Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 ManagerPeter A. Johnson, Project Director
Prudence S. Adler Emilia L. GovanKathleen A. Beil Richard C. RaymondThomas A. Cotton Judith M. RoalesRenee M. Crawford Bennett L. Silverstein
CONGRESS OFTHE UNITED STATES
Office of Technology AssessmentWASHINGTON, 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. Ho l l ingsChairmanNational Ocean Policy StudyUni ted S ta tes Sena teWashington, D. C. 20510
The Honorable John P. MurphyChairmanMerchant Marine and Fisheries CommitteeU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairmen:
On behalf of the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment,we a re fo rward ing to you the repor t , Es tab l i sh ing a 200-MileF i sher ies Zone .
This report concludes OTA’s assessment of important problemsand opportunit ies which resul t from implementat ion of theFishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which becameef fec t ive March 1 o f th i s yea r .
The assessment was conducted in accord with a request fromthe Senate National Ocean Policy Study in January 1974, anda subsequent request by the House Merchant Marine and FisheriesCommittee.
W A S H I N G T O N , D . C . 2 0 5 1 0
The Honorable Edward M. KennedyChairman of the BoardOffice of Technology AssessmentU.S. CongressWashington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed report , Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone,presents OTA’s analysis of important problems and opportunit ieswhich result from implementing the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1976.
The assessment which led to this report was requested by theChairmen of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study and the HouseMerchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The assessment was con-ducted by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with input fromrepresen ta t ives o f the f i sh ing indus t ry and government agenc ieswhich a re invo lved in ca r ry ing ou t p rov i s ions o f the l eg i s l a t ionwhich ex tended U.S . ju r i sd ic t ion over commerc ia l f i she r i e s ou tto the 200-mi le l imi t .
The report analyzes four major aspects of the new fisherieslaw: 1) en fo rcement o f f i she r i e s r egu la t ions and U.S . ju r i s -d ic t ion ove r the f i she ry zone ; 2) management of the new fisheryzone ; 3) i n fo rmat ion which wi l l be needed fo r implementa t ion o fthe law; and 4 ) oppor tun i t i e s fo r expand ing and r ev i t a l i z ing theU.S . f i sh ing indus t ry a s a r e su l t o f implementa t ion o f the l aw.Among the conclusions of the report are suggest ions for fourp i lo t p ro jec t s wh ich cou ld a id Federa l agenc ies in de te rmin ingthe most successful and cost-effect ive means of implementingcer ta in aspec t s o f the l aw.
This transmittal includes two volumes: the a s sessment r epor tand working papers which provide back-up material for discus-s ions in the r epor t .
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
. . .Ill
AcknowledgementsThe staff wishes to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the following
contractors and consultants in the gathering and formulation of the background data:
James M. Acheson, University of MaineFrederick W. Bell, Florida State UniversityDevelopment Sciences Inc., East Sandwich,
MassachusettsDouglas CampbellEastland Resolution Fisheries Survey,
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf State MarineFisheries 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, FloridaRobert E. Taber, University of Rhode IslandJohn Vernberg, University of South
Carolina
The staff further wishes to acknowledge the assistance of former OTA staff memberCynthia Mercing, who worked on the early development of this study, and those otherpeople and organizations, both public and private, which reviewed and commented onvarious draft documents circulated by OTA or provided other types of assistance:
W i l l i a m T . B u r k e , U n i v e r s i t y o fWashington
Francis T. Christy, Resources for the FuturePatrick J. Doody, Zapata-Haynie Corp.David J. Etzold, Univeristy of Southern
MississippiWade L. Griffin, Texas A & M UniversitySig Jaeger, North Pacific Fishing Vessel
Owners Assn.Lauriston R. King, National Science Foun-
dation
Gilbert C. Radonski, Sport Fishing InstituteCourtland L. Smith, Oregon State Univer-
sityRichard Stroud, Sport Fishing InstituteU.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries ServiceU.S. Department of Defense, Office of the
Oceanographer of the NavyU.S. Department of State, Oceans and Fish-
eries AffairsU.S. Department of Transportation, Coast
J.L. McHugh, State University of New York GuardWilliam G. Mustard, Atlantic States Fish- Lee Weddig, National Fisheries
cries Commission Walt V. Yonker, AssociationVirgil Norton, University of Rhode Island FisheriesS u s a n B . P e t e r s o n , W o o d s H o l e
Oceanographic Institution
Instituteof Pacific
PrefaceThis report, “Establishing a 200-Mile Fishery Zone,” is the result of a
study of the major problems and opportunities which may occur because ofthe Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The study was re-quested by Senator Ernest F. Hollings on behalf of the Senate NationalOcean Policy Study in January 1974, and by former Representative LenoreK. Sullivan of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in April1974. Upon retirement, Mrs. Sullivan was replaced by Representative JohnMurphy as Chairman of that Committee. These requests were endorsed bySenator Edward M. Kennedy in September 1975, and subsequently approvedfor execution by the Technology Assessment Board.
The report was prepared by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with theassistance of advisors from the fishing industry, Government, and academiawho reviewed draft materials and provided guidance.
The work undertaken by the Office of Technology Assessment, andreported in this document, was confined to evaluation of techniques whichwill be used for enforcing regulations in the 200-mile fishery zone, problemswhich may be encountered in the management of fisheries, and informationwhich will be needed in order to implement the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1976. This limited scope made it possible for OTA tooffer specific criticism of existing systems and specific suggestions for con-gressional action to further improve fisheries conservation and manage-ment.
The Technology Assessment Board, governing body of OTA, approvesthe release of this report, which identifies a range of viewpoints on a signifi-cant issue facing the U.S. Congress. The views expressed in this report arenot necessarily those of the Board, the OTA Advisory Council, or of in-dividual members thereof.
Table of ContentsPAGE
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
2121232427293842434345464750525355575758
PAGE
Chapter IV
MANAGEMENT OF NEW U.S. FISHERIES ZONE ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Optimum Sustainable Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Regional Fishery Management Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Preliminary Management Plans for Foreign Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Final Management Plans for Domestic Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Evaluation of Management Effectiveness. .....,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Chapter V
INFORMATION NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 94-265... 75
Biological Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Status of Current Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Methods of Improving Information Base..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Economic Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Status of Current Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Methods of Improving Information Base .,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Social Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Status of Current Information, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Methods of Improving Information Base...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Chapter VI
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Stock Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96New Markets for Fish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Revitalization 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 PapersWorking Paper No. 1: Economic Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Ex-
tended Jurisdiction by John M. Gates
Working Paper No. 2: Social Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under ExtendedJurisdiction by James M. Acheson, University of Maine
Working Paper No. 3: Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment: Issues and Needs byDevelopment Sciences Inc.
Working Paper No. 4: A Short Analysis of Stock Enhancement Possibilities for CertainCommercially Important Marine Species by John Vernberg, University of SouthCarolina
Working Paper No. 5: Survey of the Potential of Remote Sensing Technology to Sup-port Enforcement of the 200-Mile Fishing Zone by Stanford Research Institute
List of FiguresFigure No. Page
1234
5
6789
101112
1314151617
18192021222324
2526
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 ofSelected Surveillance Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expected Number of Undetected Violations by Month Under “No Effort,” FY75 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 En-forcement of the 200-nmi Fishing Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Useful Surveillance Coverage by a State-of-the-Art Microwave Radar . . . . .Over-the-Horizon Radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Over-the-Horizon Radar Coverage From Hypothetical Stations. . . . . . . . . . .Airborne Scanning Microwave Radiometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regional Council Jurisdictions and National Marine Fisheries ServiceRegions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appointed Voting Members of Regional Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Duties of Regional Council and National Marine Fisheries Service . . . . . . . .Fishery Management Plans, as of February 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 Can-adian Groundfish Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fishermen’s Opinions of Their Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fishermen’s Sources of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
345
2 6
31323334353644
4 8 - 4 9515 35 45 5
6 46 5 - 6 66 77 071728 7
100101102
x
1. Introduction
Fish are an important part of man’s patternof survival.
Directly-that is, fish and shellfish con-sumed by man—fish provide about 14 percentof the world’s supply of animal protein. TheFood and Agricultural Organization (FAO) ofthe United Nations has estimated that everyman, woman, and child in the world con-sumes an average of 26 pounds of fish eachyear.l
However, that figure varies greatlyfrom country to country, ranging from only asmall fraction-of-a-pound per person per yearin Afghanistan to more than 86 pounds perperson per year in Iceland, In the UnitedStates, the average consumption per person isabout 12 pounds of fish annually. z Accordingto FAO the consumption of fish is likely to in-crease through 1990 at a growth rate higherthan that of beef, pork, vegetables, cereal, ormilks This suggests increasing pressure onalready heavily utilized ocean resourcesworldwide in the next 10 years,
Indirectly—in the form of meal and oil fedto pigs and chickens which are in turn eatenby man—fish provide another 10 or 11 per-cent of the world’s animal protein.4
Twenty years ago, the United States was theworld’s second largest fishing nations But by1974 American fisherman were fifth, catchingonly 4 percent of the world’s supply of fish.6
In that time, the U.S. catch had dropped onlyabout 8 percent, but the catch of some foreignnations had increased by as much as 250 per-cent.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, with-in 200 miles of the coasts, about one-fifth ofthe world’s fishery resources are located.9
Worldwide, the National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration has projected thatthe oceans can sustain an annual catch of only100-million metric tons, a catch figure theyexpect to be reached by 1980.10 Already, in-creased fishing has caused acute pressure onsome stocks, depleting the supply andthreatening their existence. For example, offthe coast of the United States about 20 speciesof fish and shellfish are believed to beseriously depleted11 (see figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1U.S. Landings, Imports,and Consumption ofEdible Fishery Products
87
6
4
2
0
Total Consumption
1 9 5 0 1 9 6 0 19’70
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration
%iot all stocks de@a&M
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Historically, access to fishing grounds hasbeen uncontrolled. Fish have been a common-property resource, available to any and all na-tions and individuals who seek to hunt themand harvest them. This common-propertynature has prevented any one nation fromassuming management control and has maderegulation of the catch difficult. Conservationof stocks has not been successful in spite of in-ternational agreements and treaties with otherfishing nations.
As a result, technically sophisticated foreignfishing fleets have taken a heavy toll in tradi-tional U.S. fisheries, particularly off the north-east and northwest coasts where there areseveral species of prime interest to U.S. com-
mercial fishermen and consumers. The declineof the New England haddock fishery whichwas reduced from a major commercial en-terprise in 1950 to a relatively small activitytoday, is a principal example of the effects ofoverfishing within 200 miles of the U.S.coasts. The U.S. haddock catch in 1950 was 20times larger than it was in 1974.12 Total catchof other important commercial species, suchas flounder and ocean perch, also declined asoverfishing reduced the amount of stockavailable (see figure 3).
In response to widespread public concernabout overfishing, the U.S. Congress moved toadopt a 200-mile fishery zone to give theUnited States power to limit or excludeforeign fishing off its coasts and impose onboth foreign and U.S. fishermen respon-sibilities for conservation and utilization ofthe fishery resources within the zone.
In passing the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265), Con-gress officially noted that certain stocks of fishoff the coasts of this country “have been over-fished to the point where their survival isthreatened and other such stocks have been sosubstantially reduced in number that theycould become similarly threatened.”13
The law made it the policy of the UnitedStates to establish a “workable and effective”fisheries management and conservationprogram based on the best scientific informa-tion available, involving interested States andcitizens, and drawing on Federal, State, andacademic capabilities to carry out research,administration, management, and enforce-ment. 14
On March 1, 1977, the law went into effect.A beginning was made toward reaching thedifficult goals of conserving, managing, anddeveloping the fisheries off U.S. coasts. To ac-complish these goals, the law establishesRegional Councils--groups which reflect theexpertise and interests of the States along each
Figure 3Historic Worid andU.S. Landings ofFish and Shellfish
50
0’1 9 5 0 1960 1970
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration
fishery—to oversee implementation of the lawand become managers of the fish and shellfishresources off their coast. Already these coun-cils have been involved to some extent in theNational Marine Fisheries Service work to setsome 1977 catch limitations and draw uppreliminary regulations.
But this is just the outline of a system whichmust be developed in future years as the coun-cils, Government, fishermen, and the Nationgain better information and understanding fortheir job.
The task of husbanding the U.S. fisheryresources is a major one. At stake is not only amajor supply of animal protein, but also anAmerican industry which provides employ-ment for more than a quarter-of-a-millionpeople15 and has a $6.5 billion impact on theU.S. economy.16 It is a resource used byforeign fishermen from more than 17 na-tions, 17 U.S. commercial fishermen, and anestimated 30 million18 recreational fishermen,whose catch is roughly equal in size and valueto the catch of edible fish by U.S. commercialfishermen. 19
Managing such a resource will involvescientific, social, and political problems formany years to come. Not the least of theseproblems is the fact that implementation ofthe law will require the use of much informa-tion about all phases of the fishing industry—information which has not been consistentlycollected and analyzed in the past. But if theprinciples established by the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act are pursued,there is substantial promise of a rationalsystem for resolving conflicts between theneeds of foreign, domestic, and recreationalfishermen and the need for conservation.
The major problems relate to how theUnited States will determine and enforce newmanagement regulations, how it will build theinformation base necessary for reachingmanagement decisions and laying conserva-tion strategies, and how it will revitalize theexisting fishing industry and develop new op-portunities. This report addresses some ofthose problems which are amenable to possi-ble solution by actions of the U.S. Congress.Some potential actions for Congress and ap-propriate Federal agencies are identified.
Neither the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act or this report cover allproblem areas or possible solutions. For ex-ample, many species of inshore and migratoryhigh seas fisheries are still unregulated and
5
may be subject to increasing fishing pressures however, raise considerable hope for restoringif stronger controls are placed on stocks in the stocks and encouraging the American fishing200-mile zone. Tuna is the major commercial industry to expand. Some of the potential newstock which is excluded from U.S. jurisdiction opportunities which may result are also dis-as a highly migratory species. The Act does, cussed in this report.
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 Conservationand Management Act of 1976 became effec-tive, extending U.S. jurisdiction over offshorefisheries within 200 miles of its coast andpossessions, and making it the policy of theland to use some of the most advanced ideasavailable about ways to mange marine fish-eries.
Implementation of the law will require alevel of understanding about the fishingresources and industry that has never beforebeen attempted by the U.S. Government. Itwill require development of methods ofbalancing biological, economic, and social fac-tors relating to fisheries in order to best servethe national needs. Most of the informationnecessary for this process does not yet exist.
The law establishes Regional Councils towork with the National Marine FisheriesService of the Department of Commerce inmanaging fishery resources and setting outregulations, including allocation of the catchof commercial species between domestic andforeign fishermen. Preliminary regulationsand catch allocations have been drawn up, butbetter working relationships between all in-terested parties are needed and many changeswill be necessary in early management ac-tivities as experience is gained.
Management of the 200-mile fishery zonewill, of necessity, have enforcement of regula-tions as an integral part if it is to accomplishrestoration and conservation of fish stocksand provide the domestic fishing industrywith incentive to grow. The U.S. Coast Guard
will be primarily responsible for enforcingregulation of foreign fishermen and the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service will overseedomestic fishing. Both enforcement groupsare beginning their tasks by increasing exist-ing activities. This appears appropriate for thetime being, but it is likely new enforcementtechniques and advanced equipment will beneeded in the future. Improvements areneeded in long-term evaluation of enforce-ment needs, costs and benefits, and attentionshould be given to coordinating some militaryinformation and equipment with Coast Guardrequirements for fisheries.
The Office of Technology Assessment’sanalysis of implementation of the new 200-mile fisheries zone can be expressed in termsof the conclusions reached during the assess-ment, the practical and organizationalproblems which were discovered, and theOTA suggestions for resolving thoseproblems.
The overall conclusions of the assessmentare given here for each of the major subjectareas of the report. These conclusions aregrouped as they relate to:
●
●
●
●
enforcement of the U.S. fisheries regula-tions and jurisdiction;
management of the new fisheries zone;
data which will be needed for implemen-tation of the law; and
opportuni t ies for expanding andrevitalizing the U.S. fishing industrywhich may result from implementationof the law.
These overall conclusions include four pilotprojects, which are OTA’s major suggestionsfor determining the most successful and cost-effective means of enforcing U.S. jurisdictionin the 200-mile fisheries zone.
9
Enforcement
Also included in this Summary are some ofthe specific problems which stand in the wayof full implementation of the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act of 1976.
It is the practice of the Office of TechnologyAssessment to make an objective analysis of asubject and not to recommend specific policyactions to the US. Congress. Adhering to thatpractice, OTA has made no policy recommen-dations in this report. However, due to thepractical nature of this report and the desiresof the congressional committee which re-quested this study, it seemed appropriate inthis case to make a number of specific sugges-tions for more effective implementation of theFishery Conservation and Management Act of1976. These recommendations are outlined inthis section and discussed in more detailwhere appropriate in later sections.
Throughout this Summary, page numbersare noted after individual conclusions in orderto simplify reference to fuller discussion in themain text of the report.
Need for Enforcement
Adequate management and strict en-forcement offer the opportunity for futureincrease in fish stocks and yields due totighter controls to prevent overfishing, lesspressure on stocks which are normallytaken as bycatch, less conflict among fisher-men for certain grounds, less conflict be-tween different types of equipment, andassurance of workable allocation of catchquotas among foreign and U.S. fishermen.(See pages 27 to 29.)
The Existing Coast Guard Enforcement Planfor Foreign Fisheries
The Coast Guard plan of increasing itspresent fishery enforcement capabilities is areasonable first step in enforcement. It isflexible in that resources can be added at areasonable first cost and the program can becurtailed or accelerated as assumptions andneed are proven or disproven by ex-perience. (See pages 29 to 31.)
Enforcement of Domestic Fisheries by NMFSand USCG
The National Marine Fisheries Service’spresent approach to enforcing regulationsin domestic fisheries by means of docksideinspections may be sufficient under the newlaw if it is combined with a program of ran-dom at-sea inspections, However, if regula-tions for domestic fisheries duplicate thekinds of gear restrictions and operationalcontrols used in foreign fisheries, more at-sea enforcement capability will be needed.(See pages 29 to 31.)
In the event that an at-sea enforcementcapability is needed in domestic fisheries,the Coast Guard could use the same types ofequipment and techniques which areplanned for enforcement activities in
10
foreign fisheries. However, additionalfacilities would be needed to cover thedifferent areas used by domestic fishermenand the additional fishing vessels. (Seepages 29 to 31.)
