Service

budget for stock assessment is $11.1 million

for fiscal 1978, up $2 million from fiscal 1977

with most of the increase needed to provide

information for management in the 200-mile

zone, 68 The budget is projected to double in

the next 5 years, but this may not be sufficient.

The time and budget needs to provide additional information are enormous. Yet, while

such information may well become necessary

in the future, the immediate short-term needs

for assessment data are for use in designing

restoration strategies. Restoration does not

demand the same level of accuracy in assessment data that is required for long-term

management. In the meantime, increased accuracy of assessment data carries with it cost

implications that may be enormous; therefore,

it may be far more cost-effective to choose key

indicators upon which to make decisions with

all parties participating in those decisions

aware that, in the end, yield judgments will

remain judgments.

It would be desirable to establish clear

research priorities for future stock assessment

efforts and to define the level of assessment

accuracy required for specific management

decisions. In addition, clear relationships need

to be established between fisheries stock

assessment and the needs of other Federal

agencies which are responsible for programs

which require environmental baseline data.

For example, the Department of the Interior

requires such information in regions that may

be leased for oil and gas development. If properly structured, much of the fisheries assessment work could also be utilized for such purposes and much of the duplication which now

occurs could be avoided.

There are two basic problems which arise in

the consideration of how to proceed with

stock assessments:69

1.

2.

Because of the threatened status of many

marine stocks, much stock assessment information is needed for immediate shortterm management decisions. Therefore,

the pressures to expand existing assessment methods are great.

Fisheries managers have been pressured

to treat stock ‘assessment information

with the same precision as other resource

managers treat their data. However,

while forest managers, for instance can

count the board feet of available timber,

fish populations cannot be counted with

such accuracy. Therefore, the new

pressures to determine sustainable yields

may require more precision than stock

assessments have delivered in the past or

can be expected to deliver in the future.

These problems should be considered along

with two other facts:70

1.

2.

Assessment history has demonstrated

that existing methods have not been

properly validated, primarily due to inadequate data, even concerning those

species of traditional value to domestic

fishermen.

The status of stocks-and, in fact, the primary motivation for extension of

jurisdiction—requires a reduction of fishing pressure to the extent possible so that

the marine biomass can recover.

79
When these four items are considered

together, it appears logical that a program

should be undertaken to improve the stock

assessment data which will be used. Such a

program could include the following steps:

1. Test the validity of existing assessment methods

during a chosen restoration period

During this period, fishing pressure on

some stocks should be reduced drastically.

Estimates of yields should be on the low side;

then if they are incorrect, the major consequences are that stocks will recover more

rapidly while some economic opportunity is

delayed.

During this restoration period, time-series

of data could be developed through accurate

catch and effort figures gained via the use of

observers on foreign fishing vessels and a

strict enforcement system. In addition,

automatic plankton sorting and fish-aging

techniques could be developed along with

design and development of hydroacoustics,

expanded survey cruises for several wellknown stocks, and use of improved research

vessels for survey dependability.

The accuracy of existing assessment

methods could also be evaluated under this

program to determine the degree of utility the

information gained has for management decisions.

2. While assessing existing methodology, establish

research priorities for the future

During the restoration period, the level of

accuracy required for assessments under

different management goals could be

established. For each chosen goal (for example, “catch the last ton,” “resource revitalization,” “maximum yield for today,” “maximum yield for the future, ” etc.), the key indicators that will be required to achieve the

determined level of precision could be outlined. Then, for each level of precision and

those indicators that achieve that precision the

following items could be determined:

● the probable cost;

● the time necessary to provide useful

results; and

● the relationship of each variable to

assessment accuracy under the existing

system.

3. Design a program strategy

As the existing accuracy of assessment is

determined, and as differing management

goals have been chosen with regard to required level of accuracy, costs, time needs, and

level of increased utility with regard to existing methods, the following program strategy

could be established:

● a listing of information needs, their

utility, and their cost;

● the precision of information necessary to

achieve various management goals; and

● choices for a cost-effective and useful

assessment research program.

80
Economic Information

There has been some work in the field of

fisheries economics during the past 25 years to

begin a body of data and theory concerning

the application of economics to fisheries

management problems, and the impact of

economists on Public Law 94-265 is clear.

However, additional economic information

is necessary under the new law for several

purposes:

● to determine the optimum yield;

● to project the domestic catch and capacity

to catch;

● to promote efficiency in the harvest sector of the fishing industry;

• to understand and manage the impact of

foreign fishing and imports of fish to U.S.

markets;

● to determine the greatest overall benefit

to recreational fishing; and

● to define fisheries on economically relevant terms.71

The following is a discussion of what information is important in each of these areas:

1) Optimum Yield.—The information base

of the Regional Councils must be adequate to

permit determination of the optimum yield.

The biological data which exists or can be

generated by existing procedures are not sufficient alone. Economic and social data are required under the law. Economic data necessary to help in determining the optimum yield

would include cost and returns, price projections and regional employment considerations for a range of management options.

Whenever management plans will cause

variations in the quantities of fish which will

reach markets, price- and market-structure

analyses will be necessary for the people

whose incomes will be affected. Expenditure

and employment data will also be required on

sectors of the economy, such as processing,

transportation, and sales outlets which have

strong links with the fishing industry and will

feel induced or secondary impacts of fisheries

management.

2) Domestic Catch Projections. —How much

of the optimum yield will be harvested by U.S.

fishermen depends, to a large extent, on new

investments which are influenced by the

economic returns of fishermen. Domestic

catch, therefore, cannot be reliably projected

without a knowledge of the cost and revenue

relationships of the U.S. fleets. In addition to

the normal free-market forces which affect

cost and revenue, there are various domestic

and foreign policies which are important.

Among these are vessel-construction subsidies, marketing programs, fisheries development policies, and trade barriers to U.S. exports.

3) Efficiency in the Harvest Sector. —Efficiency in the harvest sector is one of the goals

of the various management schemes which

may be implemented. Consideration of efficiency requires a formal integration of biological and economic concepts and an adequate

data base to express concepts in quantitative

terms. The economic data required include

cost and earnings information by vessel and

gear type, demand relationships and potential

nonfishing employment and earnings opportunities for fishermen.

4) Impact of Foreign Fishing and lmports.—

Economic information on foreign fleets is of

particular importance where the fish harvested affect international trade of U.S. importers or exporters. On the import side, fish may

81
be caught in U.S. waters, processed in a

foreign nation and exported to U.S. markets

with obvious implications for domestic prices,

employment, and incomes.

A more subtle import market effect may

also take place. A foreign nation may have inventories of fish products produced partly

from fish caught in U.S. waters and partly in

waters outside U.S. jurisdiction. Foreign suppliers could fill U.S. import demands with

products made from fish caught outside U.S.

jurisdiction and satisfy their own demands or

other world markets with fish caught from

U.S. waters. Under these circumstances the

foreign nation could claim, correctly, that the

fish captured in U.S. waters are not entering

U.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 exporters

must be able to deliver products at prices competitive with foreign producers. One of the

factors affecting competitive status is the level

of subsidies received by foreign fleets and/or

processors. Thus, to assess the international

trade aspects of U.S. fisheries, information on

the economics of foreign fleets operating in

U.S. waters may be necessary.

This is a complex area because costs and

returns of foreign fleets may include hidden

impacts of government intervention,

widespread subsidization, and various social

welfare policies.

Public Law 94-265 specifies that foreign

fleets fishing in waters under U.S. jurisdiction

must supply certain information. For

economic analysis, that data should include

direct information on major inputs and costs

of foreign fleets, in a form which permits isolation of operating costs in transit to waters

under U.S. jurisdiction from the operating

costs while in U.S. waters. It should also include information on capital construction

costs and foreign subsidies. In addition, physical data on vessel construction, vessel size,

and gear characteristics collected for management purposes may be useful in measuring

technical efficiency of the fleets by analysis of

variances in catch per unit of effort.

There is a further need for information on

activities of foreign fishing interests which has

arisen since the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act was passed. The need is for

accurate, up-to-date information in three

areas: a) foreign investments in U.S. owned

fishing vessels; b) foreign investment in processing plants and wholesale operations; and c)

the impact of these investments.

a) Foreign investment in U.S. owned fishing

vessels: By law, 72 the U.S. Maritime Administration must approve the transfer of majority ownership of U.S. documented fishing

vessels to foreign ownership. Under a policy

published in the Federal Register in 1973,73

NMFS agreed to review all fishing vessel

transfer applications, giving due consideration to all social and economic factors involved on an individual basis, to determine if

such transactions were consistent with U.S.

interests or if new regulations would be required to protect fishery resources. However,

information on the reasons and results of the

transfers is very limited. Through January

1977, more than 1,200 U.S. fishing vessels,

ranging from 5 to 500 gross tons, have been

transferred to foreign owners or foreign

flags. 74 Once the vessels carry foreign flags

they are subject to the same regulations and

quotas which apply to foreign-built vessels.

82
However, these ships can be returned to the

US. flag fleet by an equally simple procedure,

and records should be monitored to determine

if this is happening in order to give foreign investors access to U.S. fisheries.

There are also foreign investments of less

than majority ownership which may influence the economics and activities of fishing

vessels, But there are no data at all on these investments, although such investments may

ultimately increase the number of U.S. vessels

competing for scarce stocks. A larger number

of vessels may cause the resource to be spread

among more fishermen and make operation

inefficient.

b) Foreign investments in processing plants and

wholesale operations: The last look at foreign investments in this category was a very limited

report which resulted from a special survey of

foreign direct investment in the United States,

conducted by the Bureau of Economic

Analysis of the Department of Commerce in

1974.75

The report, prepared by the Economic and

Marketing Research Division of NMFS in

April 1976, showed that 47 U.S. commercial

fish processing and wholesale firms were at

least partially owned by foreign interests

which held 10 percent or more of the voting

stock. The total value of the foreign investment in U.S. firms was (in 1974) $129 million.

More than half of the firms involved had

received foreign investments since 1970 and

during 1974 investments rose 30 percent, according to the report.

More than half the total value of foreign

direct investment in fishing firms at that time

was from the United Kingdom, Japan, and

Canada. Other countries investing were Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Kuwait, and Mexico.

The firms in which these countries invested

operate 107 facilities, located mostly in Alaska

and the State of Washington, but also spread

along the east coast.

In its report, NMFS acknowledged that a

major reason for foreign investment is probably the desire to gain a more certain access to

additional supplies of fishery products

beyond what the countries can harvest off

their own coasts. As the United States and

other coastal nations moved to extend their

jurisdiction over fisheries out to 200 miles, investments in firms which could export products appeared to be one way of keeping some

access to fishing areas which might be closed

to foreign vessels. Instead of being frozen out

by the U.S. 200-mile fishery jurisdiction,

foreign nations with investments in U.S. firms

share in benefits and protections of the law.

Presently, there is no mandatory disclosure

of the actual extent of foreign investment in

U.S. fish processing and wholesale operations.

Such disclosure would be necessary in order

to determine if foreign investment has increased along lines that would support the

NMFS theory that such investments could be

used as a hedge against low-catch allocations

for foreign fishermen.

In addition, there are no data on the point

of origin of fish products imported to this

country. Such data, which could identify if

fish had been caught in U.S. waters, could be

collected by the Bureau of Customs and would

help in assessing the impact of foreign fishing

activities.

c) The impact of foreign investments: Concern

has been expressed by the public and some

Members of Congress that foreign investments may allow some countries to circumvent some provisions of Public Law 94-265 or

8 3
that foreign interests may directly or indirectly exert a political influence on policies

for fisheries management and regulation.76

Concerns about foreign investments in fishing vessels and processing or wholesale

operations are that any of the following may

result:

● Less processing of fish may be done

locally, leaving part of the work to be

done in a foreign country by low-cost

labor, thus reducing the value of the local

industry.

● It may be possible for a vertically integrated company to operate a fish processing plant in the United States on a

breakeven basis and take profits abroad

thus escaping Federal and State taxes in

the United States,

● The firms may be able to operate at lower

cost or pay higher prices for fish, thus

making competition difficult for firms

wholly owned by U.S. interests.

● Large-scale export of products from U.S.

plants owned by foreign investors may

be a way of avoiding catch quotas and

permit fees for foreign fishing vessels.

● Increased demand for fish from foreignowned firms which want to export products may cause increased pressure on

stocks from U.S. fishermen.

On the other hand, there is also some support for foreign investment in U.S. firms. Supporters point out that the following can also

happen: 77

● Higher prices may be paid to fishermen

for their catch,

●

●

●

●

More money may be available for plant

expansion and product diversification.

Risk of production may be reduced by

firm commitments from foreign markets

for fish products.

Good markets may be found for products

not currently saleable in the United

States.

The fish trade deficit could be reduced

which would be beneficial to the U.S.

balance of payments.

As a result of passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NMFS is again

pondering the meaning and impact of foreign

investments in the fishing industry, but no

specific studies have been undertaken yet to

determine if these investments will have

favorable or unfavorable impact on the overall U.S. fishery and fishing industry. In order

to adequately address this problem, a wide

range of economic information will be needed,

including investment and export data plus all

those factors already mentioned as necessary

for assessing the impact of foreign fishing and

imports,

5) Recreational Fishing.—Although the law

is vague on details, it is clear that recreational

opportunities in U.S. fisheries are to be considered by the managers. There is a substantial

body of literature on recreational benefits, including recreational fishing benefits, but there

are gaps in the data and in measurement techniques needed for devising a comprehensive

economic data base for recreational fisheries.

6) Definition of Fisheries. —The resources

most immediately affected by the law may be

classified by species or type of gear and vessel

used to harvest them. Classification by species

is most relevant for biological data collection

and research; however, that definition is not

generally relevant to economic considerations.

This is because multiple species fisheries are

84
involved, and frequently the same vessel can

be employed in fishing for several species. In

many cases, the same vessel catches several

species simultaneously. Classification by type

of vessel and gear seems to be indicated for

economic purposes, but there is no accurate

inventory of vessels by size, gear, and fishing

effort.

Status of Current Information

Presently the responsibility for collecting

economic information relative to U.S. fisheries

is left almost entirely to the Federal Government through the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS). There are no comprehensive

regional data collection programs to augment

the Federal information base. Few of the

regional studies which have been made are

based on primary data; most piece the Federal

data together with an assortment of ad hoc

studies done in the region.

The information in regional studies is often

not current by the time they are published and

the retrievability and validity of the raw data

decay quickly because continuity is lacking

and the institutional context of the studies is

not favorable to maintaining a continuing

data base. Most of the regional studies which

have been done would be of limited use to the

Regional Councils in their fisheries management work.

Two divisions of the NMFS have been primarily responsible for the collection of

economic information. These are the Statistics

and Market News Division (SMND), which is

specifically charged with the collection of data

and preparation of periodic statistical reports,

and the Economics and Marketing Research

Division (EMRD), which was oriented toward

economic research and analysis of SMND and

other data.

However, NMFS recently phased out

EMRD. In view of the new economic information requirements of Public Law 94-265, this

decision raises serious questions about the

sources of data and analysis for carrying out

provisions of the law.

In the past, the two divisions of NMFS collected information, either directly or from

State agencies, on landings by species, value,

area of capture, depth, fishing effort, and days

absent from port for each vessel trip in the

New England offshore fisheries and the Gulf

of Mexico shrimp fishery. This information is

stored on computer tape or market report

sheets and is available at the Northeast Fisheries Center at Woods Hole, Mass., and at the

Washington, D. C., office of SMND. Among

the other data series collected by NMFS are:78

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

retail price data for major fish products

in New York,

wholesale price data for selected fish

products,

ex-vessel price data,

production and cold-storage holdings for

many fish products,

import-export data for various fish products,

a limited amount of foreign statistics,

supply, utilization, and stocks of selected

fish products,

commercial landings by State,

regional summaries of landings,

processing and foreign trade bulletins,

historical statistics,

economic analysis and indicators,

market news, and

recreational fishing statistics.

85
These are generally accessible to the

Regional Councils, but are of limited utility

because the format is geared toward

researchers rather than fisheries managers.

Some, but not all, of these series are available

in published form. The published data are

more easily available to the Regional Councils, but are also likely to be of limited value

because of the time lag between collection and

publication.

There is another problem in gathering and

using economic information which must be

thoroughly considered before the law can be

effectively implemented. That is the requirement that “any statistics submitted to the

Secretary (of Commerce) by any person in

compliance with any requirement (of P.L.

94-265) shall be confidential and shall not be

disclosed except when required under court

order.”

79 The law specifically directs the

Secretary to prescribe regulations to preserve

confidentiality.

As long as the data made available are in

such a form that individuals cannot be identified, there is probably no problem. However,

the use of disaggregated data requires careful

planning. Plans for using such data while still

protecting its confidentiality were not included in the Interim Regulations80 formulated by NMFS for use as the councils and

Federal agencies prepared for the March 1,

1977 implementation of the Act. Presumably

sections on confidentiality will be published

shortly because without clarification of how

disaggregated data will be handled and protected, Federal employees may be reluctant to

supply such data to researchers.

Methods of Improving Information Base

The existing NMFS data base is deficient in

several areas if it is to be used to carry out the

intents of Public Law 94-265 cited at the

beginning of this section. The areas in which

additional or more accurate economic information are needed most urgently are vessel

inventories; costs and earnings data; vessel

construction costs; demand analysis data;

vessel size, employment opportunities, skills

of the labor force; and recreational fishing

benefits.

A continuing annual data base is probably

not required in all these areas. However, continuing information is required for vessel inventories, costs and earnings, vessel construction costs, and some components of demand

analysis. These data are needed for monitoring and management decisions, which are

repetitive and continuous. Data in the remaining areas are needed for working out various

isolated problems which arise and which involve more or less unique, nonrepetitive decisions. Special purpose studies or periodic updating, such as once every 5 years, would be

adequate for such purposes.

It is estimated that a program to develop

this data over the next decade would cost from

$2 million to $4 million per year (see figure

23). This range is a substantial increase over

the combined budget of the EMRD and SMND

of NMFS, but less than 40 percent of the

budget for stock assessments. This reflects the

low-funding priority which has been accorded economic research in the past.

It is assumed that the agency responsible for

collecting this data would be NMFS acting as

lead agency and contracting with other

Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. This may also be an area in
—

Source: OTA

87
Social Information

which the Regional Councils would wish to

contract outside the Federal Government for

studies. Since only approximately eight-tenths

of 1 percent of the NMFS personnel are

classified as economists, NMFS has indicated

plans to add economics and statistics staffs to

each of the four regional Fisheries Research

Centers. This would to some extent alleviate

the shortage which exists. There are caveats,

however. The plan to create these staffs has

not been implemented. Concurrent with this,

the economic analysis capabilities of NMFS

have almost disappeared with the demise of

the EMRD. Furthermore, several economists

in the central office have left NMFS.

Even if the additions are made, it is questionable whether these regional staffs will

have the time or direction to address

economic issues from the national perspective

which will be necessary in reviewing management plans. Therefore, although such regional

economics staffs are desirable, they are not a

substitute for a central economic research and

planning capability.

To date, among social scientists only the

economists have begun to build up a body of

data and theory which is applicable to fisheries management. Other kinds of social scientists on the whole have not addressed fisheries

problems in the United States. Social data on

fishermen and the communities in which they

live are almost conspicuously absent from the

literature except for a small body of information on sociocultural systems of modern fishing communities in the United States and

other industrialized nations. These data have

been developed by anthropologists. Anthropologists have been attracted to fishing largely

because of a growing interest in maritime

communities and because traditional, rural

fishing communities can be studied with the

same sets of conceptual tools which

anthropologists have developed for studying

small, traditional societies in other parts of the

world. 81

Anthropologists who are now interested,

prepared, and trained to deal with the social,

cultural, and historical dimension of fisheries

management could form the core of

researchers who gather data on fishing

cultures that will be required by fisheries

managers. Historians might also be used for

social data collection while other researchers

with experience or interest in fisheries

management are moving into this new field.

Extended jurisdiction and fisheries management will undoubtedly affect everything from

fishing technology, crew size, catches, income

levels, and employment levels, to migration

rates, relative population of communities, and

social problems such as the level of alcoholism, delinquency, and crime. Regional Councils will need to know the effect of decisions

made under Public Law 94-265 in order to

make sensible alterations in fisheries regulations as conditions continue to change.
In order to develop a starting point in this

field where little substantive work has been

done, OTA commissioned a study of existing

research and needs. This study, which is included in Working Paper No. 2, represents

one view of the type of research which needs

to be done in order to improve the social information base on fisheries. The OTA Working Paper suggests that three kinds of social

data probably will be required by fisheries

managers to determine an optimum yield that

takes sociocultural factors into account, as

mandated by the law:82

●

●

●

baseline information on fishing communities in the United States;

information on social and cultural factors

influencing the acceptance of fisheries

management proposals; and

information on factors influencing the

type and rate of technological change

which can be expected in the fishing industry in the future.

1) Baseline Information on Fishing Communities. --Baseline data is essentially a picture

of the total way of life of fishermen and the

communities in which they live. The data will

be necessary to the Regional Councils when

they are faced with conflicting pressures to

make regulations and alter the law in the face

of changing conditions. In the absence of accurate baseline data, managers and politicians

will have to rely on the recollections of interested parties. Under those conditions it will

be difficult to assess exactly what effects

specific regulations have had in the past.

Two kinds of baseline data need to be collected by different kinds of research techniques. First, there is a need for quantitative

demographic, social, and economic data on a

large sample of fishermen and fishing ports.

This data could be obtained by:

a) administering a questionnaire to a representative sample of household heads of

families in the fishing business to obtain

data on family size; age and sex breakdown; range of occupations; consumption patterns; ethnicity; kinship ties;

work experience; educational levels;

alternative skills; political affiliations;

fishing gear used; annual round; species

caught; income; associational involvement; and some kind of indirect indicators of commitment to the industry,

political awareness, etc.

b) filling out a data sheet on every port in

the United States to obtain information

on transportation facilities; fish processing capabilities; size of community and

size of fishing population; alternate

employment opportunities; fisherman’s

organizations; fishing grounds and

stocks; fishery statistics; fleet characteristics; marketing patterns; and

facilities necessary for a fishing industry

(e.g., hardware stores, repair facilities,

docks, etc.).

Second, qualitative information needs to be

obtained on the entire culture and social structure of “typical” fishing communities in key

areas of the coastal United States. Information

on the status and roles of people in fishing

crews and cooperatives, the organization of

groups in the communities, the values and

goals of people in those communities, the

kinds of problems people face, and patterns of

cooperation and conflict are of special importance. The result of collecting such information would be a set of standard monographs

on fishing communities similar to those which

anthropologists and sociologists have done in

the past. Of course, these monographs would

not attempt to cover every aspect of the life

and culture of the total community, but rather

they would focus on the people and families

directly involved in fishing.

89
2) Information on Acceptance of Fisheries

Management Plans--In the past, many efforts

to manage marine fisheries to benefit stocks of

fish and the consumer have failed, primarily

because the proposals have been massively

opposed by the fishing industry.

When people oppose proposals that involve

planned social change, there are usually two

reasons: a) the change is not economically

profitable for them, or b) the change is not

congruent with existing social institutions. 83

If fisheries management plans under Public

Law 94-265 are to succeed, they must gain

enough acceptance in the fishing industry that

they will not invite massive opposition. To

gain that acceptance, it will be necessary to

understand the costs and benefits of management and who is affected by each.

In most cases, imposition of new fisheries

regulations is likely to represent a loss of income to fishermen. This means that the costs

of management (in terms of decreased

catches) will be borne by the men currently in

the fishery. The benefits will be gained by

future generations of fishermen. Even if the

benefits of management were to, occur

relatively quickly, the men currently in the

fishery would bear the costs, but they would

have to share the benefits with others who are

lured into the industry by improved conditions.

Solid information will be needed on the

way management plans will affect the costs

and receipts of fishermen, distribution of income, and the traditional political, social, and

institutional patterns which will be disturbed

by changes.

This phenomenon of present fishermen

bearing the cost of regulation while future

fishermen gain the benefits is another argument for accurate information on foreign investments in U.S. fishing vessels and government subsidies of the foreign fishing companies which may make these investments.

Such vessels may be able to bear short-term financial problems more easily than Americanowned domestic vessels because the foreign

investment or subsidy provides a cushion. In

addition, the extra vessels made possible by

foreign investments and subsidies will make it

necessary to spread domestic allocations over

a larger number of vessels.84 This 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 be

established for all species of fish. Foreign fleets

will be allocated that part of the catch which

the American fleet is incapable of harvesting.

If the American fleet expands, in time foreign

fishing efforts will decrease, perhaps cease entirely in some fisheries.

The boats that will do best under catch

limitations will be modern boats that can

catch fish quickly, before the allocation is used

up, The larger, better equipped boats, and

larger catches will require larger piers, better

maintenance facilities, larger processing

plants, and better transportation facilities. But

the U.S. fishing industry will not revive or expand if there are no markets for fish, if capital

for new boats and technology is not available,

if piers, transportation facilities, and other

kinds of infrastructure are not present.

The people of coastal areas will have little

control over some of these factors, but it is

reasonable to assume that the impact of extended jurisdiction and fisheries management

90
will depend, in large part, on the degree to

which the people of coastal areas can take advantage of the opportunities which arise.

Fishermen can respond to the new economic

opportunities presented by extended jurisdiction by adopting new boats and sophisticated

fishing equipment or by using existing equipment coupled with new fishing and marketing

strategies. If large numbers of people are willing and able to change existing practices or to

invest in new boats and processing equipment

embodying new technology, then the effects

throughout the social and economic structure

U.S. Navy Photo)

Many innovations may be necessary in the care of equipment

and catch if the domestic fishing industry is to expand

of the coastal communities will be enormous.

If fishermen cannot or will not respond,

offshore fishing may be gradually taken over

by large corporations.

A central problem then is to understand the

ability of the people of the coastal areas to

adopt innovation, particularly sophisticated

fishing equipment. The effects of changes on

the rest of the social system cannot be assessed

until this is understood.

In order to assess this ability, fishery

managers must have the answers to several

basic questions.

a) What assets must men have to successfully adopt new fishing technology?

To answer this question, it is necessary to

have data on ability to amass capital, ability to

save, lending institutions, certain kinds of kinship ties, skills that influence the maintenance

and output of fishing boats and determine

success in commercial fishing, crew organization, social ties, and the norms which regulate

entry into fisheries.

b) How many men in a particular area have

the requirements for a successful largescale fishing operation?

Some insight into the answer to this question could be gained by studying the strategies

which men currently engaged in large-scale

fishing have used in getting assets necessary

for adoption of better fishing technology.

c) How many of the men who have the requirements for a successful large operation, or can easily acquire them, are interested and motivated to invest in

modern equipment?

In order to study patterns of adoption of

new innovations, data should be gathered

from both large and small operators about the

characteristics of men who were “early adopters” of innovations in the past; the factors

91
necessary for successful adoption of new technology; the social, economic, and cultural factors which in the very recent past have impinged on the decisions of men to innovate or

not; and biographic and motivational information on men who control the requirements

for adoption of new technology.

Status of Current Information

Almost none of the information is available

to complete the kinds of studies suggested

here.

There are only a few monographs on

modern fishing communities and a few books

on ancillary topics such as organization of

fishing crews and marketing. Of course, the

National Marine Fisheries Service compiles

information on landings and fish prices. The

National Marine Fisheries Service, however,

collects little data about the fishing fleet and

no information about fishing effort or any

other kind of data on social and political institutions or economic performance. The

Bureau of the Census has compiled general

data on fishing as an occupation and on communities where fishing is done. The Census’

data are very superficial and are aggregated in

ways that give a picture of units no smaller

than towns. Existing studies do not give sociocultural data on the U.S. fishing industry as a

whole.

Methods of Improving Information Base

The information needed for these studies

overlaps a great deal. The first studies to be

completed would be indepth studies of important fishing communities, since all the other

studies can to some degree draw on the information generated. It would be reasonable to

expect, if 10 to 15 community studies were

begun at the same time, a set of monographs

could be completed in 2 to 3 years.

The second study should be a survey of attitudes towards management proposals and

factors necessary for technical innovation. The

questions to be included might very well depend on the part of the country being dealt

with.

The amount of time such a study would

take depends greatly on the number of interviews needed to obtain statistical reliability. It

is estimated that as many as 6,000 interviews

would be necessary in the entire coastal region

of the United States, and it could take a year or

more to collect and tabulate the data.

Once this information was available, the remaining studies on innovation and the acceptability of management alternatives could

begin. All of these would involve indepth interviews—perhaps at the same locations

where the community studies were done.

These studies would take another year of interviews and analysis. However, these two

groups of studies could not be done by the

same person in any given area, since the kinds

of people who have the analytical tools to

analyze costs and benefits of various management alternatives probably would not be able

to concentrate on the very different issues

connected with studying technical innovation

and impact.

A group of projects similar to those which

are used as examples here could be completed

in 4 to 5 years. However, these suggestions

and others which may be offered should first

be tested and refined by social scientists in

order to devise an acceptable research plan.

Such a plan should be implemented on both

the regional and national level in order to

develop data which will be useful to NMFS

and the Regional Councils,

92
6. Future Developments

in the Fishing Industry
Background

One of the purposes of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 is to encourage the revitalization of the U.S. fishing

industry, particularly through development of

now underutilized stocks.

Development of the fishing industry is a

complicated subject about which little reliable

information has been accumulated in the past.

With the stimulus provided by the Act,

however, new efforts are being made to determine the needs of the industry and the role of

the Federal Government in meeting those

needs or aiding the industry in meeting them.

Because several other studies

85 wer e

already underway dealing with the needs of

the fishing industry, the OTA analysis of this

subject was limited to a very general look at

the industry. It was intended that once surveys mandated by the Eastland Resolution are

completed, that information, together with

data collected by the General Accounting

Office and OTA, should be correlated and

analyzed before further study of the industry

is undertaken.

In the meantime, there appears to be

general agreement among the Eastland group,

GAO, and OTA about the status of relationships between the Federal Government and

the fishing industry:

1) The capability and equipment exists for

catching almost any kind of fish. Some of

this capability is vested in foreign fishing

fleets, but it could be adopted for

domestic use if there were incentive to do

so. What is needed most is a dependable

resource and good markets for the catch.

These two factors would cause increased

interest in technology transfer and new

equipment and would allow industry to

generate capital for such investments.

2) The Federal Government does not have

much dependable information about

technology in the fishing industry.

3) Fishing technology is very uneven within

the industry, ranging from very poor

equipment which results in unsuccessful

operations to modern, sophisticated

equipment which results in highly successful operations—all in use in the same

fishery.

4) Assessment of fishing equipment and the

development of new equipment is

difficult without “hands on” experience

in the fishing industry.

5) Established fishermen and boat operators

generally do not favor Government

development of new fishing technology.

6) The industry generally prefers that the

Government limit itself to technology

transfer and information services rather

than massive financial or research support.

The following discussion of future developments in the fishing industry is based on OTA

research on the west coast and in the New

England ground fishery. It is divided into

three areas which are key to improving the

overall picture of domestic fishing:

1) stock enhancement (increasing the total

amount of product available to the

fishermen),

2) creation of new markets for fish which

are not presently harvested by U.S.

fishermen because they are not a saleable

product, and

3) methods of revitalizing the fishing industry.

Each of these areas is discussed in terms of

what will be necessary in order to develop

useful programs.

95
Stock Enhancement

The Fishery Conservation and Management

Act of 1976 could be a stimulus for comprehensive stock enhancement programs

which would improve many of the U.S. fisheries. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has projected that enhancement could result in the ultimate

restoration and a 100 percent increase in the

catch of U.S. groundfish.86

Basically stock enhancement is the use of

procedures which will increase the total

amount of edible biomass by increasing the

number of fish and/or the size of fish in the

population.

Stock enhancement is a complex subject,

and in spite of erratic periods of intense interest by various private and governmental

groups, detailed studies are not numerous. In

general, certain fisheries, such as salmon, are

better understood in terms of stock enhancement than others. Various reasons can be

given for this lack of data, but one major factor is the problem of control and recovery of

stock by the government responsible for the

enhancement activities. By extending fishery

jurisdiction to 200 miles, the United States has

taken control over the fisheries which would

benefit from enhancement and has assured

that US. citizens or permit holders could reap

the harvest of stocking programs.

There are a number of commercially important species which could benefit from enhancement programs. Some of these are cod,

haddock, yellowtail and blackback flounder,

ocean perch, pollock, Gulf shrimp, Pacific

salmon, Alaska crab, Atlantic herring, and

Pacific pollock.87 Enhancement possibilities

and the benefits to be gained are different for

each. These species were selected somewhat

arbitrarily in order to study enhancement

possibilities as described in OTA Working

Paper No. 4. The heavy fishing of these species

in the past, with the depletion of stocks of

some, and the existing well-developed

markets for products of these species make

them likely targets for enhancement.

However, if a comprehensive program were

to be undertaken in reality, careful analysis

should go into the selection of the species for

enhancement and the specific enhancement

methods to be used with each species.

The most commonly used methods of enhancement are control of the harvest, recruitment, development of new stocks, habitat

management, and aquiculture. The following

is a brief description of how each of these

methods is used:

1) Control of harvest: If the amount of

biomass removed from the stock is properly regulated, then the maximum sustainable yield can be achieved. However,

a depleted stock, such as haddock, might

increase in biomass by natural processes

if the amount of fishing is decreased. The

levels of harvest which allow this natural

recovery are not always easily determined and must be evaluated constantly.

2) Recruitment: to Assist a natural population in attaining a maximal size consistent with the marine ecosystem, additional fish can be added to the stock,

Many fish can be reared in hatcheries

under man-controlled conditions and

then released into the natural environment when they are large enough to survive the predation and environmental

hazards encountered by very young fish.

Hatchery programs related to Pacific

Coast salmon and many freshwater

species, such as trout and bass, provide

excellent examples of successful recruitment. Unfortunately, many marine

species have not yet been reared under

hatchery conditions although some attempts have been made.