Techniques To Improve Near-Term Enforce-ment Effectiveness
Several fairly simple strategies whichcould be activated almost immediately forenforcement have not been given favorableconsideration by the Coast Guard and theNational Marine Fisheries Service. Three ofthese are:
1) establishment of an efficient reportingsystem which would allow domestic fisher-men to aid in observing foreign fishingvessels,
2) more extensive use of observers on-board foreign fishing vessels, and
3) creation of specific guidelines to befollowed in granting annual fishing permitsand renewing Governing InternationalFishery Agreements. (See pages 38 to 42.)
Extensive use should be made of observ-ers in a dual role: to collect data needed formanagement of fisheries and to observefishing operations for enforcement func-tions. A near-blanket program of observersmay be necessary for a dependable, cost-effective enforcement program. (See pages38 to 43.)
Planning Needed for Long-Term Enforce-ment
Remote-Sensing Systems for Future Enforce-ment Needs
The cost of most remote-sensing systemsis high and it will probably be necessary toshare the cost of such systems with otherusers. However, remote-sensing devicescould be expected to improve enforcementby better coverage, better performance, anda reduction of the need for expanding con-ventional ship and aircraft patrols of fishingareas in the future. (See pages 46 to 47.)
Transponders have good future potentialfor use in fisheries enforcement. Par-ticularly when combined with Loran-C,transponders can be used to detect, identify,and classify fishing vessels. (See pages 47 to49.)
New microwave radar equipment has thetechnical potential to supplement or sup-plant existing airborne radar for fisheriesenforcement within the next 10 years, butthe cost would be very high. (See pages 50to 52.)
Over-the-horizon radar techniques havegood potential for use in fisheries enforce-ment. However, due to both the classifiednature of most of the military work in thefield and the high cost, use of this systemwill be contingent upon close cooperationbetween the Department of Defense and theCoast Guard. (See pages 52 to 53.)
It is likely that proposed near-term en-forcement capabilities will not be adequatefor long-range demands. Therefore, plansshould be made for further improvementsin enforcement by use of remote-sensingdevices and other advanced technology.(See pages 43 to 45.)
11
Recommended PilotProjects in Enforcement
Recommendations on Enforcement Levelsand Evaluation (see pages 24 to 29)
Problem 1: No desirable level of enforcementhas been determined, based on a policy deci-sion, as to what level of enforcement is mostdesirable.
Recommendation: In order to determine thetype of effort and equipment necessary, thereshould be a specific definition of the desirablelevel of enforcement, followed by regularassessment of changing enforcement needsand the actual level of enforcement which hasbeen achieved compared to the desired level.In addition, the Regional Councils shouldmake a projection of desired enforcement ac-tions in their areas, possible compliance in-ducements for fisheries in their areas, and po-tential domestic enforcement plans.
Problem 2: The existing Coast Guard analysisof the appropriate level of enforcement wasmade without benefit of an adequate methodfor assessing the benefits and the cost (insocial, economic, political, and scientificterms) of various enforcement strategies, thatis, the various combinations of aircraft, ships,electronic devices, and imposition of penalties.
Recommendation: A general analyticalsystem is needed to provide quantitative esti-mates of the impacts of alternative manage-ment techniques and enforcement strategieson the quantities and prices of fish available,the state of recreational fishing, and othermeasures of the benefits of management.
Problem 3: Fisheries management-modelingefforts currently being supported by the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, such as the one at Stanford University,do not include enforcement components.
Recommendation: The Coast Guard shoulddevelop the enforcement component, so thatits model could be used in conjunction withone adopted by NOAA.
12
The cost of enforcing fishery regulations inthe new 200-mile zone may escalate as ex-perience is gained in managing the fisheries,and it may be learned that a higher level of en-forcement is necessary than that which is nowplanned. Therefore, a reasonable approach togaining experience with different enforcementtechniques is desirable in order to determinewhich are the most successful and cost-effec-tive methods of achieving the goals of theFishery Conservation and Management Act of1976.
The research conducted during this studysuggests that such experience might be mostefficiently gained through a series of pilotprograms in various areas of enforcement.The following four projects are an outline ofthe types of work which may be useful. Theseprojects are suggested with the assumptionthat in the long-run, the cost of gaining suffi-cient experience on which to make informedchoices and trade-offs in enforcement ac-tivities would be less than the cost of possibleerroneous decisions about the use of very ex-pensive, electronic-surveillance systems, thecost of adding large numbers of new andpossibly unnecessary air and sea craft, and thecost of possibly failing to protect the fisheryresources by adequate enforcement of regula-tions.
Included in the project discussions arerough-cost estimates whenever such fiscal in-formation was available to OTA. However, itshould be pointed out that one of the primaryreasons for conducting these projects wouldbe to obtain information that will allow theappropriate agencies to make estimates of thecosts of full-scale setup and operation of cer-tain programs. Presently, such informationdoes not exist.
It is suggested that these projects should beconducted for at least a year, possibly more, inorder to cover the entire fishing season andrange of activities on any given area. At theend of the project, each should be evaluatedwith special attention to determining the com-pleteness of coverage provided, the cost, thetimeliness and usefulness of information ob-tained, and a comparison of each method withtraditional enforcement activities, and otherpossible alternatives to the pilot method.
Shipboard Observers (for background discus-sion, see pages 38 to 42)
OTA’s analysis suggests that much could belearned from a pilot project in which a foreignfishery is nearly blanketed with shipboard ob-servers who have both management and en-forcement duties.
The New England region would be mostsuitable for such a pilot project because thefishing grounds are concentrated and foreign-fishing practices are well known; many of theforeign vessels fish in groups which couldsimplify the arrangement of vessels with ob-servers and control vessels without observers;and the stocks in that region are generallydepleted and information for use in restoringstocks is badly needed.
About 150 foreign vessels, on the average,have traditionally fished within the 200-milezone off New England. At this writing, thenumber of permit applications which hadbeen received suggested that this number willprobably go down because of the 1977 catchallocations. Therefore, it appears that a total ofabout 100 shipboard observers would besuitable for the pilot project. These observersshould be selected on the basis of experiencein fishing practice and knowledge of fishery
matters. If they are given enforcement duties,they should be Coast Guard personnel, in-stead of NMFS personnel. However, theyshould receive some training from NMFS inobserving, collecting, and reporting informa-tion of value. Some familiarity with the nationon whose vessel the observer serves wouldalso be helpful.
Based on NMFS estimates for their existinglimited-observer program the cost of a 100-man pilot program would be roughly $2million plus funds for an accurate evaluationof the pilot.
Under the law, this cost is passed on to theforeign vessels. However, other fees andcharges are also levied, under the law, to reim-burse the United States for management andenforcement activities in the 200-mile zone.Since the observer program would presuma-bly make some other expenditures covered bythese levies unnecessary, the gross-tonnagefee or tax on ex-vessel value of the catch couldbe reduced accordingly.
Transfer of Military Data (for backgrounddiscussion, see pages 43 to 44)
OTA proposes a pilot program utilizing oneof the existing military systems for the collec-tion and transfer of available surveillance datafor one specific region. Some precedent forsuch a project already exists at the NavalOcean Surveillance Information Center wherethe Coast Guard has recently detailed oneofficer to work on data which are of interest tothe Coast Guard and have not, in the past,been processed by Navy personnel.
OTA has not investigated the feasibility ofusing a specific system in any region, but itappears that the Navy’s west coast networkcould be a likely pilot region. Any pilot proj-ect should begin with an indepth investigationof the Navy’s existing system and its ability to
13
provide information needed for fisheries en-forcement.
Some funding would be necessary to addpersonnel who would coordinate the transferof fisheries-related data from the Navy to theCoast Guard district in charge of fisheries en-forcement in that zone.
On one hand, there may be difficulties inworking with and protecting classified infor-mation and there may be a danger that this ex-tra task might not receive adequate attentionin a facility oriented to an existing militarymission. However, such an information-shar-ing program could ultimately cut costs sub-stantially by reducing duplication of effortand facilities. It could also provide cooperativeexperience which might lead to sharing ofother services and resources needed for en-forcement and the opportunity to evaluatenew technology which may be of use in fish-eries enforcement.
Joint Research (for background discussion,see pages 45 to 46)
OTA suggests that a pilot project forcooperation and joint research could bringtogether the Coast Guard, Department ofDefense, and the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration to develop new systemsand find efficient ways of using technology ina multimission context.
Such a pilot project could include jointpreparation of long-range plans for determin-ing the most appropriate research anddevelopment strategy for new technologies,identifying the needs of all potential users ofsuch technology, and analyzing the costs andbenefits of developing and utilizing new tech-nology, especially remote-sensing devices.
Transponders with Loran-C (for backgrounddiscussion, see pages 47 to 49)
OTA suggests early implementation of apilot program utilizing transponders in twospecific regions-the Bering Sea off Alaskaand the Georges Bank off New England. Sinceeach of these areas are traditional fishinggrounds, but with very different prevailingconditions, the usefulness of transponderscould be evaluated for a broad range of ap-plications by this pilot project.
The pilot programs would require thedesign and manufacture of Loran-C trans-ponder equipment specifically for this pur-pose. The Loran-C network is already plannedor in operation in the regions proposed. Alicensing arrangement and installation tech-nique for fitting transponders on each foreignfishing vessel entitled to fish in the regionwould need to be devised. Control stationsand receivers on patrol ships or aircraft wouldneed to be installed.
It is estimated that the transponder whichwould go on board each foreign vessel wouldcost less than $2,500. Once the system weredeveloped and installed, operational costswould be roughly equivalent to the opera-tional cost of the aircraft carrying each controlstation, $1 million to $1.6 million annually.Funds for evaluating the pilot project wouldbe in addition to these costs.
The Georges Bank pilot program would re-quire about 150 transponder units and a con-trol station most likely at a Coast Guard shorebase in New England. Each vessel entering the200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishingwould be required to activate its transponderwhich would automatically transmit iden-tification and location to the shore base. Theshore base would keep plots of all foreignfishing activity on the banks and give this topatrol craft. Regular patrols of the regionwould use this information to check on any
14
Management of NewU.S. Fishery Zone
fishing activity that was not reported by thissystem.
In the Bering Sea region a similar networkof transponders could be required aboardforeign fishing vessels. In this region it may bedesirable to combine the transponder networkwith microwave radar systems already usedaboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiv-ing stations also aboard the patrol craft. In thisway a specific region could be covered byregular overflight, all vessels operating in theregion located by radar, each vessel interro-gated to determine whether an approvedtransponder is aboard stating identificationand location, and any vessels without trans-ponders investigated. There are several ad-vantages to a system thus described, especiallyin Alaska where long distances and large areascan best be covered by aircraft and where fre-quent cloud cover makes visual observationdifficult or impossible.
New Management Concepts Needed
New research concepts need to bedeveloped and much new data must begathered in order to obtain an integratedview of all the fisheries of the United Statesand to determine the optimum yield of eachfishery. Optimum yield is a judgmentaldecision on the size of fish catch which willachieve the most advantageous combina-tion of biological, economic, and socialresults. However, there is presently noagreed-upon method of determining op-timum yield. (See pages 62 to 63.)
Even when analytical methods and relia-ble data are generated, there will be uncer-tainty about stock assessments and otherprojections used for fishery management.Techniques for dealing with that uncer-tainty will be necessary. (See pages 62 to63.)
Relationships Between Federal Agencies andRegional Councils
It is possible that better accountability forthe existence and the reliability of data pro-vided by the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) to the Regional Councilscould be achieved if the NMFS member onthe councils were the head of the regionalfisheries research center rather than, or inaddition to, the Regional Director. (Seepages 63 to 69.)
Conflicts can probably be expected in thefuture between the Regional Councils andthe NMFS laboratories over the division ofresearch funds because of some local fisher-men’s mistrust of national NMFS opera-tions and council desires to break out of thetraditional NMFS research patterns. Con-flicts may evolve over who does specificresearch tasks. Such conflicts may delay col-lection of much-needed information orcause duplication of research effort;
15
however, there is no framework--otherthan informal negotiations between NMFSand the councils—for resolving such con-flicts. (See pages 63 to 69.)
NMFS Management Guidelines Needed
No decisions have been made withinNMFS as to who will be responsible forresearch, data collecting, and developmentof analytical methods. There is a division ofopinions among NMFS staff as to whetherrecommendations on data and methodsshould be made by NMFS to the councils orby the councils to NMFS. (See pages 69 to73.)
The preliminary management plans pre-pared by NMFS were not coordinated incontent or format. Guidelines for presenta-tion of management plans were not pro-mulgated. This failure to standardize opera-tions with NMFS before the initial planswere written may have complicated thecouncils’ job of preparing succeeding plansby failing to give them a model after whichto pattern their work. It may also perpetu-ate regional differences within NMFS andcomplicate the national review process. (Seepages 69 to 73.)
Management Information Needed
Much must be learned about the effec-tiveness of management techniques andpresentation of plans. However, the mostpressing need for improvement is in thearea of developing and consideringeconomic, social, and biological data to beused to modify the catch figures presentedin the preliminary plans. (See pages 69 to74.)
Recommendation for Management Planning(See pages 73 to 74.)
Problem: There is no deadline for prepara-tion of domestic fishery-management plansand no priority listing of domestic fisheriesfor which management plans should be pre-pared.
Recommendation: NMFS should prepare apriority listing of domestic fisheries for whichmanagement plans are needed, delineating theneeds and citing available data.
16
Information Needed To ImplementPublic Law 94–265
New Evaluation of Fisheries Stock Informa-tion Needed
The new Regional Councils could make asubstantial improvement in the old systemof making estimates of fishery yields andadvice about health of stocks available onlyto international governing bodies. Thecouncils could interpret scientific data onstocks, publish it widely, and provide anopportunity for continual access to infor-mation and debate of the issues by in-terested parties. Input by and involvementof users and other public parties is crucial tothe success of fishery management. (Seepages 77 to 79.)
Status of Stock Information
Present assessments of heavily utilizedstocks are quite accurate. However, projec-tions of sustainable yields in the future aresubject to large uncertainties due to effectsof interspecies relationships, environmentalchange, fishing effort, and other unknownnatural variations. (See pages 77 to 79.)
Presently no stock has adequate quantita-tive data on all items necessary to developestimates of maximum potential yields thatcan be harvested without reducing theparent stock. (See page 78.)
Stock Assessment Needs
upon a few key indicators of the health andsize of the stock rather than to attempt toassess all possible indicators. (See pages 79to 81.)
Because of pressures to expand existingstock assessment methodologies to providedata for near-term decisions, pressure totreat fishery information as a precisescience, and the lack of validity for existingmethods of research, a program should beundertaken to improve the stock assess-ment data which will be used and establishfuture research priorities. (See pages 79 to81.)
Foreign Investment Information
Mandatory disclosure of the actual extentof foreign investment in U.S. fish process-ing and wholesale operations would benecessary in order to determine if foreigninvestment results in uncontrolled foreignfishing or if it has an adverse effect on thecompetitive position of U.S. firms.However, such disclosure is not presentlyrequired. (See pages 81 to 85.)
Economic Information Needs
Economics and statistics staffs are beingadded to Regional Fisheries Research Cen-ters, but these staffs are not likely to havethe time or direction to address national
Since estimates about the condition of a problems. These staffs cannot be considereda substitute for a central economics researchstock are basically judgmental anyway, it and planning capability in NMFS. (Seemay be far more cost-effective to agree pages 86 to 88.)
Information Needed on Social Effects ofFisheries Management
The Regional Councils will need to knowthe major social effects of the decisionsmade under the new law in order to makesensible alterations in fisheries regulationsas conditions continue to change. (See pages88 to 92.)
17
Future Developments in theFishing Industry
Recommendation for Improved Manage-ment Information (See pages 81 to 86.)
Problem: Most of the regional economicstudies which have been done and theeconomic and social data generated by NMFSwould be of limited use to the Regional Coun-cils in their management work because it isoutdated or not maintained in a format ap-plicable to fisheries managers.
Recommendation: The National Marine Fish-eries Service consulting with the RegionalCouncils could evaluate the economic andsocial-data needs and the suggestions for im-provement which are outlined in this reportand develop a comprehensive managementinformation system.
18
Information Needed To Evaluate Oppor-tunities
In order to make decisions on how to im-prove an existing fishery or develop a newfishery by enhancement techniques, new in-formation is necessary. This includes an in-tensive and integrated examination of allfacets of a fishery: resource assessment,harvest and processing technologies andcosts; market potentials; and institutionalfactors including artificial barriers to trade.None of this information presently existswithin the Federal agencies. (See pages 96 to99.)
Sufficient data about various segments ofthe fishing industry are not now availablefor determining what, if any, actions shouldbe taken by the Government to encouragegrowth in the fishing industry. (See pages99 to 104.)
Underutilized Species Not DefinedIn addition to the possible prices which
presently underutilized species mightbring, stock assessments and projections ofyield from the species are needed in orderto determine if the stocks can sustain amarket. (See pages 98 to 99.)
Recommendations for Addressing New Op-portunities (See pages 95 to 104.)
Recommendation: Data collected by theGeneral Accounting Office, the EastlandResolution group, the Office of TechnologyAssessment, and NMFS should be synthesizedand analyzed by a committee of the RegionalCouncils which could identify missing infor-mation, fill the gaps itself or contract forresearch, and make recommendations for con-gressional action or administrative changeswhich would be helpful in revitalizing thefishing industry.
Recommendation: The Federal fishery infor-mation structure that exists in Sea Grant andNMFS should be expanded and improved toreach a larger segment of the industry with avariety of information from many sources.
Brief History of Fisheries LawBackground Enforcement
Management of the new 200-mile U.S. fish-ery zone will, of necessity, have enforcementof regulations as an integral part if it is to ac-complish restoration and conservation of fishstocks and provide the domestic fishing in-dustry with the potential and incentive togrow, as mandated by the Fishery Conserva-tion and Management Act of 1976 (P.L.94-265).
Management plans to be drawn-up underprovisions of the Act will lay the groundworkfor the types of regulations which will be re-quired and which must be enforced. However,fish resources are already scarce enough andthe demand for fish products high enoughthat it is logical to conclude that foreign na-tions can justify the risk of violating theseregulations and the United States can justifythe effort and expense of enforcing them. Infact, the U.S. Coast Guard, the agency pri-marily charged with the enforcement task, hasconcluded in a report on its preparations forincreased fisheries duties that “the state of thefish stocks today is too critical to allow for anylapse in enforcement.”20
A discussion of enforcement problems andopportunities is offered first in this report fortwo reasons:
1) Clear and timely indication of U.S. inten-tions to strictly enforce fishery regula-tions within the 200-mile zone is impera-tive for gaining foreign cooperation.
2) Even the best of management plans can-not succeed without effective enforce-ment of its provisions.
Later sections of this report deal with theproblems and opportunities of managing the200-mile fishing zone and with the need formuch additional information as Federal agen-cies and Regional Councils seek to refine andimprove management techniques.