96
3) Development of new stocks: Utilizing standard breeding and genetic selection techniques, new stocks which have desirable

traits, may be developed and introduced

into marine waters or into confined

waters for aquiculture purposes.

4) Habitat management and environmental

quality: Some species spend a portion of

their life cycle in estuaries, rivers, or near

shore environments. Poor water quality

can have a detrimental effect on the size

of the stock either through a marked increase in mortality or sublethal effects

such as stunted growth. Programs of

pollution abatement will assist in stock

enhancement. In addition, some attempts

at habitat manipulation may increase the

availability of a suitable habitat for a

species, such as artificial reefs or an increase in the level of nutrients by artificial upwelling. These nutrients stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, making more food available.

5) Aquiculture or mariculture: Animal husbandry of marine organisms has been extensively tried within the 3-mile limit;

however, open-sea mariculture experimentation is now underway. Typically

aquacultural techniques are used with

organisms that are confined to a specific

area for harvesting as opposed to nursery

programs where organisms are usually

released to natural bodies of water,

Any of these enhancement techniques have

implications for data gathering programs

because specific information is necessary for

carrying out the procedures, beginning with

an understanding of the genetic and functional differences—the different stocks or

populations—that exist within one species of

fish. Most of the economic, social, and stock

assessment information mentioned in the previous section would also be necessary to

design and implement enhancement

programs which carry out the spirit of Public

Law 94-265.

Decisions for improving an existing fishery

or developing a new fishery by enhancement

techniques would require an intensive and

integrated examination of all facets of a fishery: resource assessment, harvest and processing technologies and costs; market potentials;

and institutional factors including artificial

barriers to trade. But the absence of viable industry for the fishery make it likely that

special studies will be necessary to collect data

and project economic effects. If the enhancement efforts were successful, these special

studies could become the starting point for the

continuous monitoring and periodic collection of statistics which will be part of management and conservation programs in

established fisheries.

97
New Markets for Fish

Extended jurisdiction will undoubtedly

open new markets for species now caught as

well as markets for species not caught by U.S.

fishermen at present. It is reasonable to

assume that the response to these economic

opportunities will be highly varied. Some of

the factors influencing acceptance or rejection

of these opportunities are similar to those

affecting technical innovation. In addition, the

responsiveness of fishermen to new markets

depends on their ability and willingness to

catch new species and to process them in ways

that make them saleable. Two questions are

paramount:

1) Under what conditions will fishermen

exploit new species and markets?

2) How many fishermen will exploit a set of

species under a given set of conditions?

Studying the conditions under which

fishermen will exploit new species is

simplified by the fact that fishermen now

often exploit many different species over the

course of the year. At present, it appears that

price is one of the primary factors influencing

the decision of fishermen to catch various

species. That is, they choose the species which

will give them the highest revenues relative to

costs. If this is generally true, then a change in

the economic climate, especially changes in

ex-vessel prices, would be one of the key factors influencing the responsiveness of fishermen to exploit new species. In addition to the

prices which might be paid for new species,

stock assessments and projections of yields

from new species are needed in order to determine if the stocks can sustain a market.

In addition, some social information maybe

needed to determine the preferences fishermen will have for entering some markets and

avoiding others. Their unwillingness to accept

certain innovations may limit their ability to

enter some markets. This may be true in spite

of changes in prices.

98

In order to study the social, cultural, and

economic factors influencing the decision of

fishermen to enter certain markets at present,

two kinds of studies are needed:

1) Data needs to be gathered comparing

fishing practices of boats which exploit a

wide range of species over the annual cycle with practices of those that do not.

Emphasis should be placed on such factors as the prices paid for fish, the catch

of various species, the locations where

fish are caught, etc. Interviews should be

obtained with fishermen concerning

their decision to enter a given market

(i.e., exploit a given species requiring certain handling and processing procedures), and the social and cultural factors inhibiting them from entering

others.

2) A set of questionnaires might be administered to a carefully selected sample

of fishermen to obtain data on their

preferences concerning entry and exit

from particular fisheries,

3) Information needs to be gathered to identify factors which affect the price paid for

fish at the docks, the stability or flexibility of that price, and how the price

affects the fisherman’s willingness to

direct his efforts toward certain species.

This information should be supplemented by identification of ways in

which prices could be stabilized or otherwise manipulated by Government or industry in order to encourage fishing activity.

This kind of information is of particular importance for fisheries managers. A knowledge

of the factors affecting entry and exit into

different markets would allow managers to

draw up management plans influencing exvessel prices paid (e.g., taxes and subsidy) and

to manipulate the relative fishing pressure on

various species.
Revitalization of Fishing Industry

Presently, the fishing industry may be unable to take advantage of opportunities which

could be offered by stock enhancement or new

markets because many sectors of the industry

are experiencing economic difficulty and are

unable to attract capital and labor. Yet, no

coherent program has been developed to

assist the industry or fishermen,

As noted in the previous section of this

report, economic information about the fishing industry is not available in the quality or

quantity which is necessary to evaluate

problems in any segment of the industry. The

status of investment in new harvesting technology and systems, however, has been used

as a measure of economic well-being. Many

studies of the New England fishing industry

conclude that technology is old and inefficient. It is clear that investment in new ships

and harvesting technology in New England

fisheries was at a low point until passage of

the Fishery Conservation and Management

Act of 1976 was assured. The Act stimulated

new confidence in the future of the fishing industry and at least 20 new boats were ordered

for fishing fleets in New Bedford, Mass., and

Point Judith, R.I. However, there is concern

among some Regional Council members88

that investment in U.S. fishing vessels may

continue to lag, in part due to the industry’s

lack of success in getting import duties levied

or increased on fish products from countries

which subsidize their fishing industry.

Members of the fishing industry have long

contended that the flow of subsidized products into the United States adversely affects

the competitive position of the U.S. fishing industry (see figure 24). Imports from Canada

are of particular concern because the United

States and Canada share access to many fish

stocks. The Canadian Federal and Provincial

Governments have traditionally provided

grants, bounties, and other forms of direct and

indirect subsidies to their groundfish industry

and the cumulative effect of these grants and

subsidies has been calculated to reach 35 cents

(Canadian) a pound for some types of fish

products. In 1975, 150 million pounds of major groundfish species which may have

benefited from such subsidies were exported

from the Atlantic fishery in Canada to the

United States.89

By law,90 the Bureau of Customs may levy a

duty on imported products which are produced with the support of a foreign government subsidy or increase an existing duty if

there is proof the import is injuring a U.S. industry, Such duties could help protect both

the U.S. fishery resources and U.S. investments in fishing vessels. They could also, of

course, raise the price of foreign fish products

to U.S. consumers and possibly encourage

retaliation by foreign governments against

some U.S. products.

Under existing practices,91 the Tariff Affairs

section of the Treasury Department considers

duties on fish imports on a case-by-case basis

as some segment of the U.S. fishing industry

requests that a particular duty be levied or increased. Treasury does not routinely monitor

duties on fish imports in order to determine

their effects; does not initiate action to counterbalance any unfavorable effects; and does

not develop the case when a U.S. industry requests some change in a particular duty situation, Therefore, the full burden of proving that

changes are needed in duties on imported fish

products falls on individual fishermen or

firms which initiate action.

This is an extremely difficult task. There are

no established criteria for demonstrating that

subsidized imports injure U.S. producers, but

the fishermen must generally prove that par9 9
100 Source: Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island
ticular subsidized imports have caused declining production in the United States,

unemployment, or decreased markets for U.S.

products. Therefore, large corporations with

experienced tariff attorneys are frequently

successful in winning their cases, and small

industries and fishing groups which generally

develop their own cases are less successful or

are discouraged from making a request,

To date, in spite of the urging of fishermen,

no overall review of duties on subsidized fish

imports has been made in order to determine

how the U.S. fishing industry in general is

affected. Such a review would allow investors

to assess the competition from foreign products accurately before putting money into

vessels or other fishing operations. Some

Regional Council members feel that encouraging U.S. interests to invest in the fishing industry is unrealistic and counterproductive

until such basic assessments can be made.

In addition, there has been a general decline

in some fisheries which has been evident in

terms of technology and investment, employment and income, productivity and profit.

To provide some insight into conditions of

technology in the fishing industry, OTA informally surveyed fishermen on the west coast

about their gear and sources of technical information. The survey consisted of a short

questionnaire which was included with other

materials distributed by the Eastland Resolution Fisheries Survey group at their west coast

meetings. About 100 fishermen from a variety

of fisheries responded to the questions.

The survey showed that nearly all crabbers,

aquaculturists, and charter-boat operators

considered their gear the best available for

their operation; a majority of the trollers and

seiners were equally confident about the

Source: OTA

quality of their gear; and half or slightly more

of the tuna, bottom, swordfish, and recreational fishermen were satisfied. Gillnetters

and trawlers reported very low levels of

satisfaction, indicating that improvement in

their gear is badly needed. Figure 25 illustrates

responses to the question of whether gear was

satisfactory. Several specific types of needed

improvements were cited:

. better nets for groundfish;

● better gillnets;

101
● development of a multipurpose, small

scale mid-water trawl; and

● more efficient equipment to freeze, handle, and store fish onboard fishing

vessels.

Although more than one-third of the fishermen responding expressed an interest in

modernizing equipment and using electronics

onboard their vessels, many fishermen

emphasized that the job could better be done

by private industry than Government.

However, Government assistance was

strongly advocated for work in several areas

of more public concern, such as:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

habitat improvement;

location of fish;

identifying migration patterns of fish;

improving dissemination of weather and

water-surface temperature data to fishermen;

finding solutions to localized pollution

problems;

stressing the need for conservation; and

improvement of stock assessment information.

OTA also asked the Pacific fishermen how

they presently receive technical information

and how useful that information is to them.

The major source of information was the Sea

Grant program through an information

system similar to the Agricultural Extension

Service. Other sources of information were individual State programs or State universities

and fishermen’s publications. Information

from these sources reached about two-thirds

of those surveyed, but only slightly more than

half of the respondents considered the information useful (see figure 26).

Source: OTA

The National Marine Fisheries Service and

some industry sources also provide information, but only 40 percent of the respondents

found it useful.

A small group of fishermen got their information only from other fishermen, but such

information had the highest reliability rating

of any of the sources of information mentioned.

Since the Federal Government through

NMFS and Sea Grant already has some structure for disseminating information to fishermen, it appears likely that this structure could

be expanded and improved to reach a larger

segment of the fishing population. It should

provide more information from a variety of

sources, including trusted segments of the

fishing industry itself. Such an information

102
system could make use of a clearinghouse

concept that gathers and distributes data and

perhaps daily NOAA radio reports with

weather forecasts, water temperature, weekly

reports of fish landings, announcements of

current research programs, results of research,

and information on grants and financial

assistance available to fishermen. Such information could be provided with relatively little

effort and expense. Other information which

would be useful to fishermen, but would require additional research and expense, includes reports on foreign fishing techniques,

data on migration patterns of fish, and reports

on stock assessment, marketing, distribution,

and handling of fish.

The equipment and information needs of

the industry will inevitably be debated by the

Regional Councils in the course of formulating regulations for the domestic fishery. Gear

particularly will come under scrutiny as the

councils consider gear restrictions as a means

of regulating catch. Such restrictions will limit

the efficiency of existing gear and are sure to

be challenged by the fishermen. The result

may be an increased need for innovations in

gear or it may be that councils will be forced

to find alternate ways of regulating catch. (For

example, a system of fees for illegal bycatch,

instead of restrictions on mesh size, may be

used, leaving fishermen free to find their own

ways of modifying gear or fishing practices so

that illegal fish are not taken.)

Since the councils will be deeply involved

in this area, they should be charged with

studying the needs of the fishing industry in

their areas and proposing appropriate actions

to the Federal Government. In this way, such

proposals are likely to more accurately reflect

the thinking of the industry and be compatible

with industry desires an-d

ment plans. The councils,

fishery managethrough NMFS,

should also be charged with sharing with

other regions what knowledge they have

gained about industry practices and problems,

proposed Government actions, and successful

or unsuccessful management techniques.

Revitalization of the U.S. fishing industry is

the subject of a recent report by the General

Accounting Office92 and a study by the Eastland Fisheries Survey which will be completed

soon. Programs for assisting the industry or

removing constraints are being proposed by

both groups. But sufficient data about various

segments of the fishing industry are not now

available for evaluating what revitalization

proposals are justified. At least the following

questions should be addressed for each industry segment so that Government agencies,

fisheries managers, and private industry can

determine what programs are needed and

what actions are best suited to each group:

1) What is the status of the fish product involved, including history and trends of

catch, value, prices, market demand, and

distribution? What competition with imports exists?

2) What is the status of the technology used

for harvesting, its efficiency, its productivity, the effect on the resource, and

the cost of production?

3) What is the status of the labor force and

earnings in the fishery?

4) What is the normal and possible area of

coverage of the fishery? What mobility

and flexibility is available to expand or

change?

‘4 1.(372 () - 77 . 8

103
5) What is the status of the resource? Is

there foreign competition for the same

resource or another species in the same

ecosystem ? Can the resource b e

enhanced or the yield increased? A r e

there other underutilized resources

available for the same industry?

6) What is the economic condition of the industry? What future changes are likely

with assistance programs and would they

provide short-term or long-term solutions?

These questions could be tested on specific

industry segments and with specifi c

revitalization proposals in order to develop a

comprehensive program which addresses national needs most completely.

That job could be undertaken by a committee of representatives from each of the

Regional Councils. The council committee

could synthesize information on industry

needs which has been collected by the Eastland Survey, the General Accounting Office,

OTA, and NMFS. The council committee

could then identify important information

which is still missing, gather that information

itself or through contracts, and recommend a

specific course of action for Congress to follow

if it desires to take legislative action which

could encourage growth in the fishing industry. The council committee could also recommend specific changes which could be made

administratively by NMFS, NOAA, or other

agencies currently responsible for programs

which include financial aid, research or information pertinent to the fishing industry.

104
7. Glossary
acoustic—relating to, containing, producing,

arising from, actuated by or carrying sound.

aquiculture —cultivation of natural fauna

resources of water.

biomass—the dry weight of living matter, including stored food, present in a species

population and expressed in terms of a

given area or volume of the habitat.

catch effort—the ratio of amount of fish

caught to some measure of fishing effort

such as the number of days a typical vessel

is 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, as

in the electro - optical Keer effect and the

Stark effect. Also known as optoelectronics.

ex-vessel—price received by fisherman for

fish, shellfish, and other aquatic plants and

animals landed at the dock.

finfish—classes cyclostomata, elasmobranchin and pieces of the phylum vertebrata; excludes other marine organisms.

fish meal—a protein rich, dried-food product

produced from inedible portions of fishes

by dry or wet rendering. Also known as fish

protein concentrate.

fish oil-oil obtained from fish such as

menhaden, herring, sardine, and pilchard;

used as a drying oil in paint and as a raw

material for detergents, resins, and

margarine.

gear—implements developed for the capture

of all aquatic animals.

gill net—a wall of webbing suspended vertically in the water by means of weights

(lead) on the bottom line and corks on the

top line. The webbing may be made of cotton, linen, or synthetic material. The mesh

is selected according to the fish which will

be captured.

groundfish—broadly, fish that are caught on

or near the sea floor. Bottom fishes,

rockfishes, and flatfishes, cod, haddock,

pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch.

hydroacoustics-study of the propagation of

sound waves in water, especially in the

oceans, and of phenomena produced by

these sound waves. Also known as underwater acoustics.

landings—commercial quantities of fish,

shellfish and other aquatic plants and

animals brought ashore and sold. Landings

may be in terms of round (live) weight or

dressed weight. Landings of crustaceans are

generally on a live-weight basis except for

shrimp which may be on a heads-off basis.

Loran-C-a low frequency radio navigation

system by which hyperbolic lines of position are determined by measuring the

difference in the times of reception of synchronized pulse signals from two fixed

transmitters; as compared to Loran-A, time

difference measurements are increased in

accuracy through utilizing phase comparison techniques in addition to relatively

coarse matches of pulse envelopes of

received signals within the Loran-C

receiver.

magnetic—having properties of a magnet; exhibiting magnetism; phenomena involving

magnetic fields and their effects upon

materials.

maximum sustainable yield—the balance between the capacity of the resource to renew

itself and the harvest that man can take.