The United States began to exercise controlover its coastal fisheries soon after it became acountry. Until the passage of the Bartlett Act,in the middle 1960’s, however, enforcementwas essentially confined to the “territorialsea”, the area within 3-nautical miles offshore.
The early control activities were generallymild. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s and early1900’s, that strong legislation was passed toresolve fishery and marine mammal problemsin Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, In theearly 1900’s, foreign fishing vessels wereseized and brought to American ports, andfines were successfully levied against thecrews and vessels.
The Bartlett Act has been the primary fish-eries law. Foreign fishing is not onlyprohibited within the territorial sea, but alsois excluded within a contiguous 9-mile fish-eries zone beyond the 3-mile territorial sea. Inaddition, foreign fishermen cannot retaincreatures of the Continental Shelf (shellfishand crustacean). Violations of the Bartlett Actcould result in fines, imprisonment, and for-feiture of the vessel, gear, and catch.
There are a number of treaties and interna-tional agreements in which the United Statesand other countries have agreed to managefishery resources, outside the 12-mile zone.ICNAF (International Convention for theNorthwest Atlantic Fisheries) is an example ofone important treaty. Here, the 18 membergovernments prepare the regulations, whichfor the most part are concerned with quota
21
allocations. Inspectors may stop, board, andexamine member fishing vessels for violationsof the regulations, but prosecution andpunishment (if any) are carried out by the“flag state”, the home country of the particu-lar fishing vessel.
The United States was a member of ICNAFfor more than 25 years. However, it withdrewfrom the convention after Congress passed theFishery Management and Conservation Act of1976, unilaterally assuming jurisdiction overmost of the east coast waters in whichAmerican fishermen work.
The growth in breadth and strength of en-forcement of fisheries laws can be traced totwo primary interrelated occurrences:
● intense foreign fishing off our coasts, and
● depletion of many fish species due tooverfishing.
In 1975, there were 17 foreign nations fish-ing off our coasts.21 In June 1975, almost 1,000foreign fishing vessels were sighted; the year’smonthly average was more than 500.22 Theforeign vessels caught about three-quarters ofthe 3 million metric tons of fish caught in the200-mile zone that year.
From 1964 through September of 1976,nearly 100 foreign fishing vessels were citedfor violation of U.S. fishing laws. The mostfrequent offenders have been Japan, Canada,Cuba, and the U.S.S.R. Fishermen from thesenations account for more than 70 percent ofthe violations of U.S. law. In addition, approx-imately 100 treaty violations are documentedeach 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 territorialwaters or closed areas; and
● catch and illegal retention of creaturesfrom the continental shelf , such aslobsters and crabs.
Treaty violations take the form of:●
●
●
●
i m p r o p e r f i s h i n g g e a r , w h i c h i sprohibited in certain areas by regulation;
illegal retainment of bycatch, that is,catching and keeping prohibited species;
overfishing of quotas; and
violating administrative regulations,such as improper keeping of log books ornot reporting required scientific data.
In the past, fisheries enforcement respon-sibility has been vested primarily in the U.S.Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has providedthe ships and aircraft and much of the man-power to staff the vehicles, the sensing equip-ment and the command and control functionof operations. The National Marine FisheriesService, which is primarily concerned withgathering management and scientific data,assisted in enforcement. NMFS provided per-sonnel with expertise on fishing gear, fishingtechniques, and fish identification and catchrates. There was close cooperation betweenthe two groups, with personnel from bothagencies frequently onboard the same vessels,
The State Department has also played animportant role in fisheries law enforcement.The State Department negotiated the varioustreaties and international agreements, and inthe past, any foreign fishing vessel was seizedonly after coordination with the Secretary ofState. A close liaison between the StateDepartment and the Coast Guard was neededsince 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 PublicLaw 94-265 have important effects on enforce-ment. The law vests the responsibility for en-forcement in the Secretary of Commerce(NMFS) and in the Secretary of Transporta-tion (Coast Guard). Authorization is given toarrest violators, to seize vessels and cargo, andto issue citations.
In addition a number of specific instruc-tions, which have a major effect on enforce-ment, are spelled out in the law:
1. No foreign fishing is permitted in thefishery conservation zone except:
a. under agreements or treaties (new andrenegotiated), and
b. with a permit.
2. In every international agreement:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g
The foreign country agrees to abide byall U.S. regulations.The foreign country allows a U.S.officer to:
(1) board the vessel,(2) make arrests and seizures, and(3) examine the permit,
The permit must be prominently dis-played.
Appropriate position-fixing and iden-tification equipment, such as transpon-ders, if required by the Coast Guard,are to be installed and maintained oneach vessel.
U.S. observers will be allowed to boardany vessel, the cost to be reimbursed tothe United States.
Foreign agents are to be sited in theUnited States to deal with any legalprocess.
The foreign nation acts in behalf of itsindividual vessels.
23
Present Plans for Near-TermEnforcement
3. An allocation of fishing level (fishquotas) will be made to specific foreigncountries.
4. If a foreign vessel, with a permit, violatesthe regulations:
a. The permit of that vessel could berevoked.
b. The permit could be suspended.c. Additional conditions could be im-
posed on the foreign nation and onany of its permits,
5. Civil penalties for violations could be asmuch as $25,000 per violation, where ev-ery day may be considered as an addi-tional violation.
6. Criminal penalties for violations could beas much as $100,000 and 10 years inprison.
7. Any vessel, its fishing gear and cargo,could be forfeited to the United States.
Since the passage of the Fishery Manage-ment and Conservation Act of 1976, someconcern has been voiced by Members of Con-gress, members of the Regional Councils, andothers, that foreign investments in U.S. fishingoperations and joint ventures between foreignand domestic fishing and processing com-panies may provide a means of circumventingcontrols on foreign fishing interests within the200-mile zone. Such investments mayguarantee foreign firms the almost unlimitedaccess to fish stocks which is intended fordomestic fishermen and allow them to operateoutside certain regulations-such as gearrestrictions—which may be in effect only forforeign fishermen. While such investmentsmay pose problems in enforcing the intent ofthe Act, they are not, strictly speaking, an en-forcement problem to be dealt with by theCoast Guard and NMFS operational divisions.
The problems and benefits of foreign in-vestments are discussed as management con-
24 cerns in other sections of this report.
Enforcement of regulations in the new 200-mile fishery zone is complicated by the size ofthe area and the fact that fishing is to be reg-ulated not prohibited. The area encompassedby the 200-mile-wide band surrounding theUnited States and its possessions adds up toalmost 21/Q-million square miles of ocean. Ac-cording to Coast Guard estimates, major fish-eries cover approximately one-fourth of thatarea. These prime fishing grounds will requireconcentrated enforcement efforts during cer-tain seasons, In addition, at least some level ofenforcement may be required in all parts ofthe zone at some time during the year. Adense mixture of marine traffic, includingmerchant vessels, warships, tankers, recrea-tional craft, and both domestic and foreignfishing vessels, is found within the 200-milezone. From this mix of vessels, foreign fishingcraft must be located and identified by nation.Further, in order to enforce any regulation inany fishing area at any given time, fishingvessels must be classified as fishing accordingto the provisions of their permits and existingregulations or in violation of these controls;violators must be apprehended; and someprosecutor action must be taken.
This detection, identification, and classifica-tion of foreign fishing activity must go onunder any sea conditions that permit fishingitself. Experienced fishermen have indicatedthat this means enforcement activities may be
necessary through at least sea state 7 (28- to40-knot winds and 22- to 40-foot waves).
In addition, for each enforcement step,different vehicles and equipment are useful.For example, an aircraft flying at 200 knots, at15,000 feet in clear weather will cover agreater area, using sight and radar, and detectmore fishing vessels than will a cutter at seadoing 15 knots. On the other hand, the aircraftcannot put a boarding party on fishingvessels, while a cutter can accomplish thismission.
It is not now possible to project explicitlywhat enforcement will be necessary to detectand deter violations because the RegionalCouncils, which are charged with creating theregulations for fishery management, have notyet formalized final plans which will includethe regulations which are to be enforced.Regulations which have been drawn-up bythe National Marine Fisheries Service for im-plementation as of March 1, 1977, are merelyinterim rules which will be supplanted oncethe councils formulate regulations specific to
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 nottoo different from those contained in the in-ternational agreements which have, in thepast, been the only means of controlling fish-ing activity. The major immediate changeswill be that the United States has taken on theresponsibility for enforcement, will board andinspect foreign vessels for compliance withU.S. regulations, and will prosecute offendersitself instead of leaving that task to flag states.But as experience with the fishery zone grows,new types of regulations and enforcementtechniques will be needed and used.
Nevertheless, certain basic types of viola-tions can be anticipated, such as illegal fishingby foreign vessels which do not have permits;overfishing of quotas allowed for each species;violation of permit stipulations such as gear-,area-, or time-restrictions; and failure to com-ply with data-reporting requirements.
The specific regulations to be enforced andviolations expected will affect the type of en-forcement strategies and equipment to beused, Figure 4 is a matrix of likely enforce-ment needs and techniques.
Source. OTA26
Level of Enforcement
Just as important in determining what en-forcement capabilities will be necessary isdetermination of the desired level of enforce-ment. In other words, should enforcementagencies mobilize to catch 50 percent of theviolators, 75 percent, or 100 percent—inwhich case the costs could prove to beastronomical. Without a quantified level ofenforcement, the allocation of enforcementresources becomes a matter of intuition ratherthan one of reasoned judgment.
Currently, the Coast Guard simulationmodel used for costing purposes indicates thatthe agency assumes it can catch or deter ap-proximately 95 percent of the 2,150 expectedannual violators within the budget appropria-tion level requested. 24 That percentage,however, does not appear to have been set asan enforcement goal based on any policy deci-sion as to what level of enforcement is desira-ble. In addition, the percentage shown may bemuch too high, depending on what types ofviolations (over quota, use of prohibited gear,fishing in closed areas) are being counted, Amiddle-ground approach is probably requiredand a specific definition of that approachwould be desirable. This should be followedby regular assessment of changing enforce-ment needs as well as the actual level of en-forcement compared to the desired level.Determination of the level of enforcementcould also be enhanced by asking RegionalCouncils to make a projection of desired en-forcement actions in their areas, possible com-pliance inducements for fisheries in theirareas, and potential domestic-enforcementplans.
A major shortcoming of the Coast Guard’sanalysis of the appropriate level of enforce-ment is the lack of an adequate method forassessing the benefits that can be expectedfrom various enforcement strategies. Sincesignificant resources may be required to oper-ate an effective enforcement system, the CoastGuard’s current inability to systematicallyestimate the expected value of enforcement isa serious flaw. However, since the determina-tion of appropriate enforcement strategies isonly one part of the broader process of fish-eries management, what is probably needed isa more general analytical system which couldprovide quantitative estimates of the impactsof alternative management techniques, includ-ing—but not limited to—the enforcementstrategies, on the catch and profits of commer-cial fishermen, the quantities and prices of fishavailable to the domestic consumer, the stateof recreational fishing, and other measures ofthe benefits of management.
One such general analytical system is cur-rently being developed for NOAA by theCenter for Technology Assessment andResource Policy at Stanford University. Thissystem is based on a generalized computersystems model which can integrate the bestavailable scientific information about any par-ticular fishery in order to assess the quantita-tive impacts of various management tech-niques on the fishery. Since even the initial ap-proach to enforcement is expected to costnearly $100 million per year, benefits shouldbe clearly identified and quantified to the ex-tent
●
●
●
useful. Some of the benefits may include:
A future increase in stocks and yields dueto tighter controls to prevent overfishing.
Less pressure on stocks caught as bycatchdue to better controls on gear and areasfished,
Less conflict among fishermen for certaingrounds and reduced gear conflict.
27
● Assurance of proper allocation of quotasamong foreign and U.S. fishermen.
An enforcement component is not presentlyplanned for the Stanford model. Such a com-ponent, which would translate various en-forcement strategies into impacts on foreignfishing activities, should be developed by theCoast Guard. The Coast Guard could then useits enforcement model in conjunction with theStanford model, or any similar one adoptedby NOAA, in order to determine the costs andbenefits of various levels or enforcement orspecific enforcement strategies.
The primary objective of the Coast Guardsimulation should be to evaluate the effective-ness and the cost of a mix of vehicles, sensors,and personnel as they enforce the regulationsapplicable to the 200-mile fishery zone.Among other factors, the model should in-clude:
● existing capabilities and possible futuresystems of sensors, vehicles, and person-nel;
● short- and long-range enforcementneeds;
● possible multipurpose use of systems andequipment by the Coast Guard for ac-complishment of several of its missions;
. likely levels of assistance from the Navy,NASA, the Air Force, and NMFS;
● relative importance of various compo-nents of enforcement, such as sur-veillance, boarding, etc.;
● the effects of various types and levels ofpenalties, such as fines and seizures;
. likely regulations of all types;
● explicit yardsticks of effectiveness, suchas percent of captured violators, amountof protection given to stocks, value offines collected, value of regulation on
foreign relations, comparability withother Coast Guard duties, etc.;
. behavior patterns of foreign anddomestic fishermen in reaction to regula-tions; and
● monetary cost of programs.
A model which does a more adequate job ofmaking cost-benefit estimates than the exist-ing Coast Guard model will be exceedinglydifficult to prepare since the efficiency of en-forcement involves intangible as well as tangi-ble costs and results. For example, how doesthe value of protecting and restoring adepleted stock compare with the value of im-proved international relations which mayresult in some specific sought-after agreementin another field? However, the model couldpresent possible scenarios, impacts, and trade-offs which may result from various levels ofenforcement or differing amounts of expend-itures.
Although the analytical models to be usedby NOAA and the Coast Guard in fisheriesmanagement and enforcement are an impor-tant tool, there is considerable feeling amongmembers of the Regional Councils and otherinterested parties that modeling techniqueshave already outstripped available data. Theresults of the OTA study also indicate that ex-isting models have already identified largeareas where there is insufficient information.Therefore, immediate emphasis should be ona program for long-term collection of consist-ent basic information. Models and modelingtechniques can be improved while this basicdata is being gathered.
28
Existing Capabilities
The existing capabilities for enforcingPublic Law 94-265 include three primarygroups, within the executive branch, whichwould or could be involved in the future:
1. The Coast Guard has the primary respon-sibility for enforcement and exercisesalmost complete jurisdiction over ac-tivities in the foreign fisheries.
2. The National Marine Fisheries Serviceshares the enforcement function with theCoast Guard by providing personnelwith scientific and biological expertise toaid in planning and carrying out enforce-ment strategies in the domestic fisheries.
3. The Department of Defense normally willhave no enforcement function at all, ex-cept in the unlikely event that foreignwarships should appear within the 200-mile zone to contest U.S. regulations. Inthat case, U.S. military forces would becalled upon under the terms of amemorandum of understanding betweenthe Coast Guard and the Department ofDefense. The memorandum and con-tingency plan for such a situation hasbeen worked out by the Joint Chiefs ofStaff and the highest levels of the CoastGuard and is classified information,
The Department of State, which has beeninvolved in enforcement of fishery agree-ments in the past because of their interna-tional nature, has been given a limited roleunder the new law.
The Department of State’s primary functionis to negotiate the Governing InternationalFisheries Agreement, by which, foreign na-
tions agree to accept the U.S. jurisdiction inthe 200-mile zone. The State Department isalso to exercise an advisory role, keeping theCoast Guard, the National Marine FisheriesService, and the Regional Councils informedon foreign policy implications of fisherymanagement.
Under the new law, as in the past, the State Department is consulted by the Coast Guardbefore any foreign fishing vessel is seized forviolation of U.S. regulations. There are un-doubtedly legitimate instances when theforeign policy or diplomatic implications ofsome action should take precedence over thefishery implications. However, the CoastGuard routinely allows the State Depart-ment’s desire to avoid unpleasant diplomaticincidents to influence enforcement actions.There appears to be no formal mechanism toassure that State Department decisions to in-tervene in a fishery action are made at an ap-propriate policy level and that the CoastGuard exercises its statutory responsiblitity tomake final enforcement decisions, with advicefrom the State Department being only one ofmany factors to be considered. There is ob-vious need for a clear and simple procedurewhich quickly leads to a decision-and reviewof that decision by the Chief Executive whennecessary--on whether or not to seize aforeign vessel which is violating U.S. law orregulations.
The following discussion of the work ofthese agencies in regard to enforcement is notintended as a specific description of theirplanned operations. Rather, it is an overviewand a critique of likely enforcement.
In its routine enforcement role, the CoastGuard provides personnel, vehicles, and sens-ing equipment. Its enforcement capabilityduring 1975 came from its fleet of 39 aircraft,39 ships, 94 helicopters, and various supportfacilities. These facilities were not dedicated
29
solely to fishery enforcement, but were usedalso for other Coast Guard duties such as in-vestigating oil spills, sea search and rescue,and general law enforcement. Approximately2,500 days of ship time and 6,000 hours ofaircraft time were devoted to enforcing fisherylaws, regulations, and treaties during 1975,about one-haIf million square miles werepatrolled, at a cost of $46 million for the year.The Coast Guard spent about 5 percent of its
total annual operational budget on fisheriesenforcement .25
The Coast Guard’s original plan for en-forcement under the new law called for in-creasing ship time by 951 days to provide2,616 patrol days inside active fishing areasand 823 patrol days in other areas; increasingaircraft time by 7,553 hours to provide 8,446hours of patrol in active fishing areas and3,068 hours of patrol in other areas.26
U.S. Navy PhotoTrawlers 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 ofviolations per year from the expected 2,150 toabout 110, based on the assumption thatdetection and identification constitute en-forcement (see figure 5). However, there issome question about the wisdom of thisassumption since simple detection of a viola-tion by an aircraft or other means does notguarantee that the violation will cease andthat the violator will be penalized.
The Coast Guard plan would necessitate theaddition of 10 fixed-wing aircraft, 5 helicop-ters, and 6 high-endurance cutters. Procure-ment and operation of these new craft wasestimated at $275.4 million through fiscal Year1978, After appropriation of the fiscal year1977 budget, this strategy was reassessed andit was determined that budget constraints dic-tated that initial enforcement focus on the ac-tive fishing areas only. For maximum effect inthat area with appropriated funds, the CoastGuard revised procurement plans to includepurchase of four C-130s and reactivation offour C-131s; reactivation of its last five spare,short-range shipboard helicopters, and tem-porary overscheduling of the crews of fiveothers; and reactivation of one cutter—all ofwhich could be in operation close to theMarch 1, 1977, effective date of the law. Thepackage, with necessary support facilities, wasestimated to cost $64.3 million.27
Most of the projected new vehicles arescheduled for use where the new U.S. jurisdic-tion now takes in more extensive fishinggrounds, that is, in the Pacific Council areaand off the Alaskan coast. Since these areascontain about 16 species of fish which havebeen overexploited in the past, the allocationof more vehicles to enforce regulations therewill also aid in the conservation and recoveryof these stocks. (See figures 6 through 10.)