107
mesh size-a size of screen or of particles

passed by it in terms of the number of openings per linear inch. Also known as mesh.

microwave radiometry—a receiver for detecting microwave thermal radiation and similar weak wide band signals that resemble

noise and are obscured by receiver noise;

examples include the Dicke radiometer,

subtraction type radiometer and tworeceiver radiometer.

over-the-horizon radar—long range radar in

which the transmitted and reflected beams

are bounced off the ionosphere layers to

achieve ranges far beyond the line of sight.

pelagic fish-organisms living in the open

sea, including both plankton and nekton.

population—a group of organisms occupying

a specific geographic area.

recruitment—young fish that just become

available (vulnerable) to the fishing gear. In

long-lived species only a portion of a year

class may be recruited each year until

finally all are vulnerable.

remote sensing-sensing by a power supply,

of voltage directly at the load, so that variations in the load lead drop do not affect load

regulation.

seine net-a net used to catch fish by encirclement usually by closure of the two ends and

the bottom.

seining-surrounding a shoal of fish with a

long net, suitably buoyed and gradually

drawn closer until the fish can be readily

removed.

stock assessment-the study of individual

populations of fish in order to determine

the size and composition of the population

as well as estimates of possible yields.

stock enhancement—procedures whereby the

total amount of edible product (biomass) is

increased by increasing the number of

animals and/or size of animals in the

population.

trolling—method of angling whereby an artificial line or natural bait is drawn behind a

moving boat at any depth from the surface

to the bottom and at varying speeds according to the species of fish being sought. Accomplished in all types of craft.

trophic level—any of the feeding levels

through which the passage of energy

through an ecosystem proceeds, examples

are photosynthetic plants, herbivorous

animals, and micro organisms of decay.

utilization—use of all fishery products both

edible and inedible. Estimated disappearance of the total supply of fishery products both edible and inedible on a roundweight basis without taking into consideration beginning or end stocks.

year class-all of the progeny of the reproduction from any particular year. In species

with fluctuatory spawning success the

progeny of the successful spawning of one

year class may dominate the population at

successive ages for several years.

stock—a population of a species which occupies a specific geographical location,

especially at the time of reproduction.

108

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

,“Resources of the Oceans,”

Bulletin of the American Fisheries Society,

Vol. 1, N. 3 (May - June 1976) p. 20.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Fisheries of the United States, 1975, Current

Fishery Statistics No. 6900 (Washington,

D. C.: Government Printing Office, March

1976) p. 73.

Comptroller General of the United States,

The U.S. Fishing Industry—Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, Report

to the Congress, Vol. 1 Pubn. No .

CED-76-130 (Dec. 23, 1976) p. 7.

Op. cit., “Resources of the Oceans,” 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.

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

Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries.

Office of Technology Assessment, “Fisheries Technology Assessment: An Interim Status Report” (Washington, D. C.,

January 1976, Xeroxed) p. 10.

U.S. Department of Commerce, A Marine

Fisheries Program for the Natio n

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, July 1976) p. 7.

Op. cit., “Fisheries Technology Assessment: An Interim Status Report,” p. 5.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

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 Enforcement of 200-Mile Fishery Conservation Zone, (PL 94-265),” 1976 (Internal,

Xeroxed) Appendix A.

Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the

Nation, p. 1.

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

Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, p.

22.

Op. cit., “Study of Coast Guard Enforcement of 200-Mile Fishery Conservation

Zone (PL 94-265),” p. II-8.

Ibid., p. A-1.

Ibid., p. B-1.

Ibid., Appendix C.

Ibid., p. III-4.

Interview, Ocean Operations Division,

U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D. C.,

January 17, 1977.

Op. cit., “Study of Coast Guard Enforcement of 200-Mile Fishery Conservation

Zone (PL 94-265),” p. V-2.

William T. Coleman, Jr., U.S. Department

of Transportation, to Congressman John

J. McFal~, Washington,

1977, Enforcement of

Conservation Zone.

D. C., January 19,

200-Mile Fishery

111
28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37*

38.

39.

40.

Sig Jaeger, North Pacific Fishing Vessel

Owners Association, to Peter Johnson,

Washington, D. C., May 21, 1976, Commentary on Draft Copy of USCG Plan for

Disposition of Enforcement Resources

and Estimated Effectiveness Under PL

94-265.

Commerce Committee hearing, January

24, 1977.

Op. cit., Interview, Ocean Operations

Division.

Ibid.

Interview, Office of Program Planning

and Evaluation, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D. C,, February

4, 1977 (By Telephone).

National Marine Fisheries Service, Draft

Fee Schedule, “Fishing by Foreign

Vessels in Waters Under the Jurisdiction

of the United States of America,” Federal

Register 41, N. 248, December 23, 1976, p.

55925.

Op. cit., Interview, Ocean Operations

Division.

Interview, New England Regional Fishery Council, Washington, D. C., February

2, 1977.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Rules and

Regulations, “Part 601—Regional Fishery Managment Councils, ” Federal

Regisfer41, N. 180, September 15, 1976, p.

39436.

Working Paper No. 5

Op. cit., Interview, Ocean Operations

Division.

Ibid.

Ibid.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

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, Ocean

Division.

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

Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries.

Op. cit., Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Sec. 3 (18).

Working Paper No. 4.

Ibid.

Working Papers No. 1 and 2.

Interview, Office of Policy Development

and Long Range Planning, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Washington,

D.C., February 1, 1977.

Op. cit., Interview, Office of Program

Planning and Evaluation.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Council Memorandum, Vol. 1, January

1977, p. 2.

112
61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

Op. cit., “Part 601—Regional Fishery

Management Councils.”

Ibid.

Working Paper No. 3,

Ibid.

Working Paper No. 4.

Working Paper No. 3.

Op. cit., Interview, Office of Policy

Development and Long Range Planning.

~“NOAA Program Levels,”

Marine Fish Management, Vol. 3, N. 1

(January 1977) p. 1.

Working Paper No. 3.

Ibid.

Working Paper No. 1.

Shipping Act of 1916, Sects. 9 and 37.

State of Alaska, Division of Economic Enterprise, Japanese Investment in Alaska

(Alaska: Department of Economic

Development, August 1974) p. 13.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime

Administration, Applications for Sale of

Foreign Fishing Vessels, FY 1971 thru

January 1977.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Economic and Marketing Research Division, “Foreign Direct Investment in the

U.S. Commercial Fisheries Industry,”

Washington, D.C., April 9, 1976.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

Op. cit., Japanese Investment in Alaska.

Ibid.

Working Paper No. 1.

Op. cit., Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Sec. 303 (d).

Op. cit., “Part 601—Regional Fishery

Management Councils”.

Working Paper No. 2.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Op. cit., Interview, New England

Regional Fishery Council.

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

Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries

and The Eastland Resolution Fisheries

Survey Report to be published in 1977.

Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the

Nation.

Working Paper No. 4.

Op. cit., Interview, New England

Regional Fishery Council.

Environment Canada, “Canadian Exports by Commodity, 1975.”

The Tariff Act of 1930, Section 30 (a) (1)

as amended by Section 331 of the Trade

Act of 1974.

Interview, Tariff Affairs Division, U.S.

Department of Treasury, Washington,

D.C., April 7, 1977 (By Telephone).

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

Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries.

113
 ,

114

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Photo

Only about 10 percent of the operators of the west coast trawlers,

such as this shrimp boat, consider their gear satisfactory for the job
●

i

.
Public Law 94-265

94th Congress, H. R. 2 0 0

April 13, 1976

To provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries, and for

other purposes.

Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and policy.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I—FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF THE

UNITED 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 FISHERY

AGREEMENTS

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. 301 .

sec. 302.

Sec. 303.

Sec. 304.

Sec.. 305.

sec. 300.

sec. 307.

sec. 308.

sec. 309.

sec. 310.

sec. 311.

See. 312.

SW’. 401.

sec. 402.

sec. 403.

sec. 404.

sec. 405.

sec. 408.

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

Effect of law of the sea treaty.

Repeals.

Fishermen’s Protective Act amendments.

Marine Mammal Protection Act amendment.

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act amendment.

Authorization of appropriations.

16 USC 1801

note.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND POLICY

(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds and declares the following: 16 USC 1801.

(1) The fish off the coasts of the United States, the highly

migratory species of the high seas, the species which dwell on or

in the Continental Shelf appertaining to the United States, and

the anadromous species which spawn in United States rivers or

estuaries, constitute valuable and renewable natural resources.

(, ).’?1{, () 90 STATO 331

117
Pub. Law 94-265 - 2 - April 13, 1976

These fishery resources contribute to the food supply, economy,

and health of the Nation and provide recreational opportunities.

(2) As a consequence of increased fishing pressure and because

of the inadequacy of fishery conservation and management practices and controls (A) certain stocks of such fish have been overfished to the point where their survival is threatened? and (B)

other such stocks have been so substantially reduced in number

that the could become similarly threatened.

(3) Commercial and recreational fishing constitutes a major

source of employment and contributes signifi cantly to the economy

of the Nation. Many coastal areas are dependent upon fishing and

related activities, and their economies have been badly damaged

by the overfishing of fishery resources at an ever-increasing rate

over the past decade. The activities of massive foreign fishing

fleets in waters adjacent to such coastal areas have contributed

to such damage, interfered with domestic fishing efforts, and

caused destruction of the fishing gear of United States fishermen.

(4) International fishery agreements have not been effective in

preventing or terminating the overfishing of these valuable fishery

resources. There is danger that irreversible effects from overfishing will take place before an effective international agreement on

fishery management jurisdiction can be negotiated, signed, ratified, and immplemented.

(5) Fishery resources are finite but renewable. If placed under

sound management before overfishing has caused irreversible

effects, the fisheries can be conserved and maintained so as to provide optimum yields on a continuing basis.

(6) A national program for the conservation and management

of the fishery resources of the United States is necessary to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to insure conservation, and to realize the full potential of the Nation’s fishery

resources.

(7) A national program for the development of fisheries which

are underutilized or not utilized by United States fishermen,

including bottom fish off Alaska, is necessary to assure that our

citizens benefit from the employment, food supply, and revenue

which could be generated thereby.

(b) PURPOSES.—It is therefore declared to be the purposes of the

Congress in this Act—

(1) to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery

resources found off the coasts of the United States, and the

anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of

the United States, by establishing (A) a fishery conservation zone

within which the United States will assume exclusive fishery

management authority over all fish, except highly migratory

species, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond

such zone over such anadromous species and Continental Shelf

fishery resources;

(2) to support and encourage the implementation and enforcement of international fishery agreements for the conservation and

management of highly migratory species, and to encourage the

negotiation and implementation of additional such agreements as

necessary;

(3) to promote domestic commercial and recreational fishing

under sound conservation and management principles;

(4) to provide for the preparation and implementation, in

accordance with national standards, of fishery management plans

April 13, 1976 - 3 - Pub. Law 94-265

which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the

optimum yield from each fishery;

(5) to establish Regional Fishery Management Councils to prepare, monitor, and revise such plans under circumstances A( )

which will enable the States, the fishing industry , consumer and

environmental organizations, and other interested persons to participate in, and advise on, the establishment and administration

of such plans, and (B) which take into account the social and

economic needs of the States; and

(6) to encourage the development of fisheries which are currently underutilized or not uti zed by United States fishermen, li

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 other

than tile conservation and management of fishery resources, as

provided for in this Act;

(2) to authorize no impediment to, or interference with, recognized legitimate uses of the high seas, except as necessary for the

conservation and management of fishery resources, as provided

for in this Act:

(3) to assure that the national fishery conservation and managreement program utilizes, and is based upon, the best scientific

information 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, and enforcement; and

is 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 Third

United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which provides

for effective conservation and management of fishery resources.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. . 16 USC 1802.

As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

(1) The term “anadromous species” means species of fish

which spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the United States

and which migrate to ocean waters.

(2) The term “conservation and management” refers to all

of the rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures

(A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which

are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery

resource and the marine environment; and (B) which are designed

to assure that-

(i) a supply of food and other products may be taken.

and that recreation benefits maybe obtained, on a continuing

basis;

(ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fishery

resources and the marine environment are avoided.; and

(iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available with

respect to future uses of these resources.

(3) The term “Continental Shelf” means the seabed and

subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast, but outside

the area of the territorial sea, of the United States, to a depth of

200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the super90 STAT- 332 90 STAT. 333
Pub. Law 94-265 - 4 - April 13, 1976

jacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources

of such areas.

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

the 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 quinquedens.

MOLLUSKS

Red Abalone—Haliotis rufescens;

Pink Abalone-Haliotis corrugata;

Japanese Abalone—Haliotis kamtschatkana;

Queen Conch—Strombus gigas;

Surf Clam—Spisula solidissima; and

Ocean Quahog-Artica islandica.

SPONGES

Glove Sponge—Hippiospongia canaliculata;

Sheepswool Sponge-Hippiospongia lachne;

Grass Sponge-Spongia graminea; and

Yellow Sponge-—Spongia barbera.

Publication in If the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Secretary

Federal Regis- of State, that living organisms of any other sedentary species

ter. 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 publishes notice of such determination in the Federal Register,

such sedentary species shall be considered to be added to the

foregoing list and included in such term for purposes of this Act.

(5) The term “Council” means any Regional Fishery Management Council established under section 302.

April 13, 1976 - 5 - Pub. Law 94-265

(6)The term "Fish" means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and

all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine

mammals, birds, and highly migratory species.

(7) The term “fishery” means-

(A) one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a

unit for purposes of conservation and management and which

are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic characteristics; and

(B) any fishing for such stocks.

(8) The term “fishery conservation zone” means 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” means-

(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 support of, or in preparation

$0:: any activity described in subparagraphs (A) through

Such term does not inclulde any scientific research activity which

is 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 a

type 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 United States.

(13) The term “high seas” means all waters beyond the territorial sea of the United States and beyond any foreign nation’s

territorial sea, to the extent that such sea is recognized by the

United States.

(14) The term “highly migratory species” means species of

tuna which, in the course of their life cycle, spawn and migrate

over great distances in waters of the ocean. - —

(15) The term “international fishery agreement” means any

bilateral or multilateral treaty, convention. or agreement which

relates to fishing and to which the United States is a party.

(16) The term “Marine Fisheries Commission” means the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf States

Marine Fisheries Commission, or the Pacific Marine Fisheries

Commission.

(17) The term “national standards”’ means the national standards for fishery conservation and management set forth in sec.

tion 301.

(18) The term “optimum”, with respect to the yield from a

fishery, means the amount of fish—

(A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the

nation, with particular reference to food production and

recreational opportunities: and

(B) which is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from such fishery, as modified by any

relevant economic, social, or ecological factor.

90 STAT. 334 90 STAT. 335
USC prec.

title 1.

16 USC 1811.

16 USC 1812.

16 USC 1813.

16 USC 1811

note.

Pub. Law 94-26 5 - 6 - April 13, 1976

(19) The term “person” means any individual (whether or

not a citizen or national of the United States), any corporation,

partnership, association, or other entity (whether or not organized 

or existing under the laws of any State), and any Federal , State,

local, or foreign government or any entity of any such government.

(20) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary o Commerce f 

or his designee.

(21) The term “State” means each of the several States, the

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(22) The term “stock of fish” means a species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable of management as a unit.

(23) The term “treaty” means any international fishery agreement which is a treaty within the meaning of section 2 of article

II of the Constitution.

(24) The term United States”’, when used in a geographical

context, means all the States thereof.

(25) The term “vessel of the United States” means any vessel

documented under the laws of the United States or registered

under the laws of any State.

TITLE I—FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

OF 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 inner

boundary of the fishery conservation zone is a line coterminous with

the seaward boundary of each of the coastal States, and the outer

boundary of such zone is a line drawn in such a manner that each

point on it is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the

territorial sea is measured.

SEC. 102. EXCLUSIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The United States shall exercise exclusive fishery management

authority, in the manner 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; except

that such management authority shall not extend to such species

during the time they are found within any foreign nation’s territorial sea or fishery conservation zone (or the equivalent), 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. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES.

The exclusive fishery management authority of the United States

shall not include, nor shall it be construed to extend to, highly

migratory species of fish.

SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall trike effect March 1, 1977.

90 STAT. 336

April 13, 1976 - 7 - Pub. Law 94-265

TITLE II—FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS

SEC. 201. FOREIGN FISHING. 16 USC 1821.

(a) IN GENERAL.—After February 28, 1977, no foreign fishing is

authorized within the fishery conservation zone, or for anadromous

species or Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the fishery

conservation 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 pursuant to section 204.

(b) EXISTING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.—Foreign

fishing described in subsection (a) may be conducted pursuant to an

international fishery agreement (subject to the provisions of section

202 (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 FISHERY AGREEMENTS.-Foreign

fishing described in subsection (a) may be conducted pursuant to an

international fishery agreement (other than a treaty) which meets

the requirements o this subsection if such agreement becomes effective after application of section 203. .Any such international fishery

agreement shall hereafter in this Act be referred to as a “governing

international fishery agreement”. Each governing international fishery

●greement shall acknowledge the exclusive fishery management

author-it of the United States, as set forth in this Act. It is the sense Terms and

of 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 any

fishing vessel fishing pursuant to such agreement, will abide by

all regulations promulgated by ‘the Secretary pursuant to this Act,

including any regulations promulgated to implement any applicable fishery management plan or any preliminary fishery management plan.

(2) The foreign nation, and the owner or operator of any

fishing vessel fishing pursuant to such agreement, will abide by the

requirement that-

(A) any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this

Act (as provided for in section 311) be permitted— Post p. 358.

(i) to board, and search or inspect, any such vessel

at any time,

(ii) to make arrests and seizures provided for in

sect ion 311 (b) whenever such officer has reasonable cause

to believe, as a result of such a search or inspection, that

any such vessel or any person has committed an act

prohibited by section 307, and Post p. 355.

(iii) to examine and make notations on the permit

issued pursuant to section 204 for such vessel;

(B) the permit issued for any such vessel pursuant to

section 204 be prominently displayed in the wheelhouse of

such vessel;

(C) transponders, or such other appropriate positionfixing and identification equipment as the Secretary of the

department in which the Coast Guard is operating determines

90 STAT. 337
Pub. Law 94-265 - 8 - April 13, 1976

to be appropriate, be installed and maintained in working

order on each such vessel;

(D) duly authorized United States observers be permitted

on board any such vessel and that the United States be

reimbursed for the cost of such observers;

in advance: fees required under section 204(b) (10) he paid

(F) agents be appointed and maintained within the United

States who are authorized to receive and respond to any legal

process 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 reimbursement of United States citizens for any loss of, or damage to,

their fishing vessels, fishing gear, or catch which is caused by

any fishing vessel of that nation;

and will abide by any other monitoring, compliance, or enforcement requirement related to fishery conservation and management

which 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, exceed

such nation’s allocation of the total allowable level of foreign

fishing, as determined under subsection (e).

(4) The foreign nation 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 under

that section for such vessel: and

(C) abide b , and take appropriate steps under its own

laws to assure that all such owners and operators comply with,

section 204(a) and the applicable conditions and restrictions

established under section 204 (b) (7).

(d) TOTAL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FOREIGN FISHING.—The total

allowable level of foreign fishing, if any, with respect to any fishery

subject to the exclusive fishery management authority of the United

States, shall be that portion of the optimum yield of such fishery which

will not be harvested by vessels of the United States. as determined

in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(e) ALLOCATION OF ALLOWABLE LEVEL.-Tbe Secretary of State. in

cooperation with the Secretary, shall determine the allocation among

foreign nations of the total allowable level of foreign fishing which is

permitted with respect to any fishery subject to the exclusive fisher

management authority of the United States. In making any such

determination, the Secretary of State and the Secretary shall consider—

(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 substantial contributions to. fishery research

and the identification of fishery resources:

(3) whether such nations have cooperated with the United

States in enforcement and with respect to the conservation and

management of fishery resources: and

(4) such other matters as the .Secretary of State. in cooperation

with the Secretary. deems appropriate.

(f) Reciprocity.—Foreign fishing shall not be authorized for the

fishing vessels of any foreign nation unless such nation satisfies the

April 13, 1976 - 9 - Pub. Law 94-26 5

Secretary and the Secretary of State that such nation extends substantially the same fishing privileges to fishing vessels of the United

States, if any, as the United States extends to foreign fishing vessels.

(g) PRELIMINARY FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.—The Secretary,

when notified by the Secretary of State that any foreign nation has

submitted an application under section 204(b), shall prepare a preliminary fishery management plan for any fishery covered by such

application if the Secretary determines that no fishery management

p an for that fishery will be prepared and implemented, pursuant to l

title III, before March 1, 1977. To the extent practicable. each such

plan-

(1) shall contain a preliminary description of the fishery and a

preliminary determination as to the optimum yield from such

fishery and the total allowable level of foreign fishing with respect

to such fishery;

(2) shall require each foreign fishing vessel engaged or wishing to engage in such fishery to obtain a permit from the Secretary;

(3) shall require the submission of pertinent data to the Secretary, with respect to such fishery, as described in section 303(a)

(5) ; and

(4) may, to the extent necessary to prevent irrevesible effects

from overfishing, with respect to such fishery, contain conservation and management measures applicable to foreign fishing

(A) are determined to be necessary and appropriate for

the conservation and management of such fishery,

(B) are consistent with the national standards, the other

provisions of this Act, and other applicable law, and

(C) are described in section 303(b) (2), (3), (4), (5), and

(7)

Each preliminary fishery management plan shall be in effect with

respect to foreign fishing for which permits have been issued until a

fishery management plan is prepare and implemented, pursuant to

title III, wit respect to such fishery. The Secretary may, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, also prepare and

promulgate interim regulations with respect to any such preliminary

plan. Such regulations shall be in effect until regulations implementing

the applicable fishery management plan are promulgated pursuant to

section 305.

SEC. 202. INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.

(a) NEGOTIATIONS.-The Secretary of State-

(1) shall renegotiate treaties as provided for in subsection (b);

(2) shall negotiate governing international fishery agreements

described in section 201 (c);

(3) may negotiate boundary agreements as provided for in

subsection (d) ;

(4) shall, upon the request of and in cooperation with the Secretary, initiate and conduct negotiations for the purpose of entering into international fishery agreements-

(A) which allow fishing vessels of the United States equitable access to fish over which foreign nations assert exclusive

fishery management authority, and

(B) which provide for the conservation and management

of anadromous species and highly migratory species; and

90 STAT. 339

Regulations.

16 USC 1822.

90 STAT. 338
4

IQ

N

Pub. Law 94-265 - 10 - April 13, 1976

(5) may enter into such other negotiations, not prohibited by

subsection (c), as may be necessary and appropriate to further

the purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act.

(b) TREATY RENEGOTIATION.—The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary, \shW initiate, promptly after the date of

enactment of this .4ct, the’ renegotiation of any treaty which

r

stains

to fishing within the fishery conser~.ation zdpe (or within t e nrea

that will collstit.ute such zone after February 28, 1977), or for anadromous species or (’ont inental She] f fishery resourms beyond such zone

or area, and w]lich is in an}. manner inconsistent with the purposes,

polic~, or l)rolisions of t]~is .ict, in order to conform such treaty tO

such purposes, policj., and provisions. It is the sense of Congress that

the l~nited States shall withdraw from any such treaty, in accordance with its pro~-isionst if such treaty is not so renegotiated within a

reasonable period of time after such date of enactment.

(c) IWrERN.\T1O~AL FMIIERY .+~REEMEXTS.-XO international fishery

agreement (other than a treaty) which pertains to foreign fishing

witl]in tile tishery conser~ation zone (or w“ithin the area that will

constitute such zone after February 28, 1977), or for anadrornous

species or Continental She] f tishery resources be~.ond such zone or

area—

(1) which is in effect on .June 1,1976, may tl~ereafter be renewed,

extended, or ame]~ded; or

(~) m~i}. IW t)]]t(,r[~d it~to after MaJ. 31, lW~:

l)J’ the l-]lit(*~ St:ttes uI~less it is in accordance with tile pro!. isions of

sm-tion 201 (c).

(d) BoI”x~.iRY NEooTI.\Tloxs.—The Secretarv of State, in cooperation with the Secretary, may initiate and conduct negotiations with

an~’ adjacent or opposite foreign nation to establish the boundaries

of the tisbery cOllSel’\’iltiOll zone of the l’nited States in relation to

alley such nation.

(e) NomtEcoGxrrmx.-It is the sense of the (’ongress that the

[-nited Stntes Government shall not recognize the claim of any foreign

nation to a fishe;~’ conservation zone (or the equivalent) beyond snch

nation”s territor]i~l sea. to the extent that such sea is reco=~ized by

the l-nited States, if such nation—

(.1 j fails to consider and take into account traditional fishing

actlwty of fishing vessels of the United States;

(2) fails to recognize and accept that highly migratory species

are to be managed by applicable international fishery agreements,

w}~etlmr or not such nation is a party to any such a=~eement; or

(3) imposes on tisl]inu ~xxs.sels of the I-nited States any conditions or restrictions which are unrelated to fishery conservation

and management.

16 USC 1823. SEC. 203. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.

Transmittal to (a) IN GENERAL.—h-o governing international fishery agreement

Congress. shall become effective with respect to the ITnited States before the

C1OSC of the first 60 cnlm.lar days of continuous session of the Congrees

:Ifter the date on which the President transmits to the House of Representatives and to the Senate a document setting forth the text of

such governing international fishery agreement. .4 copy of the document shall he delivered to each House of Congress on the same day

and SINI1l .he delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives,

if the House is not in session, and to the Secretary of the LSenate, if

the Senate is not in session.

April 13, 1976 11 - Pub. Law 94-265

(b) REFERRAL m Comm-rEss.-.lny document &scribed in subsection (a) shall be immediately referred in the House of Representatives to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and in

the Senate to the Committees on Commerce and Foreign Relations.

(c) C!O>~PUTATIO~ OF GO-DAY PER1oD.—For purposes of subsection

(a)–

(1) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment

of (’ongress sine die; and

($?). the days on which either IIouse is not in session IMXWIIW of

an adjournment of more tl~an 3 tla~”s to a day certain are excluded

ill the computation of the 60-clay period.

(d) CONGRESSIONAL, PROCED~RES.-

(1) RULES OF THE 11OCSEOF REMWSEXTATIVES .lx~ sEx.iTE.—The

provisions of this section are enacted by the Congress-

(A) as an exercise of the rulelnaking power of the House of

Representatives and the Senate, respectit’el}’. aml they are

deemed a part of the rules of each Holise, respectively, but

upplicabie only with respect to tile procedure to he followed in

that House in the case of fisl)ery agreement resolutions

described in paragraph (2), and tl~e~’ supersede other rules

only to the extent that tlle~’ are inconsistent therewith; and

(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of

either House to change tl~e rules (so far as they relate to the

procedure of that Holw) at any time. and in the .smne n~anner aml to tile sanie extent as in tile ctise of an~. other rule of

that House.

(2) Definition.—For purlmses of this subsection, the term

“fishery Rgreenlellt reso]l]t ion” refers to a joint resolution of either

House of Congress—

(A) the effect of w’l~ich is to prohibit t}ie entering into

force und effect of any go~.erning international fishery ngreement tlw text of whicl~ is t ransmitte(l to the (’ongress pursuant to subsection (a) : and

( 13) w.llich is reported from tile Conunittee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries of the Hmuw of Representatives or

the C(m~n~ittce on (’on~]l~ercc or the Cmnn~ittee on Foreign

Relations of the Senate, not later than 45 days after tl~e date

on which tlm document described in sllbsectlon (a) relating

to that agreement is transmitted to the Congress

(:3) PI.A(.ESIRXT OX ~ALEND.\R.-.iny fishery agreement resolution upon Iwing reporte(] .sImll immediately be place(l on the

appropriate calendar.

(~) FLOOR COXSIDERATI{IN IX TIIE II{,l-SE.–

(A) A motion in the IIOUSC of Rcpresentati~.es to proceed

to the consideration of any fisl~ery agreement resolution sl)all

be highly privileged an(l not dchatab]e. .fn amen(lnwnt to

the mot]on shall not be in or(ler, nor shall it be in order to

move to reconsider tl~e \“ote b~. which the motion is agree(l

to or disagreed to.

(11) Debate in the House of Represe]:tati~.es on an~. fisher} Debate

agreement resolution sl~all he lin]itcd to not more than 10 limitation.

hours, which shall be di~idcd equally hetween those faj”oring

and those opposing tl~e resolution. .i motion fllrt]]er to limlt

debate shall not be delmtal)]e. It S.liiill not be in order to nm~.e

to recommit any fisher~. agreement resolution or to mol-e to

reconsider the vote by which any fishery agreement resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.

90 STAT. 340

90 STAT. 341
Pub. Law 94-265 - 12 - April 13, 1976

Debate

limitation.

(C) Motions to postpone, made in the House of Representatives with respect to tile considerate ion of any fishery agreement resolution, anti motions to proceed to the consideration

of other business, shall be decided without debate.

(D) All appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating

to the application of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the procedure relating to any fishery agreement resolution shall be decided without debate.

(E) Except to the extent specifically provided in the preceding provisions of this subsection, considerate ion of any

fishery agreement resolution shall be governed by the Rules

of the House of Representatives applicable to other bills and

resolutions in similar circumstances.

(5) FLOOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.—

(i) A motion in the Senate to proceed to the consideration

of any fishery agreement. resolution shall be privileged and

not debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in

order, nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote

by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.

(B) Debate in the Senate on any fishery agreement resolution and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection

therewith shall be limited to not more than 10 hours. The

time shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the

majority leader and the monority leader or their designees.

(C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or

appeal in connection with any fishery agreement resolution

shall be limited to not more than 1 hour. to be equally divided

between, and controlled by,the mover of the. mot ion or appeal

and the manager of the resolution, except that if the manager

of the resolution is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the

time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the minority leader or his designee. The majority lender and the minorit}’ leader, or either of them. may allot additional time to

any Senator during the consideration of any debatable motion

or appeal, from time under their control with respect to the

applicable fishery agreement resolution.

(I)) A motion in the Senate to further limit debate is not

debatable. A motion to recommit any fishery agreement resolution is not in order.

16 USC 1824. SEC. 204. PERMITS FOR FOREIGN FISHING.

(a) IN GENERAL.-AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1977, no foreign fishing

vessel shall engage in fishing within the fishery conservation zone, or

for anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond

such zone. unless such vessel has on board a valid permit issued under

this sect ion for such vessel.

(b) APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS UNDER GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL

FISHERY AGREEMENTS.—

(1) ELIGIBILITY.-Each foreign nation with which the United

States has entered into a governing international fishery agreement shall submit an application to the Secretary of State each

year for a permit for each of its fishing vessels that wishes to

engage in fishing described in subsection (a).

(2) FORMS.-The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary

of State and the Secretary of tile department in which the Coast

Guard is operating, shall prescribe the forms for permit applications submitted under this subsection and for permits issued

pursuant to any such application.

April 13, 1976 - 13 - Pub. Law 94-265

(3) CONTENTS.—Any application made under this subsection

shall specify—

(A) the name and official number or other identification

of each fishing vessel for which a permit is sought, together

with the name and address of tile owner thereof;

(B) the tonnage. capacity, speed, processing equipment,

type and quantity of fishing gear, and such other pertinent

information with respect to characteristics of each such vessel

as the Secretary may require;

(C) each fishery in which each such vessel wishes to fish;

(D) the amount of fish or tonnage of catch contemplated

for each such vessel during the time such permit is in force;

a n d

(E) the ocean area in which, and the season or period

during which, such fishing will be conducted:

and shall include any other pertinent information and material

which the Secretary may require.

(4) TRANSMITTAL FOR ACTION.-Upon receipt of any application which complies with the requirements of paragraph (3), the

Secretary of State shall publish such application in the Federal

Register and shall promptly transmit-

(A) such application, together with his comments and

recommendations thereon, to the Secretary;

(B) a copy of the application to each appropriate Council

and to tile Secretary of the department in which the Coast

Guard is operating: and

(C) a copy of such material to the Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and

tot he Committees on Commerce and Foreign Relations of the

Senate.

(5) ACTION BY COUNCIL.-.After receipt of an application transmitted under parpgrapph (4) (B), each appropriate Council shall

prepare and submit to the Secretary such written comments on the

application as it deems appropriate. Such comments shall be submitted within 45 days after the date on which the application is

received by the Council and may include recommendations with

respect to approval of the application and, if approval is recommended, with respect to appropriate conditions and restrictions

thereon. Any interested person may submit comments to such

Council with respect to any such application. The Council shall

consider any such comments in formulating its submission to the

Secretary.

(6) APPROVAL.-After receipt of any application transmitted

under paragraph (4) (A), the Secretary. shall consult with the

Secretary of State and, with respect to enforcement, with the

Secretary of the department, in which the Coast Guard is operating. The Secretary, after taking into consideration the views and

recommendations of such Secretaries. and any comments submitted

by any Council under paragraph (5), may approve the application, if he determines that the fishing described in the application w-ill meet the requirements of this Act.

(7) ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS .-ThC

Secretary. shall establish conditions and restrictions which shall

be included in each permit issued pursuant to any application

approved under paragraph ( 6 ) and which must be complied with

by the owner or operator of the fishing vessel for which the

permit is issued. Such conditions and restrictions shall include

the following:

Publication in

Federal Register.

Transmittal to

congressional

committees.

Written

comments.

90 STAT. 342 90 STAT. 343
Pub. Law 94-265 - 14 - April 13, 1976

(A) A11 of the requirements of any applicable fishery

management plan, or preliminary fishery management plan,

and the regulations promulgated to implement any such plan.

(B) The requirement that no permit may be used by any

vessel other than the fishing vessel for which it is issued.

(C) The requirements described in section $X)1(C) (l), (2),

and (3).

(D) Anj. other condition il]ld restriction related to fisher)”

cO]lser\i:tiO]l nnd IImnxgcnlent which the Secretary prmcribes

as nccess:tr). nn{l appropriate.

(8) SOTICE OF .il’l’lt(jv.ir..—llele Secrctar - shall promptly trananlit a copj’ o t’ (Iit{’11 applicwtiun iippro\’e( undcr ? paragraph (6 )

ii]l~l tl~e COtId it ions i~]~~ rest rid ions establ ishe{l under pilragr~lph

(i) tO-

(.1) the SecretarJ’ of State fm. transmittal to the foreign

nation in}-olved;

(11) the Secretary of the departnlent ill which the Coast

Guard is operating;

(C) any Council which has authority over any fishery

slw.ifiwJ in SII(+ application; and

Transmittal to (1)) tile (Uo]lllllittee on Mercilant Marine and Fisheries of

congressional tlw 11ou.* of ltepresentatives and the Conm]ittees on Conlcommittees. Iner(”e ii]~(l 1+’orcign ~{rlat ions of the Senate.