Figure 5Expected Number ofUndetected Violations byMonth Under “No Effort”,FY 75 Level,and Planned Enforcement
6 0 015 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 7Planned Coast Guard
. .
“ .“ . .
. . . .. “ . .
. “. ●. . . .“.
..“ .. . ‘. .. . ● .
.
Entrance190 M i1.25 HrJan-Feb
....●
✎
✎ ✎
✎ ✎
✎ ✎
✎ ✎
✎ ✎
✎✎ ✎
✎ ✎
... .‘ .....
.
760 Miles5 HrsJan—May
o 6 0k a
Miles
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
Gulf of Mexico
\
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard34
West Coast
Figure 9Pianned Coast
1070 Miles7.5 Flt HrApr—Nov
0 6 0
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
Alaska
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard36
On the other hand, there are also manyspecies in danger in the east coast and gulffisheries. Three new aircraft have beenassigned to the New England area and one tothe Gulf of Mexico, but it seems reasonablethat additional vehicles may be desirable onthe east coast in the future even though fish-ery areas there are concentrated and notgreatly increased by the move to the 200-milejurisdiction.
As outlined by the Coast Guard, theplanned enforcement strategy of increasingpresent capabilities is a reasonable first step. Itis flexible in that enforcement resources willbe added over a period of time and at amoderate first cost. As experience is gained,additional resources can be curtailed or ac-celerated if original assumptions do not proveout.
The Coast Guard enforcement strategy is,however, limited to preventing violations byforeign fishermen. Presently, there is no plan-ning within the Coast Guard to deal withpossible at-sea violations of the domestic fish-ery regulations. Only two domestic manage-ment plans have been drawn-up so far, butother plans will be a major order-of-businessfacing the Regional Councils in the future.
In the past, enforcement in the domesticfishery has been carried out by NMFS fromshore, where officials observe offloading,weigh and inspect fish, and identify bycatch.NMFS will continue its enforcement ofdomestic fisheries from shore under the newlaw. If this dockside effort were to be com-bined with a program of boarding domesticvessels for inspections, it would probably besufficient in most situations.
However, if regulations for domestic fish-eries duplicate many of the gear and opera-tional controls used in foreign regulations,some at-sea capability will be needed.
In the event an at-sea capability is neededfor enforcement in domestic fisheries, theCoast Guard could use the same types ofequipment and techniques planned for foreignfisheries, but would need additional facilitiesin order to cover the different areas used bydomestic fishermen and the many additionalfishing vessels of a greater variety of sizes andtypes.
Available information indicates that about7,000 domestic vessels may spend most oftheir fishing time in the 3- to 200-mile zone.28
Although the domestic vessels catch far lessthan the foreign vessels, domestic fisheries en-forcement—in terms of fishing units to bedealt with—is on a larger scale than foreignenforcement. The cost of any deterrencegained by domestic enforcement will also behigher than for foreign enforcement.
The Coast Guard has rightly given prioritystatus to planning for enforcement in foreignfisheries. However, this OTA assessment indi-cates that at-sea enforcement will also benecessary in domestic fisheries in the nearfuture and planning for such a job should bestarted as soon as possible.” This will be a par-ticularly sensitive enforcement job becausefishermen, a politically powerful group, havetraditionally enjoyed a great deal of freedomin how they conduct their activities.
37
Other Possibilities forNear-Term Enforcement
The OTA study of enforcement strategiesseems to indicate that several fairly simpletechniques which could be activated almostimmediately have not been given favorableconsideration by the Coast Guard or the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service.
Among these are:
1)
2)
3)
the establishment of an efficient report-ing system which would allow domesticfishermen to aid in observing foreignfishing vessels,
extensive use of observers onboardforeign fishing vessels, and
formulation of specific guidelines to befollowed in granting annual permitsand renewing the Governing Interna-tional Fisheries Agreements.
The lesser of these strategies is the reportingsystem, which could be simply a well-definedand published procedure, which domesticfishermen could follow in notifying the CoastGuard by radio with information on the loca-tion of foreign vessels or on suspected viola-tions of fisheries regulations.
The Coast Guard is not now planning areporting system because of concern that itwill increase the number of bogus complaintsof violations and tax the already limited man-power and facilities of Coast Guard in thearea. The Coast Guard argues that if fishermensuspect serious violations, they will-andalready do—report these to the nearest CoastGuard facility,
Extensive use of a reporting system may notbe likely because many domestic fishermenmaintain radio silence in order to protect thelocation of their fishing areas. Still, it is likelythat the lack of formal procedures for report-ing may, in the future, cause the same kind ofgap in coverage that was demonstrated whenfishermen testified to congressional commit-tees that some recent oil spills might havebeen prevented if fisherman had some systemfor reporting on the location of foreigntankers which are sited outside of establishedtraffic lanes.29
Another minor improvement in enforce-ment could probably be gained by formulat-ing a detailed list of specific criteria which willbe taken into account in renewal of theGoverning International Fisheries Agree-ments (GIFAs) with foreign governments andin annually granting fishery permits to thevessels.
The National Marine and Fisheries Serviceis now drafting civil procedure regulationswhich outline the sanctions, such as permitrevocation, 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 paidfines and assessments. However, these pro-cedures are not expected to include specificnumbers or types of violations which wouldmandate nonrenewal of GIFAs or nonissuanceof permits.
The Coast Guard has indicated that record-ing violations on the permits of individualfishing vessels may constitute one of the mostpotent regulatory tools available.30 A systemwhich works much like the points systemused in revocation of drivers licenses and set-ting insurance rates is probably worth in-vestigating in connection with fisheries per-mits. Such a system could be used initially inforeign fisheries, but would be equally usefulin the domestic fisheries should some form oflimited entry be adopted.
Under the law, GIFAs are negotiated by theState Department. However, the State Depart-ment has been given no regulatory functions.Therefore, the law may have to be amended inorder to charge the State Department withpreparing such guidelines for its negotiationsor these guidelines could be prepared byNMFS along with guidelines to be consideredin granting permits. Without these specificguidelines as to what violations constitutegrounds for nonissuance of permits or GIFAs,it is likely that uneven and inefficient use ofthis potential tool will result.
It appears that the second strategy, the ex-tensive use of observers onboard foreign fish-ing vessels, could be vital to the success of en-forcement in the 200-mile zone.
Current plans call for placing observers on-board 10 to 20 percent of the foreign vesselsgranted permits to fish in U.S. waters. Theseobservers will be NMFS personnel who willhave no enforcement duties. They will beassigned randomly to vessels of foreign na-tions which in the past have been suspected ofgiving NMFS incomplete or inaccurate reportson their fishing activity.
!1- 172 ( I - 77 - J
The present plan is to place about 20 observ-ers on vessels in the Georges Bank area of theNortheast fisheries and slightly fewer in theNorthwest fisheries, primarily Alaska. TheNational Marine and Fisheries Service hasestimated the annual cost of the program atapproximately $750,000, The cost per ship,with an observer onboard, may be as high as$15,00031 for a cruise of several weeks. Underthe terms of Public Law 94-265, which re-quires that foreign fishing vessels payreasonable fees to compensate the UnitedStates for expenses incurred in the course offishery conservation, management, research,administration, and enforcement, costs for ob-servers will be billed to the individual shipcarrying the observers. 32
The cost will probably make little differenceto vessels from countries which subsidizetheir fishermen, However, such a charge maynot be taken lightly by fishermen who are in-dependent operators. Since the vessels to carryobservers will be chosen randomly within anyparticular country, levying the charge againstthe individual vessels may strain relations be-tween foreign fishermen and the observerwho must live onboard their vessel for ex-tended lengths of time and make it much moredifficult for the observer to gather accuratedata. In the interests of easing this relation-ship, OTA suggests that charges for observersbe spread evenly among all the ships in thefishing fleet of a particular nation. The law re-quires that the fee schedule which sets outcharges to foreign fishermen be determined bythe Secretary of Commerce in consultationwith the Secretary of State.ss Therefore, arevised billing procedure for observer costscould be recommended to Commerce by Statebased on its negotiations with foreign nations.
39
NMFS has used some observers for the past2 years, primarily on Japanese vessels, and hastermed the experience very successful as a toolfor collecting information.
From the NMFS viewpoint, the observersare ideal for gathering scientific and manage-ment data, The observers could visually ex-amine the rate of fish catch, effectiveness offishing gear, and types and sizes of fishcaught. This is information which will be vitalto NMFS and the Regional Councils for use inthe formulation of management plans for theforeign fisheries. Yet, none of these jobs can beadequately carried out by surveillance vesselsor any of the remote-sensing devices whichwill be discussed later in this section. For thesereasons, much more extensive use should bemade of observers, in a dual role:
1) to collect data needed for managementof the fisheries and
2) to observe operations for enforcementfunctions.
Observers could be utilized by the CoastGuard as part of its enforcement network.Among other enforcement-related duties, theobservers could:
●
●
●
●
verify proper use of specific fishing gear;
check on bycatch or fish caught inciden-tal to the species sought (In some fish-eries more than half of a typical landingis not used and is dumped overboard.);
communicate actual practices and fishinginformation 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 bestposition to inspect catch for illegally retained species
40
The Coast Guard has stressed the need foreasily enforceable regulations as an importantfactor in successful enforcement. Aimingtoward that goal, the Coast Guard favors aNMFS proposal to reduce most regulations tolimitations on the amount of effort expendedfishing or the number of days spent in a cer-tain area. Such limitations are next tomeaningless, however, because there is no de-pendable equation for measuring catch ratesbased on vessel time in an area. Past data usedin such calculations haven’t been verified. Inaddition, new technology and improvementsin fishing techniques make any equation sub-ject to constant change. Shipboard observerswould be in the best position to provideanalysis of the relationships between vesseltime, fishing effort, and catch rate.
Foreign fishermen will realize that fromtheir view the observer is primarily a police-man. The potential penalties for violationsnoted by the observer could be high, but thevalue of an illegal catch may be even higher.Therefore, foreign fishermen may attempt tobribe, harm, or deceive the observers, frustrat-ing their scientific and enforcement functions.
Present thinking at the Coast Guard is thatsuch drawbacks exceed the enforcement valueof onboard observers although the observerswould be very useful for collecting scientificand management data for NMFS.34
OTA research suggests otherwise: a near-blanket program of mandatory shipboard ob-servers may be the simplest way to obtain thedetailed information about fishing activitiesand response to fisheries regulations whichwill be necessary in developing a dependable,cost-effective enforcement program.
Councils the option of charging a fee for il-legal bycatch. Some council members feel thatsuch a fee, based on actual bycatch figuresprovided by observers, would be more suc-cessful than gear restrictions in reducing theactual amount of bycatch because it wouldforce fishermen to find their own means of notcatching fish which cut into their profit. 35
The observer program is an area in whichthere are a wide range of opinions among themany parties interested in enforcement offisheries regulations. However, the limited useof observers to date provides no basis forresolving these differences. A pilot projectwould offer actual experience on which toevaluate the costin a combinedgathering role.
and usefulness of observersenforcement - information
In addition, the Federal Government’sfailure to implement an extensive observerprogram will remove from the Regional
41
Recommended Pilot Project
The Office of Technology Assessment’sanalysis suggests that much could be learnedfrom a pilot project in which a foreign fisheryis nearly blanketed with shipboard observerswho have both management and enforcementduties,
The New England region would be mostsuitable for such a pilot project for the follow-ing reasons:
they should be Coast Guard personnel, in-stead of NMFS personnel. However, theyshould receive some training from NMFS inobserving, collecting, and reporting informa-tion of value. Some familiarity with the nationon whose vessel the observer serves wouldalso be helpful.
Based on NMFS estimates for their limited-observer program, the cost of a 100-man pilotprogram would be roughly $2 million plusfunds for an accurate evaluation of the pilot.36
●
●
●
●
●
The fishing grounds are concentrated Under the law, this cost is passed on to theand foreign fishing practices are well foreign vessels. However, other fees andknown. charges are also levied, under the law, to reim -
Many of the foreign vessels fish 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 byand control vessels without observers. these levies unnecessary, the gross tonnage-
The stocks in that region are generally fee or tax on ex-vessel valdepleted and information for use in be reduced accordingly.restoring stocks is badly needed.
Questions about bycatch are most sig-nificant in the area.
There are important problems withgear restrictions and gear conflicts inthe area.
About 150 foreign vessels, on the average,have traditionally fished within the 200-milezone off New England. At this writing, thenumber of permit applications which hadbeen received suggested that this number willprobably go down because of the 1977 catchallocations. Therefore, it appears that a total ofabout 100 shipboard observers would besuitable for the pilot project. These observersshould be selected on the basis of experiencein fishing practice and knowledge of fisherymatters. If they are given enforcement duties,
ue of the catch could
42
Possibilities for Long-Range Enforcement
It is likely that the proposed near-term en-forcement capabilities described earlier willnot be adequate for long-range demands. Fac-tors like the following may contribute to theneed for more sophisticated enforcementtools:
●
●
●
●
●
Individual Regional Fishery ManagementCouncils are likely to develop someunique regulations which demand moreknowledge of vessel locations;
Developments in technology may resultin more efficient and effective equipment,for instance, land-based electronicssystems could supplant some aircraftflights;
There may be pressures for increasedforeign fishing off our shores, such thatthe value of illegal fish could exceed thecost of being apprehended;
Scientific data might reveal a greaterdanger to fishery resources than is pres-ently realized or danger to resources innew areas not now covered;
The costs of traditional enforcement maygrow to a level that could not be easilyjustified in terms of resources conserved.
Such factors as these lead to the conclusionthat plans should be made for further im-provements in enforcement capabilities by useof remote-sensing devices and other advancedtechnology.
It is probably in the national interest to ac-tively plan and pursue interagency use ofsome of these new technologies, especiallythose in which there already has been signifi-cant investment in development. However, itis unlikely that military agencies which nowhave such advanced technology will volunteeror be receptive to suggestions that they sharetheir capabilities for use in enforcing fisheryregulations.
In addition to the fact that such equipmentis dedicated to military application and report-edly already heavily used, it would be neces-sary to develop a fas t and ef f ic ientclearinghouse for processing and distributinginformation from the sensors before joint useof sensing equipment would be possible. Themilitary has already developed specializedsystems for correlating information frommany sensors; however, these systems arecrowded and translation of fisheries datawould receive low-priority treatment.
It may be desirable to pursue the develop-ment of new facilities which could receivedata from many sources, including suchgroups as the military, Bureau of Customs,NMFS, Coast Guard, and State and Federallaw enforcement networks. This facility couldcorrelate data, protecting classified or priv-ileged information if necessary, and displayall maritime activity, including that of fishingvessels37 (see figure 11).
Such a data correlation and display centerfor coverage of the complete fishing zonewould be costly, but it could also provide in-formation on oil tankers, commercial cargocarriers, surveillance for search and rescuemissions, and other similar activities. TheOffice of Technology Assessment’s WorkingPaper No. 5, which discusses such a facility,estimates the initial set-up cost at $1.5 millionfor a correlation facility to receive the infor-mation. Computer time would cost at least$14,000 a month for operation of the facility.Expense to the Coast Guard for installation ofhardware compatible with the correlationfacility and operation of Coast Guard func-tions would be an additional cost which hasnot been determined.
Recommended Pilot Project
OTA proposes a pilot program utilizing oneof the existing military systems for the collec-
43
San
Routine
● Amver● Fit. Weather● Port Data, VTS● USCG Ships, Aircraft
Special
● NOSIC(Naval Ocean SurveillanceInformation Center)
● HF/DF(High Frequency/DirectionFinding)
● Dept. of Motor VehiclesComputer
● 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 datafor one specific region. Some precedent forsuch a project already exists at the NavalOcean Surveillance Information Center wherethe Coast Guard has recently detailed oneofficer to work on data which are of interest tothe Coast Guard and have not, in the past,been processed by Navy personnel.38
The Office of Technology Assessment hasnot investigated the feasibility of using aspecific system in any region, but it appearsthat the Navy’s west coast network could be alikely pilot region. Any pilot project shouldbegin with an indepth investigation of theNavy’s existing system and its ability to pro-vide information needed for fisheries enforce-ment.
Some funding would be necessary to addpersonnel who would coordinate the transferof fisheries-related data from the Navy to theCoast Guard district in charge of fisheries en-forcement in that zone.
After a period of operation, the pilot projectshould be evaluated with special attention todetermining the completeness of coverageprovided, the cost, the timeliness and useful-ness of data provided, and a comparison ofthis method with other methods of sur-veillance.
On one hand, there may be difficulties inworking with and protecting classified infor-mation and there may be a danger that this ex-tra task might not receive adequate attentionin a facility oriented to an existing militarymission. However, such an information-shar-ing program could ultimately cut costs sub-stantially by reducing duplication of effortand facilities. It could also provide cooperativeexperience which might lead to sharing ofother services and resources needed for en-forcement and the opportunity to evaluatenew technology which may be of use in fish-eries enforcement.
Use of new technology, particularlyremote-sensing devices, may make it possibleto improve enforcement of fisheries regula-tions in the future by better coverage, betterperformance, and a reduction of the need forexpanding conventional ship and aircraftpatrols. Although it may be possible forseveral agencies (such as the Coast Guard, themilitary, and NASA) to share the cost of newremote-sensing devices, these systems are ex-tremely expensive and their use should bethoroughly evaluated before any one systemis adopted. Any analysis of benefits and costsof remote-sensing systems should not ignorethe argument that national security could becompromised by making some of thesesystems available for other than military mis-sions. Most of the security risks and financialcosts of remote-sensing systems could be con-sidered now; however, a clear analysis of thebenefits or improvements that could resultfrom the use of such new technology is notpossible until overall strategies of enforce-ment and specific regulations are defined.When these strategies and regulations havebeen drawn up, it will be desirable to preparea long-range plan; for example, a 5- to 10-yearplan that would include specific analysis ofthe introduction of new technologies andtechniques into enforcement plans.
The Coast Guard is presently in the processof formulating a research and developmentprogram for future enforcement of fisherieslaws.39 Such a program could make good useof an improved version of the existing com-puter model or a new model such as the onesuggested in an earlier section for joint prepa-ration by NOAA and the Coast Guard. Theresearch program is expected to include plansfor studying hardware and procedures for im-proving monitoring and surveillance, com-munications, data integration and analysis,and general operations.
45
At present, the research and developmentprogram is directed toward bringing new en-forcement technology into use in 10 years ormore. It could be possible, however, to ac-celerate the applied development of new tech-nology for which most of the research hasalready been completed by others so that itcould meet some Coast Guard needs in about5 years.
Because the budget for fisheries enforce-ment is only a small part of the overall CoastGuard budget (about $50 million out of $1.2billion), the agency has determined thatresearch funds in support of such enforcementcan best be spent for technology transfer andfor additions to related research contracts inother agencies.40
The Coast Guard is also following develop-ments in the Department of Defense wheremuch of the work on technology which maybe applicable to long-term fisheries enforce-ment is classified.
If conservation and management of the 200-mile fisheries zone is judged to have value tothe United States beyond the present mone-tary value of fisheries-related products andemployment, support for increased researchat the Coast Guard level may be warranted.Further research should include determina-tion of the best methods of utilizing classifiedsystems for other than defense purposes.
It appears that a pilot project for coopera-tion and joint research could bring togetherthe Coast Guard, DOD, and NASA to developnew systems and find efficient ways of usingtechnology in a multimission context. Such apilot project could include joint preparation oflong-range plans for determining the most ap-propriate research and development strategyfor new technologies, identifying the needs ofall potential users of such technology, andanalyzing the costs and benefits of developingand utilizing new technology, especiallyremote-sensing devices.
46
Remote-Sensing Devices
Since it appears that remote sensing will bean important enforcement tool as fisheriesmanagement develops, OTA commissioned astudy of the technology of such systems. Thefollowing is a brief summary of the OTAstudy of remote-sensing devices and findingsrelative to the remote-sensing techniqueswhich were analyzed for potential usefulnessin fisheries enforcement. Figure 12 comparesthe various techniques for usefulness and cost.
Of the seven devices studied, microwaveradar appears to have the best potential foruse in fisheries enforcement. High-frequency,over-the-horizon radar was also judged tohave good potential, but is not as highlydeveloped for commercial application asmicrowave radar. Other remote-sensingsystems in this group appear to have onlylimited fisheries application at this time.
Because of the sensitive nature of much ofthe remote-sensing technology, OTA has alsoprepared a separate classified document onthese systems.
By definition, remote sensing includes anymethod of obtaining information about an ob-ject from a distance without any physical con-nection to the object. It must be rememberedthat remote sensing is a detection and iden-tification tool only; it is not useful in ap-prehension.
For purposes of this study, research person-nel with broad knowledge and experience inremote sensing have analyzed potential tech-niques for use in fishery enforcement andhave determined that some of these tech-niques can be applied to fishery enforcementwithout resorting to the kind of high-priority,high-cost research and development used indefense and space exploration programs.
Based on past experience and based onNavy and Coast Guard ocean surveillancefunctions, it is likely that a combination ofsensors may be required to maintain an ade-quate picture of activity. When properly cor-related and analyzed, information fromvisual, radio, and radar sensors can provide apicture that is much more complete and ofgreater validity than could be provided by anyone or a few sensor systems. Ultimately, theproblems of patrolling a 200-mile fishing zonemay require the acquisition, correlation, andanalysis of multisensory data.
The Department of Defense is the principaldeveloper and user of most of the remote-sensing technology which may be applicableto the fisheries enforcement problem. To alesser extent, the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration and the Federal Avia-tion Administration are also developers andusers of new sensing technology. The CoastGuard is now working with these other agen-cies to determine what technologies would besuitable and how they could be utilized infisheries enforcement.
Transponders
A transponder is an active beacon whichcan be used in conjunction with radar or otherelectronic transmission system to enhance thedetection and location of foreign fishingvessels. The transponder transmits energy onthe same frequency as the radar signal, but at alevel several times higher than that whichwould result from unaided reflection of thesignal.
Some transponders can be hooked intoLoran–C receivers. Loran–C is a navigationalaid by which the location of a vessel isautomatically pinpointed by triangulation,
using continuous signals from two shorebasedstations at known locations. After the locationis identified by Loran–C, the information ispassed to the transponder which retransmitsit, along with the vessel’s identification, to acontrol station. These systems have goodfuture potential for use in fisheries enforce-ment as an extension of patrols by cutters andaircraft.
Transponders can be built that emit a stand-ard, preset signal or that respond to interroga-tion by a remote-sensing device by transmit-ting a wide variety of identification and fish-ing status information. The sophistication oftransponders is limited primarily by cost con-siderations. However, the state-of-the-art intransponders is advancing rapidly, d u elargely to advances in digital storage andprocessing technology, so that improved per-formance at lower cost is possible in thefuture. From a fisheries enforcement stand-point, the major drawback of most transpon-ders is that cooperation on the part of thevessel fitted with the transponder is required.A transponder that simply enhances detectionor supplies a preprogrammed identification andlocation signal can operate independently onany input from the target, but to supply addi-tional information such as fishing status orcatch data the vessel must provide the infor-mation to be transmitted. Guaranteeing thatsuch input would be provided or that inputwould be accurate could prove to be a seriousproblem, In addition, since such transponderscould only be placed aboard vessels whichhad permits to fish, they would do nothing inidentifying vessels which had illegally enteredan area without permit status.
It has been suggested that in lieu of requir-ing transponders on foreign fishing vessels,such devices could be supplied to domesticfishing craft to emit a signal that would im-mediately identify them as ships with whichthe enforcement agency need not be con-cerned.
47
—
The Coast Guard has a research programunderway to develop prototype transponderequipment. The Loran–C system is one ofseveral alternatives being considered.41 TheCoast Guard is also following related hard-ware-development projects within otheragencies, such as the Navy, and has addedsome of its needs to research contracts already
48underway in other agencies. 42
Classified
As the lead agency in developing trans-ponder technology for use in fisheriesenforcement, the Coast Guard is seeking todetermine the specific contributions that canbe made by existing equipment and to developsmall, tamper-proof packaging for transpon-ders to be placed on foreign vessels.
Estimates are that a minimum of 2-yearswork will be necessary before a suitable
Figure 12 (continued)Summary of the Potentiai of Remote-sensing Technology ToSupport Enforcement of the 200 nmi Fishing Zone
Classification Capability
FishingVessel?
BeaconRequired
ForeignFishing Vessel’
Coded BeaconRequired
Beacon Coded BeaconRequired Required
Beacon Coded BeaconRequired Required
1
Good;Requires low-to Medium-AltitudeApproach
Limited;RequiresTargetCooperation
No Capability
BeaconRequired
Fair; RequiresVery Low-AltitudeApproach
Limited;RequiresTargetCooperation
No Capability
Coded BeaconRequired
I IFishing? I Permit? I Catch?
Cooperative Transponder Required
Cooperative Transponder Required
No Capability No Capability No Capability
I I
Good, with Cooperative Fair, if CatchDirect Tele- Transponder Visible onPhoto Required DeckInspection
Cooperative Transmission Required
No Capability No Capability No Capability
Cooperative Transmission Required
Rough Cost Estimates ($ thousands)
IInitial
IYearly Operating
250-500 Per Principality AircraftAircraft* Operating Costs
(1 ,000-1,600 per A/C)
48,000 forI
1,800 for CompleteComplete Coverage* Coverage
100-200 Per 10% of AircraftAircraft* Operating Costs
10-500 Per Aircraft 10% of AircraftOperating Costs
125 Per Station 110 Per Station
N/A N/A
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.
S o u r c e : O T A
system can be put onboard foreign vessels andthat as much- as 7 years may be requiredbefore an ideal system with the best long-termapplication is devised.43
Recommended Pilot Program. —The Office ofTechnology Assessment suggests early imple-mentation of a pilot program utilizing trans-ponders in two specific regions—the BeringSea off the coast of Alaska and Georges Bank
off the New England coast. Since each of theseareas is a traditional fishing ground, but withvery different prevailing conditions, theusefulness of transponders could be evaluatedfor a broad range of applications by this pilotprogram.
The pilot programs would require thedesign and manufacture of Loran–C trans-ponder equipment specifically for this pur- 49
pose. The Loran–C network is now plannedor in operation in the regions proposed. Alicensing arrangement and installation tech-nique for fitting transponders on each foreignfishing vessel entitled to fish in the regionwould need to be devised, Control stationsand receivers on patrol ships or aircraft wouldneed to be installed.
It is estimated that the transponder whichwould go onboard each foreign vessel wouldcost less than $2,500. Once the system wereinstalled, operational costs would be roughlyequivalent to the operational cost of theaircraft carrying each control station, $1million to $1.6 million annually. Funds forevaluating the pilot project would be in addi-tion to these costs.
The Georges Bank pilot program would re-quire about 150 transponder units and a con-trol station most likely at a Coast Guard shorebase in New England. Each vessel entering the200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishingwould be required to activate its transponderwhich would automatically transmit iden-tification and location to the shore base. Theshore base would keep plots of all foreignfishing activity on the banks and give this topatrol craft. Regular patrols of the regionwould use this information to check on anyfishing activity that wasn’t reported by thissystem. At the end of one season, an evalua-tion of the usefulness of this system could bemade.
In the Bering Sea region a similar networkof transponders could be required aboardforeign fishing vessels, In this region it may bedesirable to combine the transponder networkwith microwave radar systems already usedaboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiv-ing stations. In this way a specific region couldbe covered by regular overflight, all vessels
operating in the region located by radar, eachvessel interrogated to determine whether anapproved transponder is aboard stating IDand location, and any vessels without trans-ponders investigated.44 There are several ad-vantages to a system thus described, especiallyin Alaska where long distances and large areascan best be covered by aircraft and where fre-quent cloud cover makes visual observationdifficult or impossible. After a season ofoperations with such a system a comparativeevaluation of its usefulness would determinewhether it could be beneficial to expand use orcoverage.
Microwave Radar45
Microwave radar has been used for oceansurveillance by aircraft and ships for almost40 years. The technology is highly developedand the design principles are so well knownthat it is possible to predict with high confi-dence the performance of any given designchosen for use. Microwave radar has betterpotential for large area coverage than anyother system now in use.
Microwave radar operates by transmittingpulses of energy from a directional antenna,The pulses are reflected by any material objectencountered. The reflected energy is subse-quently received and analyzed to determinethe position and characteristics of the reflect-ing objects. The direction of the objects can bedetermined by tracking the reflected signalsand the distance is determined by measuringthe time delay from pulse transmission toreception of the reflected signal.
The basic information for fisheries enforce-ment which can be supplied by microwaveradar is:
● the presence or absence of a vessel in agiven area;
50
● the position of a detected ship at a givenpoint in time;
● course and speed of a vessel when aseries of position updates are available;and
● estimates of gross shape and size.
However, microwave radar by itself hasalmost no potential to classify vessels by type,nationality, or operation. Some classificationmay be possible by continuous tracking toestablish movement patterns, but microwaveradar’s primary contribution to classificationis in guiding patrol ships or aircraft to a posi-tion where identification can be made byvisual means. Detection of fishing vessels byradar is enhanced, and identification andclassification made possible, by adding trans-ponders onboard permitted foreign fishingvessels.
Any modern commercial or military ship-board radar can easily detect fishing boats at adistance of up to 12- to 18-nautical miles(nmi), Existing ground-based, surface-searchradars, such as the sea surveillance radarsdeveloped for the Pacific Missile Test Centerby the Navy Electronics Laboratory Center,can detect fishing vessels at a distance of up to40 nmi from the land base. These systems arealready in use by the Coast Guard which hassome of the best available equipment.
The opportunities for improving the use ofmicrowave radar lay in the use of more ad-vanced radar systems from aircraft orsatellites and the addition of transponders on-board fishing vessels in order to exploit the in-formation-gathering potential of the combina-tion. It is estimated that a single aircraft withradar could patrol the west coast out to andbeyond the 200-mile fishing zone once every 4hours (see figure 13), For satellite sur-veillance, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) has estimated that
Figure 13Useful Surveillance Coverage by aState-of-the-Art Microwave Radaron a 70-kft Altitude Aircraft
/
<
ISource: Stanford Research Institute
twice daily imaging of thezone could be provided by
entire U.S. fisheryeight satellites.
Microwave radar technology operated fromsatellites is being developed by the Depart-ment of Defense and NASA and mav beavailable within 10 years, The system has thepotential to supplement or supplant airborne
51
radar, but the cost would be high and proba-bly would have to be shared by several agen-cies.
Over-the-Horizon Radar46
Use of over-the-horizon radar (OTHR)techniques would allow detection of fishingboats at much greater distances and wouldallow coverage of much larger areas thanthose covered by microwave radar.
This is because remote sensing using signalsin the microwave and other very high fre-quency ranges is constrained by the essen-tially line-of-sight nature of the signal. For allpractical purposes, this means that the sensorsmust be elevated in order to operate over sig-nificant distances.
The use of over-the-horizon radar reducesthis constraint by making use of signals in thehigh frequency range in which energy wavesare refracted by the atmosphere or ionosphereto follow the curvature of the earth.
High frequency energy has been used forcommunications since the earliest days ofradio. The technology for generation,transmission, and reception of high frequencyenergy is well developed and the effects of theatmosphere and ionosphere on the signals arewell understood. However, some aspects ofusing high frequency signals are not so wellunderstood. Among these are the reflectioncharacteristics of material objects at high fre-quency, Means of concentrating and codinghigh frequency transmissions to enhanceradar operation and the processing of radar
returns in order to extract more informationabout the object detected also are still beingdeveloped.
OTHR has been developed primarily formilitary use and several experimentalsystems, capable of performing a number ofuseful functions, have been built by the NavalResearch Laboratory, the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, and othergroups.
Two types of OTHR might be usefulcries enforcement, a skywave modegroundwave mode:
Skywave OTHR takes advantage
in fish-and a
of therefractive property of the ionosphere, whichcauses the radar to curve back to earth at dis-tances ranging from 500 to 2,000 nmi (seefigure 14). Thus wide area coverage is possiblefrom a single site. For instance, a singleskywave OTHR located in Utah could providesurveillance coverage over the entire PacificCoast (see figure 15).
Groundwave OTHR, in which radio energytravels along the curved earth surface, pro-vides much more limited coverage, but may beuseful in specific regions. Groundwave OTHRhas an operational radius of a few hundredmiles. Thus, while ships out to and beyond the200-mile zone could be detected from a shorestation, many stations would be required tocover the entire coast.
Both systems can provide continuous sur-veillance of very large areas so that the generallocation of all fishing boats of at least a certainminimum size can be monitored on a full-timebasis. If transponders are installed on theboats, detection can be enhanced and otheruseful information can be obtained,
Because of their capability to cover greaterdistances and larger areas, OTHR techniqueshave good potential for use in fisheries en-forcement. However, due to both the classified
52
Figure 14Over-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 fieldand the high cost of OTHR, use of this systemwill be contingent upon close cooperation be-tween the Department of Defense (DOD) andthe Coast Guard,
Microwave Radiometry47
Microwave radiometers operating aloneoffer very little promise as a means of iden-tifying fishing vessels or their catch. However,if combined with transponders onboard ship,they are a promising system which wouldlocate, identify, and classify ships in almostany weather, day or night and provide otherdata on sea state, sea ice, and rainfall rates aswell.
Location
A radiometer is merely a sensitive detectorwhich receives and measures the brightnesstemperature of microwave energy naturallyemitted and reflected by surfaces. Detection ofa ship is possible because the microwaveenergy thus reflected by a ship is differentthan that of the surrounding ocean. A woodenship appears radiometrically “warmer” and asteel ship “cooler” than the ocean. It is an en-tirely passive system, as opposed to activetechniques which measure the reflection ofsignals which have been transmitted by radar.One of the advantages of the passive system isthat it allows surveillance without radiation,therefore, the target does not know it is beingobserved.
Microwave radiometers have been usedroutinely in satellites to measure whether con-
53
54Source: Stanford Research Institute
ditions and airborne radiometers have been Figure 16successful in mapping weather fronts and sea Airborne Scanning Microwavestates. Radiometric measurement of oil spillshave been made with limited success and
Radiometerradiometers have been frequently suggestedfor use in missile terminal guidance systems.
Although there do not appear to be anyoperational systems at present that arespecifically designed for detection of ships,such systems have been studied and pro-totypes have been tested. The existing tech-nology is more than adequate for the detectionof fishing vessels.
However, constraints on maximum fre- h = 62
quency and the detectability of relatively smallships severely restrict the height from which aradiometer can effectively operate. Satellitescould not be used for radiometer detection offishing vessels, and aircraft would be limitedat altitudes of about 6,000 feet. At that altitudefishing vessels could be located to within2,000 feet in range and 2 degrees in bearing(see figure 16).
Optical and Electro-Optical Techniques48
With existing technology a variety of opti-cal and electro-optical sensors can be builtwhich could perform many useful functionsin enforcement of the 200-mile fishery zone.
This category of sensors includes the tradi-tional visual, aided visual, and photographictechniques—ranging from the human eye toelectronically augmented viewing systemsand film cameras--and the more sophisti-cated, recently developed methods of electro-optics such as low-light-level television andinfrared or thermal mapping systems. Thesesystems are likely to play supporting or aux-iliary, rather than primary roles, in enforce-ment.
Source: Stanford Research Institute
55
Optical detection and surveillance systemscan be operated from satellites, aircraft, orships. The combination of timeliness ofcoverage and operational economics makesaircraft seem the most useful surveillance craftfor the near future, with some data beingderived from existing or projected satellites,and with final follow-up performed by sur-face vessel.
One of the major problems of optical sen-sors is the processing and handling of raw-data output. Photographic film requireschemical development, usually at the end of areconnaissance mission (that is, when theaircraft lands or ejected film capsules havebeen retrieved from satellites). In some cases,film from aircraft can be rapid processed inflight 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 immediateinterpretation of close-up photography. Butimages from long-range, high-altitudesatellites need more extensive and detailed ex-amination, often requiring several hours oreven days by expert photo-interpreters beforeuseful, specific data are developed. Most of theelectro-optical systems can provide realtimeoutputs capable of immediate display and ex-amination in the form of electrical signalsreadily amenable to interpretation ortransmission to a shore-based facility.
Optical and electro-optical techniques varywidely and the choice of specific systemswould depend on the enforcement strategieschosen.
Electromagnetic Intercept Techniques49
Because all ocean-going vessels are alreadyequipped with radio equipment and mostwith navigational radar, it is possible to detectand classify foreign fishing vessels by inter-cepting and analyzing their radio or radaremissions.
Two techniques have potential in fisheriesenforcement activities: the use of directionfinding equipment to determine the positionof detected vessels and the use of informationfrom the intercepted transmissions to identifyand classify the vessel.