(~) I)ls-il”wn”.m Ok. .\l’l”1.l(..\TIO XS.-1f thC %C1.etary dOeS llOt

al)prol-c it]~j” apl)lication subnlittwl bj. a foreign nation under this

subswt ion. IW SIIU1l prwnptly inform the Secretary of State of

tlw (1 iSilpl)ll}\”ill illld his reasolw therefore. ‘rhe ~Secretar~. of State

slml I l~ot i f}. su(.1~ forcigli nation of the dis~pproviil and the reasons

till’refer. Au(.]i foreign lliltiOIL after taking into consideration the

l.~~i~so]l~ for (lisill)l)l.()\”iil, IIIU}. submit a revised application under

this sul)s(’l”t iol~.

( 10) F~:}:s.-Reasonahle fees shall be paid to the Secretary

b~ tile owner or operator of any foreign fishing vessel for which

a Iwrmit is i.ssmxl ]) UISUil IIt to t]] is slhect ion. The ,Secretarvl in

(v)] lsiilti~t ion with the %xretarj. of ~tate, shall establish and publish a scbe{lule of such fees, which shall apply l~olldiw[.ilt~il~atot.-

ilj- to each forrign nation. ln determining the level of such fees,

tlm Smwtaqv nmy take into account the cost of carrying out the

pro~-isions of this -ht. with respect to foreign fishing, including,

but not limitwi to. the cost of fishery conservation and nlanagenlent, fisheries research, administration, and enforcement.

(11) k+(-.~xcw (w rEnx[rrs.-If a foreign nation notifies the

Secretary of State of its acceptance of the conditions and restrictions [Jstill)lislled b~. the Secretnr~’ under paragraph (7), the

Secret:lry of StiltC slmll pronlpt]j. trimsmit such notification to

the Secretary. L’pon payment of the applicable fees established

pllrsllill~t to p~ri~~ri~]~l~ ( 10), the Secretary shall thereupon issu e

to such foreign nation, through the Secretary of State, permits

for the appropriate fishing \-esscls of that nation. IZach permit

shall contmn a statement of all conditions and restrictions established under paragraph (7) which apply to the fishing vessel for

which the permit IS issued.

(12) SANCTlONS.-If any foreign fishing vessel for which a permit has been issued pursuant to this subsection has been used

in the commission of any act prohibited by section 307 the Secretary may , or if any civil penalty imposed under section 308 or any

criminal fine imposed under section 309 has not been paid and

is overdue the Secretary shall—

April 13, 1976 - 15 - Pub. Law 94-265

(A) revoke such permit, with or without prejudice to the

right of the foreign nation involved to obtain a permit for

such vessel in any subsequent year:

(13) suspend such permit for the period of time deemed

appropriate: or

((’) impose a(lditional con(litions and restrictions on the

appro~-ed iip[)l icilti~ll of the foreign nation involved and

on any. pern~ it issxml umler such application.

.iny perrnlt which is suspended under this paragraph for nonpayment of a cit”il Penitlty shall be reinstated by the Secretary

upon the pa~’ment of such civil penalty together with interest

thereon at the prefwil ing rate.

(c) RECISTSATION l%rtxITs.—The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary, shall issue annually a registration permit for

each fishing t’essel of a foreign niit ion winch is a party to an internittional fishery agreement under which foreign fishing is authorized

by section 201 (b) and which wishes to engage in fishing described in

subsection (a). Each such permit shall set forth the terms and conditions contained in the agreement, that apply with respect to such

fishing, and shall include the additional requirement that the owner

or operator of the fishing vessel for which the permit is issued shall

prominently display such permit in the wheelhouse of such vessel and

show it, upon request, to any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this Act (as provided for in section 311). The Secretary of

State. after consultation with the Secretary and the Secretary of the

department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall prescribe

the form and manner in which applications for registration permits

may be made, and the forms of such permits. The Secretary of State

may establish, require the payment of, and collect fees for registrat ion permits; except that the level of such fees shall not exceed the

administrative costs incurred by him in issuing such permits.

SEC. 205. IMPORT PROHIBITIONS. 16 USC 1825.

(a) I)I:I,~:l{~flx.iTIoss BY SE{W:T.il?Y OF. STATE.—If the SeCretaI’y of

St i~te determines tl)at—

(1) he has been unable, within a reasonable period of time,

to conclude with any foreign nation an international fishery

agreement allowing fishing \“essels of the United States equitable

access to fisheries over which that nation asserts exclusive fishery

management authorit,v. as recognized by the IJnited States, in

accordnnm with tradlt ionill fish ing activities of such vessels, if

any, and under terms not more restrictive than those established

under sections 201 (c) and (d) and 204 (b) (7) and (10), because

such nation has ( .i ) refused to commence negotiations, or (B)

failed to negot inte in good faith:

(z) an} foreign nation i~ not allowing fishing vessels of the

I“nitcd States to engage in fishing for highly migratory species in

:lrcordilnce with an appl imble international fishery agreement,

wlwther or not sIIch nation is a party thereto;

(3) an.v foreign nation is not complying with its obligations

under any existing international fishery agreement concerning

fishing by fishing vessels of the I’nited States in any fishery over

which that nation aswrts exclusive fishery management authority;

or

(4) any fishing i-essel of the l’nitcd States. while fishing in

waters hq.ond any forei~w nation’s territorial sea, to the extent

that such sea is recognized by the I“nited States, is seized by any

foreign nation—

90 STAT. 345

90 STAT. 344
Pub. Law 94-265 - 16 - April 13, 1976

(A) in ~’iolation of an applicable il~tcrnfitional fishery

:Igl.(ho]) ~(>])t ;

(B) witlmut authorization under an agreement between

the l~nitrvl States and .suclk nat ion.; or

(C’) as a consequence of a clalm of jurisdiction which is

not reco=gnizecl by the I?nitwl Stntcs;

he A:II1 certify such determination to the Secretal:y of the Treasury.

(b) Prtol[mr_rmxs.-ITpon receil)t of anv certlficntion from the

Secr~t:l ry of. .State umler subsection (a), tile .Secretary of the Treasury

shall inlmcclmtelv take such nction as may be necessary and appropriate to prohihit the irnportrrt ion into the ITnited Statw-

(1) of all fkh :Iml fish ]Irrrdlwts from the fislwr~ iniolJ-ed,

if flny; nnd

(~) Ilpon I.ccomnlendntioll of the Secretarcv of St:lte. sllch

other- fisl~ or fish prodllcts.fro]]l nny fishery of the foreign nation

conwrmed. wll ich the Secret rr.r}- of Strrte Grids to be appropriate

to carry out the pllrposes of t II ]s section.

(c) RI: MOV.iT, OF pRorllrm”Iox.-Tf the %cretary of state finds that

tl~c rrwsorrs for thp imposition of any inlport l)rol~ibition under this

>tu,t io]I no lor~gcr prel-a il. tll(’ Secretrrry of State slmll notify the

Serr(*tzrV of thr ‘heasllry, WIIO shall promptl~~ rernok”e SIII-h ]mport

l)rol~il)ition.

((1 ) l)~:k.lxllroxs.-.ls IIsed in this swtion-

(1) ‘I*I1c term “fish” inclrrdcs :ln~- highly miglatory. species.

(2) The term “fish products” n~(’iit]s rtt]j’ article wll]ch is pro-

(Illced from or composed of (in wl~olc or 1]1 part) nny fish.

TITLE III—NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMEN T

PROGRAM

16 USC 18S1. SEC. 301. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY CONSERVATION AND

MANAGEMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.-.iny fishery management plan prepared, and

any regulnt ion promulgated to irnplrment :m~r such plan. pursuant

to this title shall be consisterlt with the follow]ng rmtionrrl stnndarck

f~)l’ fisll(’l”y (wnserl-ation and I] NUlilgelrlelit :

( 1 ) ~onservation nnd management mcrrsures shall prrvcnt ovcrfisl~ing wllilv :~chiet’ing, on a contirruing basis, the optimum }’ield

from (’acll fisher}’.

(2) ~~ns~rt-~tion tlnd mana~ernent measures Shilllb~):lsc(l

II ])oT1 !lIe !wt scientific i]lformat]on rrvai]able.

(3) To the extent prrrcticnble, an individurrl stock of fish shall

IJc managed IIS n unit throughout its rrrrrge. and interrelated stocks

of fish slIall he nmnaged as a unit or in close coordination.

(4) Conwr\vltion nnd management measures shall not discrimi n:lte hetwern residents of d i ffrrcnt .Strrtes. If it becomes necesSZICV to allocate or rrssign fishing prit’ilegw among wrrious Ilnitml

St:ltes fishermen, sncll rrllocation shall be (.~) f:lir nnd cqrlitrrhle

to all such fishermen; (B) rertsonnbly calculated to promote conserl.ntion: and (C) carried ollt in such manner that no particular

individmll, corporation, or otlw rmtity acquires an cxcessi~re

shrrrr of such pri~’ilcges.

(5) C’onser\.rrtion :~nd mrrnagement measures shall, where practicable. promote efficiency in t]le Iltilization of fisher-y resources;

except that no such measure shall have economic allocation rLs its

SOle purpose.

April 13, 1976 - 17 - Pub. La w

- 94-26 5

(6) Conservation and management measures shall take into

account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in,

fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary deplication.

(b) GUIDELINES.–The Secretary shall establish guidelines, baaed

on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery

management plans.

SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be established, within 120 days

after the date of the enactment of this Act, eight Regional Fishery

Management Councils, as follows:

(1) NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL.-The New England Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of Maine, New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and

shall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States. The New England Council shall have 17

voting members, including 11 appointed by the Secretary pursuant

to subsection (b) ( 1 ) ((’) (at least one of whom shall be appointed

from each such State).

(2) MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL.—l’he Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of New York , New

Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia and

shall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States. The Mid-Atlantic Council shall have 19

voting members, including 12 appointed by the Secretary pursuant

to subsection (b)(1) (C) (at least one of whom shall be appointed

from each such State).

(3) SOUTH ATANTIC COUNCIL.-The South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council shall consist of the States of North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and shall have authority

over the fisheries the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States.

The South Atlantic Council shall have 13 voting members, including 8 appointed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) (1)

(C) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each such

State).

(4) CARIBBEAN COUNCIL.-The Caribbean Fishery Management Council shall consist of the Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and shall have authority over the

fisheries in the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean seaward of

such States. The Caribbean Council shall have 7 voting members,

including 4 appointed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection

(b) (1) (C) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each

such State).

(5) GULF COUNCIL.-The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of Texas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and shall have authority over

the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico seaward of such States. The

Gulf Council shall have 17 voting members, including 11

appointed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) (1) (C)

(at least one of whom shall be appointed from each such State).

(6) PACIFIC COUNCIL.-The Pacific Fishery Management

Council shall consist of the States of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho and shall have authority over the fisheries in

the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The Pacific Council

shall have 13 voting members, including 8 appointed by the

16 USC 1852.

Establishment.

90 STAT. 346 90 STAT. 347
Pub. Law 94-265 - 18 - April 13, 1976

Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) (1) (C) (at least one of

whom shall be appointed from each such State).

(7) NORTH PACIFIC COUNCIL.-The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council shall consist of the States of Alaska. Washington, and Oregon and shall have authority over the fisheries

in 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 pacific Fishery

Management Council shall consist of the State of Hawaii, American Samoa, and Guam and shall have authority over the fisheries

in the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The Western Pacific

Council shall have 11 voting members, including 7 appointed by

the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) ( 1 ) (C) (at least one

of whom shall be appointed from each such State).

Each Council shall reflect the expertise and interest of the several constituent States in the ocean area over which such Council is granted

authority.

(b) VOTING MEMBERS .-(1) The voting members of each Council

shall be:

(A) The principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility and expertise in each constituent State, who

is designated as such by the Governor of the State, so long as the

official continues to hold such position, or the designee of such

official.

(B) The regional director of the National Marine Fisheries

Service for the geohgpaphic area concerned, or his designee, except

that if two such directors are within such geographical area, the

Secretary shall designate which of such directors shall be the voting member.

(C) The members required to be appointed by the Secretary

shall be appointed by the Secretary from a list of qualified

individuals submitted by the Governor of each applicable constituent State. With respect to the initial such appointments. such

Governors shall submit such lists to the Secretary as soon as practicable. not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of

“List of qua- this Act. As used in this subparagraph, (i) the term “list of qualilified indi- fied individuals” shall include the names (including pertinent bioviduals. “ graphical data) of not less than three such individuals for each

"Qualified applicable vacancy, and (ii) the term “qualified individual” means

ml an individual who is knowledgable or experienced with regard to

the management, conservation, or recreational or commercial harvest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned.

Term. (2) Each voting member appointed to a Council pursuant to paragraph (1) (C) shall serve for a term of 3 years; except that, with

respect to the members initially so appointed, the Secretary shall designate up to one-third thereof to serve for a term of 1 year. up to onethird thereof to serve for a term of 2 years, and the remaining such

members to serve for a term of 3 years.

(3) Successorsto the voting members of any Council shall be

appointed in the same manner as the original voting members. Any

individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration

of any term of office shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.

90 STAT. 348

April 13, 1976 - 19 - Pub. Law 94-265

(c) NONVOTING MEMBERS.--(1) The nonvoting members of each

Council shall be:

(A) The regional or area director of the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service for the geographical area concerned, or his

designee.

(B) The commander of the Coast Guard district for the geographical area concerned, or his designee; except that, If two

Coast 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 Department of State designated

for such purpose by the Secretary of State, or his designee.

(2) The Pacific Council shall have one additional nonvoting member who shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the

Governor of Alaska.

(d) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.-The voting members of each

Council, who are not employed by the Federal Government or any

State or local government, shall receive compensation at the daily rate

for GS-18 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for such Council. The voting members of each

Council, any nonvoting member described in subsection (c) (1) (C),

and the nonvoting member appointed pursuant to subsection (c) (2)

shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in the performance

of such duties.

(e) TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS.—

(1) A majority of the voting members of any Council shall

constitute a quorum, but one or more such members designated

by the Council may hold hearings. All decisions of any Council

shall be by majority vote of the voting members present and

voting.

(2) The voting members of each Council shall select a Chairman for such Council from among the voting members.

(3) Each Council shall meet in the geographical area concerned at the call of the Chairman or upon the request of a

majority of its voting members.

(4) If any voting member of a Council disagrees with respect

to any matter which is transmitted to the Secretary by such

Council. such member may submit a statement to the Secretary

setting forth the reasons for such disagreement.

(f) STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION.—

(1) Each Council may appoint, and assign duties to, an executive director and such other full- and part-time administrative

employees as the Secretary determines are necessary to the performance of its functions.

(2) Upon the request of any Council, and after consultation

with the Secretary, the head of any Federal agency is authorized

to detail to such Council, on a reimbursable basis, any of the

personnel of such agency, to assist such Council in the performance

of its functions under this Act.

(3) The Secretary shall provide to each Council such administrative and technical support services as are necessary for the

effective functioning of such Council.

(4) The Administrator of General Services shall furnish each

Council with such offices, equipment, supplies, and services as

he is authorized to furnish to any other agency or instrumentality

of the United States.

5 USC 5332

note.

90 STAT. 349
Pub. Law 94-265 - 20 - April 13, 1976

(5) Tile Secretary and the Secretary of +State shall furnish each

Council with relevant information concerning foreign fishing

and international fishery agreements.

(6) Each Council shall determine its organization, and prescribe its practices and procedures for carrying out its functions

under this Act, in accordance with such uniform standards as

are prescribed by the Secretary. Each Council shall publish and

make 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 subsection (d) ;

(B) appropriate compensation to employees appointed

under paragraph (1) ;

(C) the amounts required for reimbursement of other

Federal agencies under paragraphs (2) and (4) ;

(D) the actual expenses of the members of the committees

and panels established under subsection (g) ; and

(E) such other costs as the Secretary determines are necessary to the performance of the functions of the Councils.

(g) COmmitteeS AND PANELS .—

(1) Each Council shall establish and maintain, and appoint

the members of. a scientific and statistical committee to assist it

in the development, collection, and evaluation of such statistical,

biological, economic, social, and other scientific information as

is relevant to such Council's development and amendment of any

fishery management plan.

(2) Each Council shall establish such other advisory panels as

are necessary or appropriate to assist it in carrying out its functions under this Act.

(h) FUNCTIONS.—Each Council shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act—

Fishery manage- (1) prepare and submit to the Secretary a fishery management

ment plan. plan with respect to each fishery within its geographical area of

authority and, from time to time, such amendments to each such

plan as are necessary:

Comments. (2) prepare comments on any application for foreign fishing

transmitted to it under section 204(b) (4) (B), and any fishery

management plan or amendment transmitted to it under section

304(C) (2) :

Public hearings. (3) conduct public hearings, at appropriate times and in appropriate locations in the geographical area concerned, so as to allow

all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of fishery management plans and amendments to such plans.