The technology for both direction-findingand communications interception andanalysis is highly developed and numeroussystems have been developed for both mili-tary and civilian use. These systems can beoperated from shore bases, ships, aircraft, orsatellites. At high frequencies intercept is notlimited to, but does work best, within line-of-sight of the detected vessel. An aircraft mov-ing at 300 knots could have line-of-sight ac-cess to 200,000 square miles of sea surface perhour.
In the past, direction-finding equipmentwas used primarily for location of aircraft andships in distress. Currently, however, it is inuse largely for monitoring and surveillance.The Federal Communications Commissionmaintains a network to locate illegal radiotransmitters and sources of radio interference;the Department of Defense operates severalnetworks for surveillance and intelligencedata collection.
It is possible that some signal intercept in-formation from DOD files can be made availa-ble to the Coast Guard for fishery enforce-ment, However, most of the DOD operationsare mission-oriented and are flown in areas ofmilitary interest, therefore it is unlikely muchtime is spent tracking fishing fleets. Thefeasibility of assigning military aircraft forfishery patrols would be expensive and wouldhave to be worked out with DOD.
The Coast Guard could supply personnel tosort out fishery information collected by DODor an entire direction-finding station could bededicated to Coast Guard fisheries work.Because of the security implications of muchof the data handled by DOD facilities, suchcoordination may prove difficult.
Magnetic Techniques50
Magnetic anomaly detector systems havebeen built and used for the detection of sub-marines and there is no reason why theywould not be equally successful in detectingfishing vessels. The systems operate by detect-ing local changes in the direction and strengthof the earth’s magnetic field caused by any ob-ject, such as a steel-hulled vessel, with mag-
57
+
netic properties. However, because detectionis possible only at a much shorter range thanwith radar or visual systems and because noclassification of vessels is possible, magnetictechniques presently have little potential foruse in fisheries enforcement.
Acoustic Techniques51
Detection and classification of fishingvessels by use of acoustic techniques is possi-ble because the technology for the generation,transmission, and reception of acoustic energyis well established and the factors that in-
fluence acoustics in the ocean and atmosphereare well known.
The use of acoustic techniques for the detec-tion of fishing vessels can be extrapolatedfrom the Navy’s experience in submarinedetection. However, new equipment and newmethods of use would have to be developed.Since most of the existing acoustic systems arehighly classified it is not possible to describethem, except to say the equipment is verycomplex and costly to operate. Much develop-ment would be needed to determine theusefulness of these systems for fisheries lawenforcement.
OTA Photo
Oceanographic vessels, such as the Albatross II of Woods Hole, will be used in some fisheries research
58
4. Management of NewU.S. Fisheries Zone
Background
The Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of 1976 (P.L, 94-265) is potentially themost significant institutional change in thehistory of U.S. fisheries management. The lawextends the limits of U.S. jurisdiction out to200 miles and incorporates some advancedideas about ways to manage marine fisheriesin the United States, Implementation of thislaw will require a level of understandingabout the infrastructure of the fishing indus-try that has never before been attempted bythe U.S. Government. Eventually it will re-quire a thorough description of the entire cy-cle from spawning fish to fish on the dinnertable. In the past, each section of the fishingindustry—i e., fishing, processing, retailing,etc. —was concerned only with its own aspectsof the cycle. There has been little correlation ofinformation and no indepth analysis of the in-terdependence and the interrelatedness of thevarious segments of the industry. A better un-derstanding of the fishing industry as a wholewill be necessary in order to implement themanagement theories put forth in the newlaw.
Management, according to the law, meansthe use of “rules, regulations, conditions,methods, and other measures (A) which arerequired to rebuild, restore, or maintain, andwhich are useful in rebuilding, restoring, ormaintaining, any fishery resource and themarine environment; and (B) which aredesigned to assure that:
(i) a supply of food and other productsmay be taken and that recreational
-benefits may be obtained, on a con-
(ii)
(iii)
tinuing basis;irreversible or long-term adverseeffects on fishery resources and themarine environment are avoided;andthere will be a multiplicity of optionsavailable with respect to- future usesof these resources.”52
Public Law 94-265 implies that propermanagement of U.S. fisheries will result in
conservation of fish stocks, which means areduction in overfishing of some species, in-creased fishing of underutilized species, andenhancement of stocks which are currentlyoverutilized or depleted.
International pressures now exist to takethe last available ton of some popular speciesfrom the ocean each year. For example, in itslatest report to Congress under the terms ofthe Marine Protection, Research and Sanctu-aries Act of 1972, NOAA concludes that about10 to 15 major finfish and shellfish stockshave been overfished, primarily by foreignfleets; other stocks are in danger of beingoverfished, and numerous others are “inten-sively exploited.”53
In this study, OTA examined many ele-ments of fisheries management that are con-tained in Public Law 94-265--elements thatmany people believe have been neglected inthe past-and that seem to be of great impor-tance in effectively managing fisheryresources in the future. The major elements offishery management which were examined byOTA are:
. development of and use of the concept ofoptimum yield;
. establishment and operation of fisherymanagement councils;
● preparation of preliminary managementplans for foreign fisheries;
● preparation of final management plansfor domestic fisheries; and
. evaluation of management effectiveness.This section describes the status of these
management elements, discusses some of theplanning which is needed for future manage-ment, and describes specific informationwhich will be needed for adequate manage-ment. The information needs were determinedby special studies commissioned by OTA.These studies are referenced throughout thisreport as working papers and are beingpublished separately.
61
Optimum Sustainable Yield
One of the most important managementprinciples set out in the law is that manage-ment plans should result in optimum yield.Optimum yield, according to the broad defini-tion in the Act, is the allowable catch which(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit tothe Nation, with particular reference to foodproduction and recreational opportunities;and (B) which is determined as such on thebasis of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)as modified by any relevant economic, social,or ecological factors.54
Implicit in optimum yield is the idea thatthe concepts and data from all the fields indi-cated in the Act should be integrated and nottreated as separate entities. Management plansbased on the finest concept will do little goodif their implementation results in dangerousdepletion of the fish stocks or massive socialdisruption with attendant political agitation.Unfortunately, integration of biological,economic, and social information poses majorproblems.
In the past, it was considered adequate toanalytically determine the total allowablecatch that each species could sustain withoutdamage to the parent stock. That figure wasknown as the maximum sustainable yield(MSY). However, most fishery experts wouldnow agree that MSY cannot be determined forany species because there are too manyunknown biological factors which influencethe size and health of fish stocks. This situa-tion is further complicated by the traditionalcommon-property nature of fish resourcesand incomplete knowledge of the entiremarine ecological system.
In addition, social and economic factors areof considerable importance in a free societyand do, in fact, have a major effect on actualutilization of each species. The concept of op-timum as opposed to maximum (or “best” asopposed to “most”) is to take these social andeconomic factors into consideration.
Like an MSY figure, a precise optimum-yield figure for each fishery is not attainable atthis time. However, a process can be soughtfor considering all factors and reaching a com-promise set of guidelines to follow for goodmanagement.
Such optimum yield concepts should beadaptable to changes in resource priorities,knowledge about the resource, informationabout its use, and the trade-offs that resultfrom management. Optimum yield is the coreof each management plan which will probablyinclude such other items as: quantities andtypes of fish to be harvested; methods andtechniques to be used; and measurements andevaluations to be conducted.
No specific process for seeking optimumyield for a fishery has been established yet.The yield figures used by the National MarineFisheries Service in drawing up preliminarymanagement plans are estimates based on ex-isting data, which is mostly biological innature. However, NMFS and the RegionalCouncils are wrestling with the problem ofhow to pursue optimum yield. A workshop ofcouncil members and Federal officials is beingplanned for purposes of devising a method ofseeking the optimum yield for each fishery.New concepts need to be developed and muchnew information must be gathered in order toobtain an integrated view of the fisheries ofthe United States and to determine the op-timum yield of a fishery. In the meantime, it isclear that at least the following factors shouldbe considered:
62
Regional Fishery ManagementCouncils
. biologically based estimates or predic-tions of the maximum yield which can beexpected from each stock without futuredepletion of that stock;55
. quality of the predictions or the rangewithin which they are likely to be accu-rate so that safety margins can be builtinto catch figures; 56
● such relevant ecological factors as waterquality, destruction of breeding grounds,disasters such as oil spills or severeweather; and
. economic and social factors of individualfisheries which will be relevant in deter-mining the effect of management optionson such interested parties as commercialfishermen, sport fishermen, food proc-essors, marketing groups, fish-food con-sumers, and the general public.57
In reality, the exact meaning of optimumyield and the best method of determining itwill be determined by the Regional Councilsthrough their decisions in the coming years.In the absence of an analytical method, judg-ments may be used to modify a maximum-yield figure to reflect the factors listed above.If data on these factors are not available or areunreliable, further judgments may be used.Even with an analytical method and reliabledata, there will be uncertainty and techniquesfor dealing with that uncertainty will benecessary.
Public Law 94-265 establishes eightRegional Councils which will set standards,develop plans, and prepare regulations for themanagement of fisheries in each region, Theregions and their jurisdiction are shown infigure 17. Each council includes membersfrom industry and other parties of interest inthe region as well as representatives of Statefisheries offices, the Regional Director of theNational Marine Fisheries Service, a CoastGuard representative, and a representative ofthe Department of State. The Secretary ofCommerce, who appoints the voting membersof the councils from lists of potential memberssubmitted by the Governors of the States ineach region, has been asked to seek an amend-ment to the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act which would require thatenvironmental interests be represented on thecouncils. Similar consideration should proba-bly be given to consumers. Figure 18 lists thecouncils and their memberships on the effec-tive date of Public Law 94-265.
The Regional Counci ls have broadauthority to recommend fishery managementplans to the Secretary of Commerce for ap-proval and implementation. The managementplans which the councils will be formulatingmust, under the law, take into considerationdomestic fishing, foreign fishing, and recrea-tional fishing. Once it is determined what por-tion of the allowable catch can be harvested byU.S. vessels, the remainder is to be allocated asforeign catch.
The general responsibilities of the councilsare clear (see figure 19), but their relationshipto the future operation of already establishedFederal agencies is not so clear. The Federalagency with the major responsibility in fish-ery management is the National Marine Fish-ery Service in the Department of Commerce.The National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS)has a dual-role of providing services to thecouncils, mostly in the form of biological stock
63
Source: OTA
New England
Gulf of Mexico
Figure 19Duties of Regional Counciis and National Marine Fisheries Service ‘
Required b
Regional Councils
Modify preliminary management plans preparedby NMFS for foreign fisheries
Prepare fishery management plans for domesticfisheries.
Determine information, data and analysis neededto prepare management plans
Test and evaluate techniques for determiningoptimum sustainable yield and other managementfactors
Secure needed information from NMFS or otherregional sources as necessary to completemanagement plans
Source: OTA
67
estimates and other data, and of assuring thatmanagement plans adequately reflect the na-tional interest and are consistent with nationalmanagement standards. The Council andNMFS will also work with two other Federalagencies—the Coast Guard and the Depart-ment of State—in enforcing regulations anddetermining foreign fishing allocations andregulations to control foreign fishing.
With all this complex organizational andprocedural set-up, it will undoubtedly takesome time to develop a smooth operation. Itappears that an important aspect of smoothoperations is close-working arrangements be-tween the Federal and regional levels. To date,there are no written requirements for work tobe done by the councils and no firm criteriafor use by NMFS in judging the plansdeveloped by the councils.58 At present it ap-pears that communications between Federalgroups and the Regional Councils will bethrough NMFS regional offices when servicesor data are needed but through the NMFSWashington office when management plansare submitted for approval.
Presently, the NMFS representative on eachcouncil is the Regional Director. However, it ispossible that better liaison with the councilscould be accomplished if the director of theregional fisheries research center were therepresentative instead or in addition to thepresent appointee. The research centers con-duct the service function of NMFS and will besupplying the councils with scientific andother types of data to be used in drawing upmanagement plans. Presently the councilshave no mandatory policy-level link withthese centers and must work instead throughnonpolicy-level representatives to the councilsor through the Regional Director who has noauthority at the centers. Placing the centerdirector on the Regional Council could forcethe centers to be more accountable for the ex-istence and reliability of data requested by the
68
councils and improve working relations be-tween the two groups.
Close coordination will be required in threeareas of major problems which have not yetbeen resolved:
1. What budget allocations will the councilsreceive from NOAA and how much dis-cretion will they have in spending fundsfor collection of regional data not availa-ble from NMFS and data not consideredreliable enough for management deci-sions?
Roughly $30 million are programed in thefiscal year 1978 Department of Commercebudget for implementation of the 200-milefishery zone. Of this, about $10 million will goto NMFS for its work, the work of its regionallaboratories, and the work of the RegionalCouncils. The rest of the moneys go to NOAAfor administration; Sea Grant for research bymember universities; and the National OceanSurvey for operation of research vessels.
The councils’ requests for funds must be ap-proved by NMFS and NOAA before themoneys are made available. According to anNMFS spokesman, there is presently no con-flict between the councils and the NMFSlaboratories over funding for research work.However, conflicts over the division of thefunds between NMFS laboratories and theRegional Councils can probably be expected inthe future because of some local fishermen’slack of confidence in national NMFS opera-tions and council desires to break out of thetraditional NMFS research pattern. Accordingto NMFS, “every consideration” will be givento the councils’ requests for research funds;however, council funding will reflect NMFSdecisions on who can best conduct specificresearch in the most cost-effective way.59
Presumably, the councils will be more suc-cessful in requesting money for research intosocial and economic areas, where little exper-tise now exists within NMFS, and less suc-cessful in requests for funds to conduct
Preliminary Management Plans forForeign Fisheries
biological research which is already well-developed by the NMFS labs. However, NMFSis already buttressing each of its four regionalresearch staffs with the addition of a seven-man economic and statistical team. Conflictsmay evolve over who does specific researchtasks. There is presently no framework, otherthan informal negotiations between NMFSand the councils, for resolving such conflicts.
2. What national data and methods oranalysis will NMFS undertake to collectand publish for the use of all councils inmanagement planning?
When this report was written, no decisionshad been made within NMFS as to howresearch and development of analyticalmethods would be divided. There was a divi-sion of opinions among NMFS professionalsas to whether recommended data andmethods should flow from NMFS to councilsor from the councils to NMFS. Early work wasof necessity under the constraints of a March1, 1977, deadline undertaken by NMFS, but nofirm guidelines have been drawn-up yet as towho, in the future, should do what specifictypes of tasks.
3. How will optimum yield be determinedand can an analytical method be appliedwhich will improve management plan-ning ?
As noted earlier, it was not possible todetermine the optimum yield for foreign fish-eries in time to include the figures in prelimi-nary management plans. Some judgmentsregarding social, economic, and ecological fac-tors were used in determining optimum yieldfor the two domestic plans which have beenproposed. Although a workshop is plannedjointly by NMFS and the councils formid-1 977 to investigate methods of determin-ing optimum yield, there is now-as the coun-cils prepare their first domestic plans and pre-pare to modify the preliminary foreignplans—no agreed-upon method.
Since the Regional Councils were not ableto develop management plans for those fish-eries with foreign fishing in time for theMarch 1, 1977 deadline for implementation ofthe Act, these plans were prepared by NMFS.The plans have been termed “preliminary”until they are approved or modified by thecouncils. Plans were prepared for 16 fish-eries 60 in four general regions covered by sixcouncils. However, only two regions have themajor significant foreign fishing effort—theNortheast region, covered by New Englandand Mid-Atlantic Councils, and the North-west and Alaska Region, covered by thePacific and North Pacific Councils. Figure 20lists the plans prepared for these regions.
In the preparation of these plans, no at-tempt was made to consider all the factorsspecified in the Act or to determine optimumyield which takes into account the economic,social, and ecological factors. Most of thepreliminary plans state that the councils willdetermine the specific factors to be used tocalculate optimum yield sometime in thefuture. In the meantime, NMFS has used total-allowable catch figures determined, for exam-ple, by the International Commission onNorth Atlantic Fisheries in the place of op-timum yield figures which have not yet beendetermined by the councils.
The preliminary management plansestablish a total allowable catch for specieswhich are subject to foreign fishing effort,estimate the share of that catch which U.S.fishermen could harvest, and set a surplusfigure which is available to foreign fishermen.It is this surplus which is allocated amongthose countries applying for permits to fishwithin the 200-miIe zone. Allocations con-tained in the preliminary management plans(as of January 1977), excluding allocations forspecies under 10,000 tons and species with noallocations, 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 somereduction in foreign allocations is contained inthe preliminary plans in order to reserve cer-tain stocks for US. fishermen, the overwhelm-ing reduction in allowable catch is assumed tobe for the purpose of conserving stocks whichhave 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 onforeign allocation figures. For example,foreign allocations for pollock were increased100,000 metric tons by NMFS this year inresponse to State Department comments onthe environmental impact statement relativeto trawl fishery management plans for theBering Sea.
As with enforcement, the foreign policy im-plications of some management actions andallocations may at times be more importantthan the fishery implications. However, somemechanism should be established to assurethat fisheries managers are not intimidated bythe Department of State and that Departmentof State requests are based on clear evidencethat the allocations or other aspects of themanagement plans would be harmful forsome reason.
These preliminary management plans arethe first step in a complex process aimed atregulating foreign fishing. Because they arethe prime management tool, they are of greatimportance and need careful scrutiny. Aswritten and published before the March 1,1977, implementation date, the preliminarymanagement plans prepared by NMFS forregulation of foreign fisheries are not coordi-nated in content or format. In fact, NMFS hasreserved the task of writing and publishingregulations for the presentation of manage-ment plans until after the law has gone intoeffect, Other rules and regulations for opera-
71
Figure 21Preliminary ManagementPlan Allocations -
Metric Tons
TotalAllowable
CatchForeign
AllocationFishery
Northwest and Alaska Reglon
Trawi Fisheries*(Inciudes poiiack, sole,mackerel, flounder, oceanperch, rock fish, pacific hake) 1,672,0001,783,000
Sable Fish (not in above) 36,000 25,000
10 ,000King and Tanner Crabs 142,000
Shrimp
Region Total
50,000
2,014,000
164,000
None
1,710,000
Northeast Region
128,000Red and Silver Hake
79,000 41,000
50,000
Squid
55,000Mackerel
40,000
150,060
468$000
1 6 , 0 0 0
Other Finfish
Region Total.
● Theae are listed in three separate plans acc
Source: Preliminav Management Pians
The total foreign allocation for the year1977 will be about 2.04-million metric tons.This compares to about 2.72-million metrictons which was harvested by foreign fisher-
, 1 -117., f ) - 7; . ,,
tion of the councils and preparation ofmanagement plans, in very general language,were published in the Federal Register in draftform in September, 1976 .61 This failure t.standardize operations within NMFS beforethe initial plans were written may have com-plicated the councils’ job of preparing suc-ceeding plans by failing to give them a modelafter which to pattern their work. It may alsoperpetuate regional differences within NMFSand complicate the national review process.
As the councils consider the preliminaryplans and attempt to develop the managementprocess, much must be learned about theeffectiveness of management techniques andpresentation of plans. The most pressing needfor improvement, however, is in the area ofdeveloping and considering economic, social,and biological data to be used to modify thecatch figures presented in the preliminaryplans.
Source: National Fisherman72
Final Management Plans forDomestic Fisheries
As the councils become operational, theywill assume their principal responsibility ofdeveloping management plans for domesticfisheries. There is no deadline for issuingspecific plans. However, serious problemswith heavily fished species have been recog-nized in two areas and emergency domesticmanagement plans have been prepared to takeeffect simultaneously with the preliminarymanagement plans for foreign fisheries. Theseplans were prepared by NMFS and there issome concern that they will not be wellreceived by domestic fishermen because of thelack of local input to the regulations.
This possibility could have been avoided—and can be avoided in the future if additionalemergency plans are deemed necessary beforethe councils are working fully—if NMFS wereto detail or loan personnel to the councils forpreparation of the plans. Such an arrangementwould put the councils in charge of the prepa-ration and ensure the input of industry andother interested segments of the pubIic.
Although there are well-known ad-ministrative problems and costs in detailingpersonnel, such a system should be investi-gated because of its potential for makingprofessional staff members available to thecouncils on an as-needed basis without thenecessity of building up bureaucracies withinthe councils themselves.
Two draft domestic management planswere prepared by NMFS. One of the NewEngland fishery for haddock, cod, andyellowtail flounder and one for the Pacificfishery for salmon.
For New England, some judgmental in-creases and decreases were made in maximumsustainable yield figures supplied by theNMFS lab and an attempt was made to set anoptimum yield which reflects economic andsocial factors. The draft plan determines thatthere is to be no foreign catch and allocates thedomestic catch between commercial and
recreational fishermen. The plan also recom-mends that the stock be protected by somefishing regulations such as ones on mesh size,minimum catch size, and tying the allowablecatch to the number of crew members perboat.
In the Pacific, the domestic catch is allocatedamong commercial, recreational, and nativeAmerican fishermen and regulations are set,including fishing season, area closures, andbag and size limits.
Beyond these two emergency plans, there isno priority list of domestic fisheries for whichmanagement plans should be prepared. SinceNMFS now has the most information on U.S.fisheries and the status of stocks in general,and since NMFS has the power to preparedomestic management plans if the councils donot do so, it would be helpful if NMFS wouldcompile a listing of fisheries where manage-ment plans are needed. Such a listing shouldbe a priority ranking and should delineate theneeds for management plans in each case.Such a list would help focus the councils’ earlywork and would be helpful in projecting theirinformation needs.
National Oceanic and Atmosperic Administration Photo
Small net handling boats close the purse seine around thecatch before transferring it aboard a larger vessel 73
Evaluation of ManagementEffectiveness
Both the councils and the Federal Govern-ment have the responsibility of measuring theeffect of the new management systems that arebeing developed. In its interim regulations forthe operation of the Regional Councils, NMFShas slightly expanded on the standards setforth in the law to be considered in evaluatingmanagement plans. These standards are:62
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conservation and management measuresshall prevent overfishing, while achiev-ing on a continuing basis, the optimumyield from each fishery.
Conservation and management shall bebased upon the best scientific informa-tion available.
To the extent practicable, an individualstock of fish shall be managed as a unitthroughout its range and interrelatedstocks of fish shall be managed as a unitor in close coordination.
Conservation and management measuresshall not discriminate between residentsof different States. If it becomes necessaryto allocate or assign fishing privilegesamong various U.S. fishermen suchallocation shall be (1) fair and equitableto all such fishermen, (2) reasonablycalculated to promote conservation and(3) carried out in such manner that noparticular individual, corporation, orother entity acquires an excessive shareof such privileges.
Conservation and management measuresshall, where practicable, promote effi-ciency in the utilization of fisheryresources; except that no such measureshall have economic allocation as its solepurpose.
6. Conservation and management measuresshall take into account and allow forvariations among and contingencies in,fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
7. Conservation and management measuresshall, where practicable, minimize costsand avoid unnecessary duplication.
However, scientific data are not available tobackup these standards and it would bedesirable to establish a baseline for evaluationas soon as possible. Later sections of thisreport and Working Papers Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4describe the lack or unreliability of necessarydata for fisheries management. Until suchdata and analytical methods are developed, itis unlikely that management plans can beevaluated in any way which meaningfullyreflects whether the plans have been effectivein the past and what measures will be effectivein the future.
74
5 Information Needs forImplementation of PublicLaw 94-265
Biological Information
Fisheries management has traditionallybeen based on biological considerations.Therefore biological data are more sophisti-cated and research concepts are better under-stood than those for economic or social infor-mation, and biological research has beenfunded at a high Ievel by Federal and Stateagencies concerned with fisheries manage-ment.
The principal biological data tool is stockassessment, 63 the study of marine fish popula-tions in terms of their potential commercialyield, as well as the limits of that yield, Stockassessment attempts to develop an under-standing of marine ecosystems and the effectsof man’s activities upon them. The mecha-nisms that drive marine ecosystems, as well asthose that drive fishing activities, if under-stood and if properly applied, serve as onemeans to predict the effects of future activities.Therefore, stock assessments can and do con-tribute to fisheries management decisions.
Stock assessments seek to develop informa-tion on what the maximum sustainable yield(MSY) of a fishery is. That is, fisheries areviewed as a renewable resource, dependentupon:
●
●
●
●
the introduction of young fish into thepopulation (recruitment);
their rate of growth;
their natural mortality;
the mortality caused by fishing activities.
The management goal is to not removemore from the population than can bereplaced, thus allowing maintenance on asteady basis of an allowable surplus over andabove the parental stock necessary to producethat surplus. The principle that catch shouldnot exceed the MSY has found nearly univer-sal acceptance in the international fishingcommunity.64
Stock assessment has traditionally servedtwo purposes: provision of information anddata for the development of new fisheries, andprovision of information to maintain a stockor to restore depleted fisheries.
There exist a large number of uncertaintieswith existing stock assessment science:problems with the data generated and moreimportantly, problems concerning the use ofthat data.65 Of paramount importance is thefact that offshore marine fisheries, particularlyground fish (demersal species), constitutepopulations that are nearly impossible to ob-serve until harvested, As a result, assessmentmust depend upon inference, statistical prob-abilities, and the measures developed to un-derstand the complicated and interrelatedmarine environment. As such, assessmentsdepend upon the analysis of past informationand trends to predict future fisheries develop-ments.
Fishing activities have continually changedas technologies have developed. Thesechanges force adjustments in past-dataanalysis to reflect future realities. Further, asfishing activities have varied, there are en-vironmental fluctuations and trends that arelong-term in nature and are, as yet, poorly un-derstood. This understanding is extremelydifficult when technological changes con-tinually alter the data simultaneously.
77
Status of Current Information
In the past, estimates of fisheries yields andadvice on the health and viability of stocks hasbeen given to management bodies like the In-ternational Commission for Northwest Atlan-tic Fisheries (ICNAF) without disclosure tothe general public and with little involvementof domestic fishermen or other interestgroups. The new Regional Councils couldmake a substantial improvement in this pro-cedure by interpreting scientific data onstocks, publishing and widely disseminatingstock data and advice, and providing an op-portunity for continual access to informationand debate of the issues by interested parties.Good scientific data by itself will not promoteconservation or adequate management ofstocks. Input by and involvement of users andother public parties is crucial.
At present, most population estimates ofheavily utilized stocks appear to be quite ac-curate, in spite of some problems in gatheringinformation and evaluating the effects of fish-ing activity decisions. However, projections ofsustainable yields in the future are subject tolarge uncertainties due to effects of in-terspecies relationships, environmentalchange, fishing effort, and other unknownnatural variations.
Public Law 94-265 has put tremendouspressure on the stock assessment science toprovide a major part of the data base uponwhich quotas are set and restoration strategiesare determined. However, presently no stockhas adequate quantitative data on all itemsnecessary to develop estimates of maximum
potential yields that can be harvested withoutreducing the parent stock. The informationnecessary includes:66
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
an understanding of species-stockbiology;
quantification of the commercial indiceswhich allow trends in abundance to befollowed;
survey information that demonstrateschanges in total stock abundance and agecomposition;
survey information giving pre-recruit in-dices;
accurate knowledge of species/stockabundance and area location;
accurate age and size composition;
historical catch-effort data;
understanding of movements and migra-tions;
knowledge of the effect of such factors astemperature and water quality; and
knowledge concerning the interrelated-ness among species.
Historically stock assessment has studiedindividual populations of fish, and thebiological basis for management has thus con-centrated on the “single species” approach.This approach has assessed the resource po-tential of one or another species of fish thathas had commercial value to fishermen or thathas promise of future value, However, to be ofthe most use in setting optimum yields, stockassessments must take a multispecies ap-proach, looking at the relationship of onespecies to the survival of another. Biologistshave not yet developed a multispecies ap-proach which is generally accepted by thescientific community.67
78
Methods of Improving Information Base
The National Marine Fisheries Servicebudget for stock assessment is $11.1 millionfor fiscal 1978, up $2 million from fiscal 1977with most of the increase needed to provideinformation for management in the 200-milezone, 68 The budget is projected to double inthe next 5 years, but this may not be sufficient.The time and budget needs to provide addi-tional information are enormous. Yet, whilesuch information may well become necessaryin the future, the immediate short-term needsfor assessment data are for use in designingrestoration strategies. Restoration does notdemand the same level of accuracy in assess-ment data that is required for long-termmanagement. In the meantime, increased ac-curacy of assessment data carries with it costimplications that may be enormous; therefore,it may be far more cost-effective to choose keyindicators upon which to make decisions withall parties participating in those decisionsaware that, in the end, yield judgments willremain judgments.
It would be desirable to establish clearresearch priorities for future stock assessmentefforts and to define the level of assessmentaccuracy required for specific managementdecisions. In addition, clear relationships needto be established between fisheries stockassessment and the needs of other Federalagencies which are responsible for programswhich require environmental baseline data.For example, the Department of the Interiorrequires such information in regions that maybe leased for oil and gas development. If prop-erly structured, much of the fisheries assess-ment work could also be utilized for such pur-poses and much of the duplication which nowoccurs could be avoided.
There are two basic problems which arise inthe consideration of how to proceed withstock assessments:69
1.
2.
Because of the threatened status of manymarine stocks, much stock assessment in-formation is needed for immediate short-term management decisions. Therefore,the pressures to expand existing assess-ment methods are great.
Fisheries managers have been pressuredto treat stock ‘assessment informationwith the same precision as other resourcemanagers treat their data. However,while forest managers, for instance cancount the board feet of available timber,fish populations cannot be counted withsuch accuracy. Therefore, the newpressures to determine sustainable yieldsmay require more precision than stockassessments have delivered in the past orcan be expected to deliver in the future.
These problems should be considered alongwith two other facts:70
1.
2.
Assessment history has demonstratedthat existing methods have not beenproperly validated, primarily due to in-adequate data, even concerning thosespecies of traditional value to domesticfishermen.
The status of stocks-and, in fact, the pri-mary motivation for extension ofjurisdiction—requires a reduction of fish-ing pressure to the extent possible so thatthe marine biomass can recover.
79
When these four items are consideredtogether, it appears logical that a programshould be undertaken to improve the stockassessment data which will be used. Such aprogram could include the following steps:
1. Test the validity of existing assessment methodsduring a chosen restoration period
During this period, fishing pressure onsome stocks should be reduced drastically.Estimates of yields should be on the low side;then if they are incorrect, the major conse-quences are that stocks will recover morerapidly while some economic opportunity isdelayed.
During this restoration period, time-seriesof data could be developed through accuratecatch and effort figures gained via the use ofobservers on foreign fishing vessels and astrict enforcement system. In addition,automatic plankton sorting and fish-agingtechniques could be developed along withdesign and development of hydroacoustics,expanded survey cruises for several well-known stocks, and use of improved researchvessels for survey dependability.
The accuracy of existing assessmentmethods could also be evaluated under thisprogram to determine the degree of utility theinformation gained has for management deci-sions.
2. While assessing existing methodology, establishresearch priorities for the future
During the restoration period, the level ofaccuracy required for assessments underdifferent management goals could beestablished. For each chosen goal (for exam-ple, “catch the last ton,” “resource revitaliza-tion,” “maximum yield for today,” “max-imum yield for the future, ” etc.), the key in-dicators that will be required to achieve thedetermined level of precision could be out-lined. Then, for each level of precision andthose indicators that achieve that precision thefollowing items could be determined:
● the probable cost;
● the time necessary to provide usefulresults; and
● the relationship of each variable toassessment accuracy under the existingsystem.
3. Design a program strategy
As the existing accuracy of assessment isdetermined, and as differing managementgoals have been chosen with regard to re-quired level of accuracy, costs, time needs, andlevel of increased utility with regard to exist-ing methods, the following program strategycould be established:
● a listing of information needs, theirutility, and their cost;
● the precision of information necessary toachieve various management goals; and
● choices for a cost-effective and usefulassessment research program.
80
Economic Information
There has been some work in the field offisheries economics during the past 25 years tobegin a body of data and theory concerningthe application of economics to fisheriesmanagement problems, and the impact ofeconomists on Public Law 94-265 is clear.
However, additional economic informationis necessary under the new law for severalpurposes:
● to determine the optimum yield;
● to project the domestic catch and capacityto catch;
● to promote efficiency in the harvest sec-tor of the fishing industry;
• to understand and manage the impact offoreign fishing and imports of fish to U.S.markets;
● to determine the greatest overall benefitto recreational fishing; and
● to define fisheries on economically rele-vant terms.71
The following is a discussion of what infor-mation is important in each of these areas:
1) Optimum Yield.—The information baseof the Regional Councils must be adequate topermit determination of the optimum yield.The biological data which exists or can begenerated by existing procedures are not suffi-cient alone. Economic and social data are re-quired under the law. Economic data neces-sary to help in determining the optimum yieldwould include cost and returns, price projec-tions and regional employment considera-tions for a range of management options.Whenever management plans will causevariations in the quantities of fish which willreach markets, price- and market-structureanalyses will be necessary for the peoplewhose incomes will be affected. Expenditure
and employment data will also be required onsectors of the economy, such as processing,transportation, and sales outlets which havestrong links with the fishing industry and willfeel induced or secondary impacts of fisheriesmanagement.
2) Domestic Catch Projections. —How muchof the optimum yield will be harvested by U.S.fishermen depends, to a large extent, on newinvestments which are influenced by theeconomic returns of fishermen. Domesticcatch, therefore, cannot be reliably projectedwithout a knowledge of the cost and revenuerelationships of the U.S. fleets. In addition tothe normal free-market forces which affectcost and revenue, there are various domesticand foreign policies which are important.Among these are vessel-construction sub-sidies, marketing programs, fisheries develop-ment policies, and trade barriers to U.S. ex-ports.
3) Efficiency in the Harvest Sector. —Effi-ciency in the harvest sector is one of the goalsof the various management schemes whichmay be implemented. Consideration of effi-ciency requires a formal integration of biologi-cal and economic concepts and an adequatedata base to express concepts in quantitativeterms. The economic data required includecost and earnings information by vessel andgear type, demand relationships and potentialnonfishing employment and earnings oppor-tunities for fishermen.
4) Impact of Foreign Fishing and lmports.—Economic information on foreign fleets is ofparticular importance where the fish har-vested affect international trade of U.S. impor-ters or exporters. On the import side, fish may
81
be caught in U.S. waters, processed in aforeign nation and exported to U.S. marketswith obvious implications for domestic prices,employment, and incomes.
A more subtle import market effect mayalso take place. A foreign nation may have in-ventories of fish products produced partlyfrom fish caught in U.S. waters and partly inwaters outside U.S. jurisdiction. Foreign sup-pliers could fill U.S. import demands withproducts made from fish caught outside U.S.jurisdiction and satisfy their own demands orother world markets with fish caught fromU.S. waters. Under these circumstances theforeign nation could claim, correctly, that thefish captured in U.S. waters are not enteringU.S. markets. However, the end effect in U.S.markets is the same as if fish caught in U.S.waters had been directly exported to U.S.markets.
In terms of U.S. exports, domestic exportersmust be able to deliver products at prices com-petitive with foreign producers. One of thefactors affecting competitive status is the levelof subsidies received by foreign fleets and/orprocessors. Thus, to assess the internationaltrade aspects of U.S. fisheries, information onthe economics of foreign fleets operating inU.S. waters may be necessary.
This is a complex area because costs andreturns of foreign fleets may include hiddenimpacts of government intervention,widespread subsidization, and various socialwelfare policies.
Public Law 94-265 specifies that foreignfleets fishing in waters under U.S. jurisdiction
must supply certain information. Foreconomic analysis, that data should includedirect information on major inputs and costsof foreign fleets, in a form which permits iso-lation of operating costs in transit to watersunder U.S. jurisdiction from the operatingcosts while in U.S. waters. It should also in-clude information on capital constructioncosts and foreign subsidies. In addition, physi-cal data on vessel construction, vessel size,and gear characteristics collected for manage-ment purposes may be useful in measuringtechnical efficiency of the fleets by analysis ofvariances in catch per unit of effort.
There is a further need for information onactivities of foreign fishing interests which hasarisen since the Fishery Conservation andManagement Act was passed. The need is foraccurate, up-to-date information in threeareas: a) foreign investments in U.S. ownedfishing vessels; b) foreign investment in proc-essing plants and wholesale operations; and c)the impact of these investments.
a) Foreign investment in U.S. owned fishingvessels: By law,72 the U.S. Maritime Ad-ministration must approve the transfer of ma-jority ownership of U.S. documented fishingvessels to foreign ownership. Under a policypublished in the Federal Register in 1973,73
NMFS agreed to review all fishing vesseltransfer applications, giving due considera-tion to all social and economic factors in-volved on an individual basis, to determine ifsuch transactions were consistent with U.S.interests or if new regulations would be re-quired to protect fishery resources. However,information on the reasons and results of thetransfers is very limited. Through January1977, more than 1,200 U.S. fishing vessels,ranging from 5 to 500 gross tons, have beentransferred to foreign owners or foreignflags. 74 Once the vessels carry foreign flagsthey are subject to the same regulations andquotas which apply to foreign-built vessels.
82
However, these ships can be returned to theUS. flag fleet by an equally simple procedure,and records should be monitored to determineif this is happening in order to give foreign in-vestors access to U.S. fisheries.