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 Council’s activities (during the immediately preceding calendar

year,

(B) such periodic reports as the Council deems appropriate,

and

(C) any other relevant report which may be requested by

the Secretary:

(5) review on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, the

assessments and specifications made pursuant to section 303(a)

(3) and (4) with respect to the optimum yield from, and the total

allowable level of foreign fishing in, each fishery within its

geographical area of authority; and

Reports.

Review.

90 STAT. 351

April 13, 1976 - 21 - Pub. Law 94-265

(6) conduct any other activities which are required by, or

provided for in, this Act or which are necessary an appropriate

to the foregoing functions.

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS. 16 USC 18.53.

(a) REQUIRED Provisions.-kIY fishery management plan which

is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any

fishery, shall-

(1) contain the conservation and management measures, applicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the United

States, which are-

(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation and

management of the fishery;

(B) described in this subsection or subsection (b), or

(C) consistent with the national standards, the other provisions oft his Act, and any other applicable law;

(2) contain a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels involved, the type and quantity of

fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their location

the cost likely to be incurred in management, actual and potential

revenues from the fishery, any recreational interests in the fishery,

and the nature and extent, of foreign fishing and Indian treaty

fishing rights, if any;

(3) assess and specify the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield

from, the fishery, and include a summary of the information utilized in making such specification;

(4) as.. and specify—

(A) the capacity and the extent to which fishing vessels of

the United States, on an annual basis, will harvest the. optimum yield specified under paragraph (3), and

(B) the portion of such optimum yield which, on an annual

basis, will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the United

States and can be made available for foreign fishing; and

(5) specify the pertinent data which shall submitted to the

Secretary with respect to the fishery, including, but not limited to,

information regarding the type and quantity of fishing gear used,

catch by species in numbers of fish or weight thereof, areas in

which fishing was engaged in, time of fishing, and number of

hauls.

(b) DISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS.-hy fishery management plan

which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect

to any fishery, may—

(1) require a permit to be obtained from, and fees to be paid to,

the Secretary with respect to any fishing vessel of the United

States fishing, or wishing to fish, in the fishery conservation zone,

or for anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery resources

beyond such zone;

(2) designate zones where, and periods when. fishing shall be

limited, or shall not be permitted, or shall be permitted only by

specified types of fishing vessels or with specified types and quantities of fishing gear;

(3) establish specified limitations on the catch of fish (based on

area, species, sire, number, weight, sex, incidental catch, total

biomass, or other factors), which are necessary and appropriate

for the conservation and management of the fishery;

90 STAT. 350
Pub. Law 94-265 - 22 - April 13, 1976

(4) prohibit, limit, condition, or require the use of specified

types and quantities of fishing gear, fishing vessels, or equipment

for such vessels, including devices which may be required to

facilitate enforcement of the provisions of this Act;

(5) incorporate (consistent with the national standards, the

other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law) the

relevant fishery conservation and management measures of the

coastal 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 Council and the Secretary take into account.-

(A) resent participation in the fishery,

(B) historical fishing practices in, and dependence 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 conditions

and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery.

(c) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.–Any Council may prepare any proposed regulations which it deems necessary and appropriate to carry

out any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any fishery

management plan, which is prepared by it. Such proposed regulations

shall be submitted to the Secretary, together with such plan or amendment, for action by the Secretary pursuant to sections 304 and 305.

(d) CONFIDENTIALITY OF STATISTICS.-Any statistics submitted to

the Secretary by any person in compliance with any requirement under

subsection (a) (5) shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed

except when required under court order. The Secretary shall, by regulation. prescribe such procedures as may be necessary to preserve such

confidential ity., except that the Secretary may release or make public

any such statistics in any aggregate or summary form which does not

directly or indirectly disclose the identity or business of any person

who submits such statistics.

16 USC 1854. SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY.

(a) ACTION BY THE SECRETARY AFTER RECEIPT OF PLAN.—Within 60

days after the Secretary receives any fishery management plan, or

any amendment to any such plan, which is prepared by any Council,

the Secretary shall—

(1) review such plan or amendment pursuant to subsection (b) ;

and

(2) notify such Council in writing of his approval, disapproval,

or partial disapproval of such plan or amendment.

In the case of disapproval or partial disapproval, the Secretary shall

include in such notification a statement and explanation of the Secretary’s objections and the reasons therefor, suggestions for improvement. a request to such council to change such plan or amendment to

satisfy the objections, and a request to resubmit the plan or amend -

ment, as so modified, to the Secretary within 45 days after the date

on which the Council receives such notification.

(b) REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY.-The Secretary shall review any

fishery management plan, and any amendment to any such plan,

prepared by any Council and submitted to him to determine whether

90 STAT. 352

April 13, 1976 - 23 - Pub. Law 94-26 5

it is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of

this Act, and any other applicable law. In carrying out such review,

the Secretary shall consult with—

(1) the Secretary of State with respect to foreign fishing;

and

(2) the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard

is operating with respect to enforcement at sea.

(c) PREPARATION BY THE SECRETARY.-(l) The Secretary may prepare a fishery management, plan, with respect to any fishery, or an

amendment to any such plan, in accordance with the national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law,

if—

(i) the appropriate Council fails to develop and submit to the

Secretary, after a reasonable period of time, a fishery management plan for such fishery, or any necessary amendment to such

a plan, if such fishery requires conservation and management;

or

(B) the Secretary disapproves or partially disapproves any

such plan or amendment, and the Council involved fads to change

such plan or amendment in accordance with the notification made

under subsection (a) (2).

In preparing any such plan or amendment, the Secretary shall consult

with the Secretary of State with respect, to foreign fishing and with

the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating with respect to enforcement at sea.

(2) Whenever, pursuant to paragraph (1) the Secretary prepares

a fishery management plan or amendment, the Secretary shall promptly

transmit such plan or amendment to the appropriate Council for consideration 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 with

the national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any other

applicable law. After the expiration of such 45-day period, the Secretary may implement such plan or amendment pursuant to section 305.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (l), the Secretary may not include

in any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any such plan

prepared by him, a provision establishing a limited access system

described in section 303(b) (6), unless such system is first approved

by a majority of the voting members, present and voting, of each

appropriate Council.

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES.—The Secretary shall by regulation Regulations.

establish the level of any fees which are authorized to be charged

pursuant to section 303(b) ( 1). Such level shall not exceed the administrative costs incurred by the Secretary in issuing such permits.

(e) FISHERIES RESEARCH.—The Secretary shall initiate and maintain a comprehensive program of fishery research to carry out and

further the purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act. Such program

shall be designed to acquire knowledge and information, including

statistics, on fishery conservation and management, including, but not

limited to, biological research concerning the interdependence of fishcries or stocks of fish, the impact of pollution on fish, the impact of

wetland and estuarine degradation, and other matters bearing upon

the abundance and availability of fish.

(f) MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES.-(1) If any fishery extends beyond

the geographical area of authority of any one Council, the Secretary

may.—

(A) designate which Council shall prepare the fishery management plan for such fishery and any amendment to such plan; or

90 STAT. 353
16 USC 1855.

Publication in

Federal Register.

Written

comments.

Regulations.

5 USC 701

et seq.

Emergency

regulations.

Pub. Law 94-26 5 - 24 -

(B) may require that the plan

jointly by the councils concerned.

April 13, 1976

and amendment be prepared

No jointly prepared plan or amendment may be submitted to the

Secretary unless it is approk”ed by a majorit of the voting members,

present and voting, of each Councd concernei .

(2) The Secretary shall establish the boundaries between the

geographical areas of authority of adjacent Councils.

SEC. 305. IMPLE.MENTATION OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.

(a) IN GESERAL.-AS soon as practicable after the Secretary—

(1) approves, pursuant to section 304 (a) and (b), any fishery

n]:lni~grl)~~nt plan or amendment; or

(2) reparvs, pursuant to section 30-i(c), any fishery management p an or r nmendment;

the Se(treti]r}r shall publish in the Federal Register (A) such plan or

:mmndnwnt, and (II) any regulations which he proposes to promulgate

to in~plement such plan or amendment. Interested persons shall be

afforded a period of not less than 45 days after such publication within

n-h icl~ to Cubmit in writing data, views, or comments on the plan or

nnmndment, and on the prolwsed regmlat ions.

(b) Hn~~I~~.-The Secretary may schedule a hearing, in accord-

-

ance With sect 1011 ,).‘3 ). of title 5. I-nlted States (’ode. on any fishery

Inanagm-nent plan, any amendment to any such plan, and any regulat ions to implement any such plan or amendment. If any such hearing

is s(%wluled, the %v”etary m?-y, pending its outcome-

(A) postpone the e.ffectlvc. date of the regulations proposed to

in] plmnent such plan or amendment: or

(J3) tnkc such other action as he deems appropriate to preserve

the rights or status of any person.

(c) llrrl.~lci:x~.tTl(lx.—The Secretary shall promdgate regulations

to ilnplemcnt an~. fisher}. managenmnt plan or any amendment to any

SIICh plan—

(1) after ronsi(leration of 811 relevant nmttms---

(A) presente<l to him during the 45-day period referred

to in sllbsw-tion (a). and

(B) produced in any hearing held under subsection (b);

and

(2) if he finds that t}le plan or amendment is consistent with

the lmtional standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any

other applicable law.

To the extent practicable, such regulations shall be put into effcwt in

rt )I}annrr which does not disrupt the regular fishing season for any

fishery.

(d) ,JuDIcI.~L Rmmw.-Regulations promulgated by the Secretary

under this Act shall be subject to judicial review to the extent authorizrxi bJ:. and in accordance with, chapter 7 of title 5. Ilnited States

C’ode, lf a petition for such review is filed within 30 da after the

date on whwh the regulations are rornulgated: except t at (1) i section 705 of s1]c}l. t.ltle is not applica. 1P, E and (2) the appropriate court

shall on]v set aside an?’ sllch re=~latmn on a grollnd specified in section

70G(~) (Al, (B), (C). or (D) of such title.

(e) E~ER~EXCV .f(T1(~xs.-If the .&cretary finds that an emergency

invol~’ing nn~” fisherJ. resources exists, he may—

(1) promulgate em~rgency regulations, without regard to subsections (a) and (c), to implement any fishery mana=mment plan,

if slleh cnwrgency so requires: or

(2) romulgate emergency regulations to amend any regulation w r~ich implements any existing fishery management plan,

to the extent required by such emergency.

90 STAT. 3S4

April 13, 1976 - 25 - Pub. Law 94-26 5

Any emergency regulation which changes any existing fishery management plan shall he treated as an amendment to such plan for the

period in which such rebgdation is in effect. Any emergency regga,tion pronlulgated under this subsection (A) shall be published in

the Federal Register together with the reasons therefor; (B) shall

remain in etfect for not more t}mn 4,5 da~.s aftm the date of such publication. except that any such regulation may be repromulgated for

one a(lciit ional period of not more than 45 days; and (C) may be

terminatwi by the Secreta!y at any earlier date by publication in the

Federal Register of a notice of termination.

(f) A~NJAL Rmwm’.—The SecrctarJ” shall report to the Congress

and the President. not later than March 1 of each year, on all activities

of the Councils and the Secretary with respect to fishery management

plans, regulations to implement such plans, and all other activities

relating to the col~servation and management of fishery resources

tl~at were undertaken under this .fct during the preceding calendar

J.ear.

(g) I?~SPOXSI~l~.~11’ OF Tll~ Sl:(’swT~RY.-The .&?cretiry shall have

genera] rmponslbd lty to carry out ally fishery management p]an or

amendn~ent appro~’vd or pre])ared by him, in accordance with the

pro~.isions of this .\ct. The Secretary may promulgate such regulations, in accordance witl~ wction 553 of title 5, ITnited States Code,

as may be necessary to discharge such responsibility or to carry out

an~’ other pro~.ision of this Act.

SEC. 308. STATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN G~:XERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), nothing

in this Act shall be construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or author~t~. of any State within its boundaries. No State may

directly or indirect] regulate any fishing which is engaged in by any

fishing vessel outsi e its houndaries, unless J such vessel is registered

under the laws of such State.

(b) E X C Em O N. - (1) If the Secretary finds, after notica and an

opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5,

[Jnited States ~ode. that—

(.1) the fishing in a fishery, \vhich is covered by a fishery

mana~ement plan implemented under this .ict, is enga~d in

predominately within the fishery conservation zone and beyond

such zone; and

(B) any State l~as taken any action, or omitted to take any

action, the results of which will substantially and adversely affect

the carrying out of such fishery maria ement plan;

the Secretary shall promptly notify such ~tate 8 and the appropriate

Council of SUC}l finding and of his intention to regulate the applicable

fishery within the boundaries of such State (other than its internal

waters), pursuant to such fishery management plan and the

regulations promulgated to implement such lan.

(2) If the Secretary, pursuant to this su tion, L assumes responsibility for the regulation of any fishery, the State involved mav at

Publication in

Federal Register.

Publication in

Federal Register.

Report to

Congress and

fiesident.

Regulations.

16 USC 1856.

Notice, hearing.

any time thereafter apply to thi secretary for reinstatement of its

authority over such fishery. If the Secretar finds that the reasons

for which he assumed such regulation no i“onger prevail, he shall

promptly terminate such regulation.

SEC. 307. PROHIBITED ACTS. 16 USC 1857.

It is unlawful—

(1) for an~, person-

(A) to violate any provision of this Act or any regulation

or permit issued pursuant to this Act;

90 STAT. 3SS
A

GI

o

Pub. Law 94-265 - 26 - April 13, 1976

(B) to use any fishing vessel to engage in fishing after the

revocation, or during the period of suspension, ofan applicable permit issued pursuant to this Act;

(C) to violate any provision of, or regulation under an

applicable governing international fishery agreement entered

into pursuant. to section 201 (c) ;

(D) to refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforce

the provisions of this Act (as provided for in section 311)

to board a fishing vessel subject to such person’s control for

purposes of conducting any search or inspection in connection with the enforcement of this Act or any regulation,

permit, or agreement referred to in subparagraph (A) or

(C) ,

(E) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede. intimidate,

or interfere with any such authorized officer in the conduct

of any search or inspection described in subparagraph (D) :

(F) to resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited by this

section;

(G) to ship. transport. offer for sale, sell, purchase, import.

export, or have custody, control. or possession of. any fish

taken or retained in violation of this Act or any regulation.

permit, or agreement referred to in subparagraph (A) or

(C) : or

(H) to interfere with. delay, or prevent, by any means,

the apprehension or arrest of another person, knowing that

such other person has committed any act prohibited by this

sect ion: and

(2) for any vessel other than a vessel of the l-nited States.

an{l for tl]e owner or operator of al~~- \-cssel other than a l“ess~l

of the T“nitwl .States. to engage in fwhing-

(.f ) within the boundaries of any State: or

(B) within the fishery conwr~”atlon zone. or for any

madromous species or Cent inentnl Shelf fishery resources

beyond such zone. unles~ swh fishinu k nuthorlzed hy, an d

condllcted in accordance with, a valid and applicable permit

issued pursuant to section 20-4 (b) or (c).

16 USC 1858. SEC. 308. CIVIL PENALTIES.

(a) .fSSHSSMEXT OF I>k:X.\J,T’~-.—.fllJ: ])el’+011 ~$”ho is fo~llld l)J” the

secret ar~. after notice and an opportunity for a hraring in amwrdanee

~~-ith sw-~ ion .554 of title 5. T-nite(l States (’ode. to liat”r comnlittwl an

act llrohil)itwl by section 307 shall be 1 iahle to the T-nited States for

n ci \’il pmmlt.v. The amount of the civil penalt.v slmll not exreed

$Q~,~()() for ea~]l },iolat ion. ~nac}l da}’ of a continuing ~.iolation S1lXII

const itlltc a separate offense. The amount of such civil penalt~ shall

he aswssed b~’ the Secrdary, or his designee, b}- written notice. In

determining the amount of such p~nalt.v. the Secretiir} sIIall take

into :wmmnt the nature. ei rcunlst:lllt’es. extent. and gravit}” of the

])rollil)itrd acts cotnm ittml and. with respect to the violator. the

degree of culpnbil it.v. anl- history of l)rim” oflmws, ahil it )- to lMI)..

and sIIch otl)er matters m jllstim rim}- reqlli re.

(h) Rm]mv OF CIVIIJ P*:S \LTV.-.f n}’ person against ll”llolll a rivil

penalt?. is awsswl under sul)swt ion (a) nmJ- ol)tmin review thereof

in the appropriate court of tl~e ITR ited .Statcs l)J” filing a notice of

fl ])peal in Sllcll collrt w-it 11 i 11 3(J tl:l.1’s fmlll tllc date of s1l(.11 {)r(ler an(l

hy simultaneously sending a Copj’ of such notice hj. c~rti[ied mail

to the Secretary. The Sccretar}- sh:lll promptly file ]n slwh court a

mrt i fkd mpy of the record Ilpon wl)ich SIIC1l violation was found

90 STAT. 356

April 13, 197 6 - 27 - Pub. Law 94-26 5

or such penalty imposed, as provided in section 2112 of title 28,

United States Code. The findings and order of the Secretary shall

be set aside by such court if they are not found to be supported by

substantial evidence, as provided in section 706(2) of title 5, United

States Ode.

(c) Acmox I-rox FAII,t-RE To PAY &sZsmKENT.-1f any person

fails to pay an assessment of a cil”il pena]ty after it has become a final

and unappealable order, or after the appropriate court has entered

final judgment in favor of the secretary, the Semetary shall refer the

matter to the Attorney General of the I“nited States, who shall recover

the amount nssesswl m any apJ~ropriate district court of the ITnited

States. In such action, the )-alldit~. and appropriateness of the final

order imposing the cii”il penii]t

i

. shall not be subject to review.

(d) COXPROMISE oR OTIIER . CTIOX BY S~cR:TARY.-The secretary

]Im~. compromise, modify, or remit, w“kh or without conditions, any

(Cit”ll pellalt}. which is subject to imposition or which has been imposed

umler this section.

SEC. 309. CRIMINAL OFFENSES. 16 USC 18S9.

(a) OFm:xsEs.-.\ person is guilty of an offmse if he commits any

act prohibited ~y—

(1) section 307(1) (D), (E), (F), or (H) ; or

(~) s~tion 307(2).

(b) P[-XlSII}f~:XT.—.411}” offense described in subsection (a) (1) is

punishable by a fine of not more than $50.000. or imprisonment for

not more than 6 nlonths. or both; except that if in the commission of

any such offense the person uses a dangerous weapon, engages in conduct that causes bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce the

provisions of this .\ct (as provided for in section 311), or places any

slich officer in fear of imminent hodily injury, the offense is punishable

bl. a fine of not Ji~ore than $100.000, or imprisonment for not more than

10 years, or both. Any offense described in subsection (a) (2) is punisl~able by a fine of not more than $1 OO,OOO, or imprisonment for not

Ilmre than 1 year, or both.

(c) .J[’Rls~lc~lfjx.—Th~l’e is Federal jurisdiction over any offense

(lescrilwl in this section.

SEC. 310. CIVIL FORFEITURES. 16 USC 1860.

(a) Ix (;ExER.+L.-AII)’ fishing vessel (including its fishing gear,

furniture. appurtenances. stores. and cargo) used. and any fish taken or

retained, in any manner. in connection with or as a result of the commission of any act prohibited @ srction 307 (other than any act for

which the issuance of a citntlon under section 311 (c) is sufficient

sanct io]~ ) s}~all be sllbject to forfeitllre to the l~nited States. All or

part of such vessel may. an{l all slwh fish shall. be forfeited to the

I’nite(l States pursllant to a cil-il proceeding under this section.

(b) .JI-RISDICTIOX OF Corrrrs.-.Kny district court of the IJnited

States which ]Ms juris(liction under section 311 ((1) shall have jurisdiction. upon t-application by the Attorney General on behalf of the

[“nited States, to order any forfeiture authorized under subsection

(a) and any action provided for under subsection (d).

(c) ,J~mowxT.-If a jud-m~ent is entered for the Ijnitecl States in

n civil forf~iture proceeding under this section. the Attorney General

mav seim any l)rolwrty or other interest declared forfeited to the

~-n~t~d States. which has not previously been seized pursuant to this

Act or for which secltrity has not previously been obtained under subsection (d). The provisions of the customs laws relating tti

(I) tlw disposition of forfeited property,

(2) the proceeds from thesa]e of forfeited property,

90 STAT. 3S7
16 USC 1861.

Reports to

congressional

committees.

Pub. Law 94- Zb5 - L8 - April 13, 1976

(:]) the renlissiwl or mitigation of forfeitures, and

(4) the compromise of claims,

shall apply to any forfeiture ordered, and to any case in which forfeiture is alleged to be authorized, under this section, unless such provisions are inconsistent with the purposes, policy, and pro~’isions of

this .ict. The duties and powers imposed upon the Commissioner of

Custonls or other persons uncler such movisions shall, with respect to

this Act, be performed by officers or ot im persons designated for such

pII rpose l)}. the Secretary.

(d) PWKVW[-RE. -( 1) .~ny officer authorized to ser~-e any process in

rrm ~~”hicb is issued b~. a couJt ha~-ing jurisdiction under section 311

(d) shall–

(.1 ) stm~” the exwnltion of such process; or

( 11) disrharge an~. fisl~ seized pursuant to such process;

upon the receipt of a satisfactory bond or other security from any

person claiming such property. Such bond or other security shall be

co]lc]it ioned upon such person ( i ) delivering such property to the

appropriate court upoJ~ order thereof, ~-ithout any impairment of its

\.iil IIe, or (ii) I)nying the monetary value of such property pursuant

to aJ~ order of such court. .Ju&grnent shall be recoverable on such bond

or other security against both the princi al and any sureties in the

elent that an}’ condition thereof is breac led, f’ as determined by such

COllrt.

(2) .~ny fish seized pursuant to this Act may be sold. subject to the

a I)prova] and direction of the appropriate court. for not less than the

fi~ir market value thereof, The proceeds of anv such sale shall be

(Ieposited with s[;ch court pending the dispo~ition of the matter

i ]1~-ol ~.ed.

(e) Rm\rm.mT,E PmXxmTrox.-For purposes of this section, it

shxll i)e a rebuttable presurn])t ion thnt all fish fmlnd OJ) board a fishing

\rssel which is seized in ronnect ion with an act prohibited by section

;l(}~ ~~-t>r~ takerl or ret:lincd iJl \.io]atioll of this .f(.t.

SEC. 311. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) RESPONSIMLITY.- The pro~”isions of this ,Ict shall be ersforcwl

1)~- the ~ecretar~~ an(l the Secretary of the department in which the

Coast Guard is operating. SUCII Secretaries nmy, by agreement, on a

rci Jnl)IIwJl)le Ixlsis OJ. otherwise, utilize t I IF ]wrsonncl. ser~. icrs. eqllip -

]nent ( in(.l~l(ling aircraft and \-essels), and facilities of Rn}’ other

FWIVJW1 agency, inclll(ling all elements of the Departnlent of T)cfense,

aIId of an}. ,State ageJlc}’, in the perfornlancp of sIwlI dllt ies. .Such

,Secretaries shall report sw]lian)llmll~.. to each con~mitter of tile Con-

~IPSS1 iste~ iJl section ?03 ( 1) ) and to the C.mincils. on the degree and

extent of known nJl(l est i Jnated Compliance wit]) t iie pro~.isions of

this .frt.

(1)) pInJ”ERS OF .\ I-TJIORIZED OFFJCERS.-Any oficer who is SIllthOrizrd (h}- the Swrctnr~:, the Secretary of the departm~nt in which the

{’oJJst ~llard is Oprrotlng, or the lIwId of any Fcvleral or State agency

\\”l~ i(ll l~ns rlltere(l into an agreemwt with such Secretaries under subsect ion ( n ) ) to en forre the ])rovisions of t}] is Act n]ay-

( 1 ) \\itll Or l~itl~ollt a \f.arr:lnt oJ. othrr proccss-

(.\ ) arrc+t :In?. person, if be has reasonable calwe to helieve

tl)at sllcb person hns committed an act prohibited by section

307 :

(B) ~)O~J.d. and Se~ll’}1 or inspect, any fishing vessel wl~icll

is s(llljeet to t lIe lIro\ isions of this .fct :

((’) wize any fishing VCSSC1 (together with its fishing grar.

furniture, appurtenances. stores, and cargo) used or employecl

90 STAT. 358

April 13, 19’76 - 29 - Pub. Law 94-26 5

in, or with res wet to which it reasonably appeam that SUC1l

vessel was use(\ or employed in, the violation of any provision of this Act;

(D) seize any fish (wherever found) taken or retained in

~.iolat ion of an}. pro~ision of this Act; and

(E) seize any other evidence related to any violation of

an}” provision of this .~ct:

(2) ixecut,e any” warrant or other process issued by any court

of competent jilri~dict ion; and

(3) exercise an . ot}]er ]awfu] authority.

(c) ISS[.AX(W OF ?rr.~moxs.-If any oficer authorized to enforce

the provisions of this -Ict (as pro~’ided for in this section) finds that a

fishing ~-msel is operating or has been operated in violation of any

pro~.ision of this .ict. such oflicer nla~., in accordance with regulations

issuwl jointl~. b}” the Secretar}. and the Secretary of the department

in which the (’east (;uuJ.d is operating, issue a citation to the owner

or operator of SUCII \-e.ssel in lieu of proceeding under subsection (b).

If a permit hils been issued pumuant to this Act for such >.esse], such

otli(’er shall note the issuance of any citation under this subswtion,

including tile (late thereof and the reason therefor, on the permit. The

secret:lr~, s}lal~ ll~llintain a record of all citations issued pursuant tO

this subs(@ ion.

(d) .JL-RISDI(TIOX OF ~OI”RTS.- The district courts of the llnke~l

States slm]l hate exclusi~-e jurisdiction over an~’ case or controversy

arising umler the pro~-isions of this .Kct. In the case of Guam, and

any ~’ommonwealth, territory, or possession of the [-nited States in

the I’acific Ocean, the appropriate court is the United States District

~’ourt for the District of Guam, except that in the case of American

.Samoa, the appropriate court is the IJnited States District Court for

the I)istrict of Ilawaii. .lny such court may, at any time-

(1) enter restraining orders or prohibitions;

(2) issue warrants, process in rem, or other process;

(3) prescribe and accept satisfactory bonds or other security;

and

(4) take such other actions as are in the interest of justice.

(e) ]hwlxrrIoX.—For purposes of this section—

(1) The term “provisions of this Act” includes (A) any regulation or permk issued pumuant to this Act, and (B) any provision of, or regulation issued pursuant to, any international

fish~ry agreement under which foreign fishing is authorized by

sectmn 201 (b) or (c). with respect to fishing subject to the exclusive fishery management authority of the Ilnited States.

(2) The term “violation of any provision of this .Act” includes

(-.~) the commission of an%’ act prohibited by =tion3~71 and (B)

the violation of nny regulation, permit, or agreement referrrd to

in paragraph ( 1).

SEC. 312. EFFEmIVE DATE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS. 16 USC 1857

Sections 307, 308, 309, 310, and 311 shall take effect March 1, 1977. ‘de”

TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. EFFECT ON LAW OF THE SEA TREA’lY. 16 USC 1881.

If the I-nited States ratifies n conlprehensive treaty, which includes

provisions with respect to fishe~y conservation and management jurisdiction, result ing from any I-nlted X’ations Conference on the Law of

the Sea. the Secretary. after consultation with the Secretary of State,

may promulgate an.v amendment to the regulations promulgated

under this Act if such amendment is necessary and appropriate tm

90 STAT. 359
Pub. Law 94-26 5 - 30 - April 13, 1976

conform such regulations to the provisions of such trerrty, in antici ation of the date when such treaty shall come into force and eflext! or,

or otherwise be applicable to, the [Tnited States.

SEC. 402. REPEALS.

(a) The Act of October 14,1966 (16 I.J.S.C. 1091-1094), is repealed

as of March 1, 1977.

(b) The Act of May 20, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1081-1086), is repealed

as of March 1, 1977.

SEC. 403. FISHERMEN’S PROTEC1’IVE A(7I’ A.MENDME.NTS.

(a) .& EXIJMESTS.- The .l~’t of August 27, 1954 (22 11.S.C. 1972),

is amen(led-

(1) l}y anwnding section 2 thereof to read as follows:

“SEC. 2. If—

“(1) any vessel of the [-nited States is seized by a foreign

country on the l.msis of claims in territorial waters or the h@

seas wh]c.h nre not recognized by the 1 ~nitecl .States: or

“(2) any grneral cla.inl of any foreign countrv to exclusive

fislwry management autlmrity is recognized by the united States,

and any J-rxsscl of the I’nited States is seized by such foreign

country on the basis of conditions and restrictions under such

ela im. ]f sucl~ conditions and restrictions. -

‘*(A) are unrelated to fishery conservation and nlanngernent.

“(B) fnil to consider and take into account tra(litional

fishing practices of vessels of the [Tnited States,

“’(C) are greater or more onerous than the conditions and

restrictions which the I“nited States applies to foreign fishing vessels subject to the exclusive fishery management

authority of the I-nited States (as established m title I of tlie

Fishery (’(mser\”aricm and }Ianagernent Act of 1976). or

“( T)) frril to ZIIOW fishit;g vessels of the l’nitwl Strrtes

e~llitill)le :lccWS to fish su}.qect to such country”s excltwive

fisl)er~~ nmnagwnent authmvt?’:

and there IS no displlte as to the material facts with respect to

tlw l(WiitiOll or ncti\”ity of such \-essel at tile time of such seizure,

the Secretary of State shall imnlediatel~’ take such steps as are

IN?W+snr}:-

“(1) for the protection of such vessel and for the health

and WP1 fare of its crew:

“ (ii) to sw”llre the relen.se of sllch vessel an{l its crew: and

“( iii) to detcrntine the runount of nnv fine. license. fee. regist ration fw~. or other (lirect c.hnrge rein] hursalde under srction

Infra. 3(n) of this .fct.’.: and

muse 1973. (2) b~. wlwn(ling section :I(n) thereof by inserting immediately

before tile lnst sentence thereof the followlng new sentence: “For

purpo.ws of this section, the term ‘other direct charge’ means any

levy:. howmwr characterized or computed (including. hut not

limltcd to. an}. comlmtntion based on the value of n \-essel or the

value of fish or other proper-t y on hoard n vessel). which is imposed

in n(ldition to nn}’ fine. license fee. or registration fee.”

22 USC 1972 (b) EFFE(,TII”K 1).im.–’lle nmemlment made hy subsection (a) (1)

note.

22 Usc 1973

shall take effect Mnrch 1. 1 !)77. Tlw amentlment made b}- subwct ion

(a) (2) shall apply with respect to seizures of vessels of the T’nited note. States Ocmlrring on or a ftcr Ihcenlber 31.1974.

SEC. 404. MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION A(7I’ AMENDMENT.

(a) .fnfRx~sf*:xT.—*ction 3(15) (11) of the Marine Mammal Protection .~ct of 1972 (16 [J.S.C. 1362(15) (B) ) is amended by striking

90 STAT. 360

April 13, 197 6 - 31 - Pub. Law 94-26 5

out “the fisheries zone established lmrsuant to tllo .ict of October 14,

196G.’” and inserting in li~u thimof ‘-the \\iltelS illc]uded within a

zone, contifl]olls to the territorial Wa of tllc ~T]lite(] .$tiltCs, of which

the inner boumlar}. is a line coterlllinolls with tl~v scawnr{I bollndar~”

of each coastal .State. and tile outer l)o~tll(lil[.}. is :1 line dr:iwll ill SUCh

a manner that c:i(”h ])oillt (m it is 2[ )0 Iltiut i(”il 1 Itli I(W frolll t IIC l}ilqil i I)C

from whicli the territorial sea is lr)easll~~,l.’..

(b) EFFWCIW; 1).\ T~:.-The ilnlendrnent riul{le l)}’ sulw{.tioll ( ii)

shrill take effect March 1, l!~77.

SEC. 40S. ATLANTIC TUNAS COIWENTION AC1’ AMENDMENT.

(a) i~hlIINDMEXT.—.%xlion 2(4) of the Atlantic Tunas (’on}. rntion

Act of 1975 (16 U. S.(:. 971 (4)) is amended by striking out “the

fisheries zone establis]wd pu~llant to the Ad Of october 14, 1%1~ (W

Stat. 908; 16 U.S.(;. 1091 -1094),” and inserting ill liru thereof “t!w

waters included within a zone, contiguous to the territorial sea of the

United States, of which the inner boundary is a line coterminous with

the seaward boundary of each coastal State, and the outer boundary

is a line drawn in such a manner that eacli point on it is 2(K) nautical

miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.””.

(b) EFFECTIVE 1).\ T};.-The amendment rnwlc by subsection (a) shall

take effect March 1,1977.

SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary].. for purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act. not to exceed the

following sums:

(1) $5,000+)00 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1976.

(2) $5,000,000 for the transitional fiscal quarter ending September 30,1976.

(3) $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977.

(4) $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,1978.

Approved April 13, 1976 .

16 USC 1362

note.

16 USC 971

note.

16 USC 1882.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

HCWSE REPORTS: No. 94445 (Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries)

and No. 94-948 (Comm. of Conference~

SENATE REPCRTS: No. 94-416 (Comm. on Commerce), No. 94-4S9

(Comm. on Foreign Relaticms~ and No. 94-s1s

(Comm. on Armed services) all accompanying S

and No. 94-711 (Comm. of Conference~

CCNGRE.SSIONAL RECCRD:

Vol. 121 (197S~ Ckt. 9, considered and passed House.

Dec. 19, S. 961 considered in Senate.

Vol. 122 (1976) Jan. 19-22, 27, S. %1 considered in Senate.

Jan. 28, considered and passed Senate, amended,

in lieu of S. %1.

Mar. 29, Senate agreed to conference repcrt.

Mar. 30, House agreed to conference re~.

WEEKLY C OMPILATION ff PRESIDENTIAL DCCUMENTS:

Vol. 12, No. 16 (1976) Ap. 13, Presidential statemen~

90 STAT. 361

I