There are also foreign investments of lessthan majority ownership which may in-fluence the economics and activities of fishingvessels, But there are no data at all on these in-vestments, although such investments mayultimately increase the number of U.S. vesselscompeting for scarce stocks. A larger numberof vessels may cause the resource to be spreadamong more fishermen and make operationinefficient.
b) Foreign investments in processing plants andwholesale operations: The last look at foreign in-vestments in this category was a very limitedreport which resulted from a special survey offoreign direct investment in the United States,conducted by the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis of the Department of Commerce in1974.75
The report, prepared by the Economic andMarketing Research Division of NMFS inApril 1976, showed that 47 U.S. commercialfish processing and wholesale firms were atleast partially owned by foreign interestswhich held 10 percent or more of the votingstock. The total value of the foreign invest-ment in U.S. firms was (in 1974) $129 million.More than half of the firms involved hadreceived foreign investments since 1970 andduring 1974 investments rose 30 percent, ac-cording to the report.
More than half the total value of foreigndirect investment in fishing firms at that time
was from the United Kingdom, Japan, andCanada. Other countries investing were Den-mark, Iceland, Norway, Kuwait, and Mexico.The firms in which these countries investedoperate 107 facilities, located mostly in Alaskaand the State of Washington, but also spreadalong the east coast.
In its report, NMFS acknowledged that amajor reason for foreign investment is proba-bly the desire to gain a more certain access toadditional supplies of fishery productsbeyond what the countries can harvest offtheir own coasts. As the United States andother coastal nations moved to extend theirjurisdiction over fisheries out to 200 miles, in-vestments in firms which could export prod-ucts appeared to be one way of keeping someaccess to fishing areas which might be closedto foreign vessels. Instead of being frozen outby the U.S. 200-mile fishery jurisdiction,foreign nations with investments in U.S. firmsshare in benefits and protections of the law.
Presently, there is no mandatory disclosureof the actual extent of foreign investment inU.S. fish processing and wholesale operations.Such disclosure would be necessary in orderto determine if foreign investment has in-creased along lines that would support theNMFS theory that such investments could beused as a hedge against low-catch allocationsfor foreign fishermen.
In addition, there are no data on the pointof origin of fish products imported to thiscountry. Such data, which could identify iffish had been caught in U.S. waters, could becollected by the Bureau of Customs and wouldhelp in assessing the impact of foreign fishingactivities.
c) The impact of foreign investments: Concernhas been expressed by the public and someMembers of Congress that foreign invest-ments may allow some countries to circum-vent some provisions of Public Law 94-265 or
8 3
that foreign interests may directly or in-directly exert a political influence on policiesfor fisheries management and regulation.76
Concerns about foreign investments in fish-ing vessels and processing or wholesaleoperations are that any of the following mayresult:
● Less processing of fish may be donelocally, leaving part of the work to bedone in a foreign country by low-costlabor, thus reducing the value of the localindustry.
● It may be possible for a vertically inte-grated company to operate a fish process-ing plant in the United States on abreakeven basis and take profits abroadthus escaping Federal and State taxes inthe United States,
● The firms may be able to operate at lowercost or pay higher prices for fish, thusmaking competition difficult for firmswholly owned by U.S. interests.
● Large-scale export of products from U.S.plants owned by foreign investors maybe a way of avoiding catch quotas andpermit fees for foreign fishing vessels.
● Increased demand for fish from foreign-owned firms which want to export prod-ucts may cause increased pressure onstocks from U.S. fishermen.
On the other hand, there is also some sup-port for foreign investment in U.S. firms. Sup-porters point out that the following can alsohappen: 77
● Higher prices may be paid to fishermenfor their catch,
●
●
●
●
More money may be available for plantexpansion and product diversification.
Risk of production may be reduced byfirm commitments from foreign marketsfor fish products.
Good markets may be found for productsnot currently saleable in the UnitedStates.
The fish trade deficit could be reducedwhich would be beneficial to the U.S.balance of payments.
As a result of passage of the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act, NMFS is againpondering the meaning and impact of foreigninvestments in the fishing industry, but nospecific studies have been undertaken yet todetermine if these investments will havefavorable or unfavorable impact on the over-all U.S. fishery and fishing industry. In orderto adequately address this problem, a widerange of economic information will be needed,including investment and export data plus allthose factors already mentioned as necessaryfor assessing the impact of foreign fishing andimports,
5) Recreational Fishing.—Although the lawis vague on details, it is clear that recreationalopportunities in U.S. fisheries are to be con-sidered by the managers. There is a substantialbody of literature on recreational benefits, in-cluding recreational fishing benefits, but thereare gaps in the data and in measurement tech-niques needed for devising a comprehensiveeconomic data base for recreational fisheries.
6) Definition of Fisheries. —The resourcesmost immediately affected by the law may beclassified by species or type of gear and vesselused to harvest them. Classification by speciesis most relevant for biological data collectionand research; however, that definition is notgenerally relevant to economic considerations.This is because multiple species fisheries are
84
involved, and frequently the same vessel canbe employed in fishing for several species. Inmany cases, the same vessel catches severalspecies simultaneously. Classification by typeof vessel and gear seems to be indicated foreconomic purposes, but there is no accurateinventory of vessels by size, gear, and fishingeffort.
Status of Current Information
Presently the responsibility for collectingeconomic information relative to U.S. fisheriesis left almost entirely to the Federal Govern-ment through the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS). There are no comprehensiveregional data collection programs to augmentthe Federal information base. Few of theregional studies which have been made arebased on primary data; most piece the Federaldata together with an assortment of ad hocstudies done in the region.
The information in regional studies is oftennot current by the time they are published andthe retrievability and validity of the raw datadecay quickly because continuity is lackingand the institutional context of the studies isnot favorable to maintaining a continuingdata base. Most of the regional studies whichhave been done would be of limited use to theRegional Councils in their fisheries manage-ment work.
Two divisions of the NMFS have been pri-marily responsible for the collection ofeconomic information. These are the Statisticsand Market News Division (SMND), which isspecifically charged with the collection of dataand preparation of periodic statistical reports,and the Economics and Marketing ResearchDivision (EMRD), which was oriented towardeconomic research and analysis of SMND andother data.
However, NMFS recently phased outEMRD. In view of the new economic informa-tion requirements of Public Law 94-265, thisdecision raises serious questions about thesources of data and analysis for carrying outprovisions of the law.
In the past, the two divisions of NMFS col-lected information, either directly or fromState agencies, on landings by species, value,area of capture, depth, fishing effort, and daysabsent from port for each vessel trip in theNew England offshore fisheries and the Gulfof Mexico shrimp fishery. This information isstored on computer tape or market reportsheets and is available at the Northeast Fish-eries Center at Woods Hole, Mass., and at theWashington, D. C., office of SMND. Amongthe other data series collected by NMFS are:78
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
retail price data for major fish productsin New York,wholesale price data for selected fishproducts,ex-vessel price data,production and cold-storage holdings formany fish products,import-export data for various fish prod-ucts,a limited amount of foreign statistics,supply, utilization, and stocks of selectedfish products,commercial landings by State,regional summaries of landings,processing and foreign trade bulletins,historical statistics,economic analysis and indicators,market news, andrecreational fishing statistics.
85
These are generally accessible to theRegional Councils, but are of limited utilitybecause the format is geared towardresearchers rather than fisheries managers.Some, but not all, of these series are availablein published form. The published data aremore easily available to the Regional Coun-cils, but are also likely to be of limited valuebecause of the time lag between collection andpublication.
There is another problem in gathering andusing economic information which must bethoroughly considered before the law can beeffectively implemented. That is the require-ment that “any statistics submitted to theSecretary (of Commerce) by any person incompliance with any requirement (of P.L.94-265) shall be confidential and shall not bedisclosed except when required under courtorder.” 79 The law specifically directs theSecretary to prescribe regulations to preserveconfidentiality.
As long as the data made available are insuch a form that individuals cannot be iden-tified, there is probably no problem. However,the use of disaggregated data requires carefulplanning. Plans for using such data while stillprotecting its confidentiality were not in-cluded in the Interim Regulations80 formu-lated by NMFS for use as the councils andFederal agencies prepared for the March 1,1977 implementation of the Act. Presumablysections on confidentiality will be publishedshortly because without clarification of howdisaggregated data will be handled and pro-tected, Federal employees may be reluctant tosupply such data to researchers.
Methods of Improving Information Base
The existing NMFS data base is deficient inseveral areas if it is to be used to carry out theintents of Public Law 94-265 cited at thebeginning of this section. The areas in whichadditional or more accurate economic infor-mation are needed most urgently are vesselinventories; costs and earnings data; vesselconstruction costs; demand analysis data;vessel size, employment opportunities, skillsof the labor force; and recreational fishingbenefits.
A continuing annual data base is probablynot required in all these areas. However, con-tinuing information is required for vessel in-ventories, costs and earnings, vessel construc-tion costs, and some components of demandanalysis. These data are needed for monitor-ing and management decisions, which arerepetitive and continuous. Data in the remain-ing areas are needed for working out variousisolated problems which arise and which in-volve more or less unique, nonrepetitive deci-sions. Special purpose studies or periodic up-dating, such as once every 5 years, would beadequate for such purposes.
It is estimated that a program to developthis data over the next decade would cost from$2 million to $4 million per year (see figure23). This range is a substantial increase overthe combined budget of the EMRD and SMNDof NMFS, but less than 40 percent of thebudget for stock assessments. This reflects thelow-funding priority which has been ac-corded economic research in the past.
It is assumed that the agency responsible forcollecting this data would be NMFS acting aslead agency and contracting with otherFederal agencies, such as the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. This may also be an area in
—
Source: OTA
87
Social Information
which the Regional Councils would wish tocontract outside the Federal Government forstudies. Since only approximately eight-tenthsof 1 percent of the NMFS personnel areclassified as economists, NMFS has indicatedplans to add economics and statistics staffs toeach of the four regional Fisheries ResearchCenters. This would to some extent alleviatethe shortage which exists. There are caveats,however. The plan to create these staffs hasnot been implemented. Concurrent with this,the economic analysis capabilities of NMFShave almost disappeared with the demise ofthe EMRD. Furthermore, several economistsin the central office have left NMFS.
Even if the additions are made, it is ques-tionable whether these regional staffs willhave the time or direction to addresseconomic issues from the national perspectivewhich will be necessary in reviewing manage-ment plans. Therefore, although such regionaleconomics staffs are desirable, they are not asubstitute for a central economic research andplanning capability.
To date, among social scientists only theeconomists have begun to build up a body ofdata and theory which is applicable to fish-eries management. Other kinds of social scien-tists on the whole have not addressed fisheriesproblems in the United States. Social data onfishermen and the communities in which theylive are almost conspicuously absent from theliterature except for a small body of informa-tion on sociocultural systems of modern fish-ing communities in the United States andother industrialized nations. These data havebeen developed by anthropologists. Anthro-pologists have been attracted to fishing largelybecause of a growing interest in maritimecommunities and because traditional, ruralfishing communities can be studied with thesame sets of conceptual tools whichanthropologists have developed for studyingsmall, traditional societies in other parts of theworld.81
Anthropologists who are now interested,prepared, and trained to deal with the social,cultural, and historical dimension of fisheriesmanagement could form the core ofresearchers who gather data on fishingcultures that will be required by fisheriesmanagers. Historians might also be used forsocial data collection while other researcherswith experience or interest in fisheriesmanagement are moving into this new field.
Extended jurisdiction and fisheries manage-ment will undoubtedly affect everything fromfishing technology, crew size, catches, incomelevels, and employment levels, to migrationrates, relative population of communities, andsocial problems such as the level of alcohol-ism, delinquency, and crime. Regional Coun-cils will need to know the effect of decisionsmade under Public Law 94-265 in order tomake sensible alterations in fisheries regula-tions as conditions continue to change.
In order to develop a starting point in thisfield where little substantive work has beendone, OTA commissioned a study of existingresearch and needs. This study, which is in-cluded in Working Paper No. 2, representsone view of the type of research which needsto be done in order to improve the social in-formation base on fisheries. The OTA Work-ing Paper suggests that three kinds of socialdata probably will be required by fisheriesmanagers to determine an optimum yield thattakes sociocultural factors into account, asmandated by the law:82
●
●
●
baseline information on fishing com-munities in the United States;information on social and cultural factorsinfluencing the acceptance of fisheriesmanagement proposals; andinformation on factors influencing thetype and rate of technological changewhich can be expected in the fishing in-dustry in the future.
1) Baseline Information on Fishing Com-munities. --Baseline data is essentially a pictureof the total way of life of fishermen and thecommunities in which they live. The data willbe necessary to the Regional Councils whenthey are faced with conflicting pressures tomake regulations and alter the law in the faceof changing conditions. In the absence of ac-curate baseline data, managers and politicianswill have to rely on the recollections of in-terested parties. Under those conditions it willbe difficult to assess exactly what effectsspecific regulations have had in the past.
Two kinds of baseline data need to be col-lected by different kinds of research tech-niques. First, there is a need for quantitativedemographic, social, and economic data on alarge sample of fishermen and fishing ports.This data could be obtained by:
a) administering a questionnaire to a repre-sentative sample of household heads of
families in the fishing business to obtaindata on family size; age and sex break-down; range of occupations; consump-tion patterns; ethnicity; kinship ties;work experience; educational levels;alternative skills; political affiliations;fishing gear used; annual round; speciescaught; income; associational involve-ment; and some kind of indirect indica-tors of commitment to the industry,political awareness, etc.
b) filling out a data sheet on every port inthe United States to obtain informationon transportation facilities; fish process-ing capabilities; size of community andsize of fishing population; alternateemployment opportunities; fisherman’sorganizations; fishing grounds andstocks; fishery statistics; fleet charac-teristics; marketing patterns; andfacilities necessary for a fishing industry(e.g., hardware stores, repair facilities,docks, etc.).
Second, qualitative information needs to beobtained on the entire culture and social struc-ture of “typical” fishing communities in keyareas of the coastal United States. Informationon the status and roles of people in fishingcrews and cooperatives, the organization ofgroups in the communities, the values andgoals of people in those communities, thekinds of problems people face, and patterns ofcooperation and conflict are of special impor-tance. The result of collecting such informa-tion would be a set of standard monographson fishing communities similar to those whichanthropologists and sociologists have done inthe past. Of course, these monographs wouldnot attempt to cover every aspect of the lifeand culture of the total community, but ratherthey would focus on the people and familiesdirectly involved in fishing.
89
2) Information on Acceptance of FisheriesManagement Plans--In the past, many effortsto manage marine fisheries to benefit stocks offish and the consumer have failed, primarilybecause the proposals have been massivelyopposed by the fishing industry.
When people oppose proposals that involveplanned social change, there are usually tworeasons: a) the change is not economicallyprofitable for them, or b) the change is notcongruent with existing social institutions. 83
If fisheries management plans under PublicLaw 94-265 are to succeed, they must gainenough acceptance in the fishing industry thatthey will not invite massive opposition. Togain that acceptance, it will be necessary tounderstand the costs and benefits of manage-ment and who is affected by each.
In most cases, imposition of new fisheriesregulations is likely to represent a loss of in-come to fishermen. This means that the costsof management (in terms of decreasedcatches) will be borne by the men currently inthe fishery. The benefits will be gained byfuture generations of fishermen. Even if thebenefits of management were to, occurrelatively quickly, the men currently in thefishery would bear the costs, but they wouldhave to share the benefits with others who arelured into the industry by improved condi-tions.
Solid information will be needed on theway management plans will affect the costsand receipts of fishermen, distribution of in-come, and the traditional political, social, andinstitutional patterns which will be disturbedby changes.
This phenomenon of present fishermenbearing the cost of regulation while futurefishermen gain the benefits is another argu-ment for accurate information on foreign in-vestments in U.S. fishing vessels and govern-ment subsidies of the foreign fishing com-panies which may make these investments.Such vessels may be able to bear short-term fi-nancial problems more easily than American-owned domestic vessels because the foreigninvestment or subsidy provides a cushion. Inaddition, the extra vessels made possible byforeign investments and subsidies will make itnecessary to spread domestic allocations overa larger number of vessels.84 This may havesocial as well as economic impacts on the U.S.fishing community,
3) information on Technological Change.—Under the law, catch limitations may beestablished for all species of fish. Foreign fleetswill be allocated that part of the catch whichthe American fleet is incapable of harvesting.If the American fleet expands, in time foreignfishing efforts will decrease, perhaps cease en-tirely in some fisheries.
The boats that will do best under catchlimitations will be modern boats that cancatch fish quickly, before the allocation is usedup, The larger, better equipped boats, andlarger catches will require larger piers, bettermaintenance facilities, larger processingplants, and better transportation facilities. Butthe U.S. fishing industry will not revive or ex-pand if there are no markets for fish, if capitalfor new boats and technology is not available,if piers, transportation facilities, and otherkinds of infrastructure are not present.
The people of coastal areas will have littlecontrol over some of these factors, but it isreasonable to assume that the impact of ex-tended jurisdiction and fisheries management
90
will depend, in large part, on the degree towhich the people of coastal areas can take ad-vantage of the opportunities which arise.Fishermen can respond to the new economicopportunities presented by extended jurisdic-tion by adopting new boats and sophisticatedfishing equipment or by using existing equip-ment coupled with new fishing and marketingstrategies. If large numbers of people are will-ing and able to change existing practices or toinvest in new boats and processing equipmentembodying new technology, then the effectsthroughout the social and economic structure
U.S. Navy Photo)
Many innovations may be necessary in the care of equipmentand 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 overby large corporations.
A central problem then is to understand theability of the people of the coastal areas toadopt innovation, particularly sophisticatedfishing equipment. The effects of changes onthe rest of the social system cannot be assesseduntil this is understood.
In order to assess this ability, fisherymanagers must have the answers to severalbasic questions.
a) What assets must men have to suc-cessfully adopt new fishing technology?
To answer this question, it is necessary tohave data on ability to amass capital, ability tosave, lending institutions, certain kinds of kin-ship ties, skills that influence the maintenanceand output of fishing boats and determinesuccess in commercial fishing, crew organiza-tion, social ties, and the norms which regulateentry into fisheries.
b) How many men in a particular area havethe requirements for a successful large-scale fishing operation?
Some insight into the answer to this ques-tion could be gained by studying the strategieswhich men currently engaged in large-scalefishing have used in getting assets necessaryfor adoption of better fishing technology.
c) How many of the men who have the re-quirements for a successful large opera-tion, or can easily acquire them, are in-terested and motivated to invest inmodern equipment?
In order to study patterns of adoption ofnew innovations, data should be gatheredfrom both large and small operators about thecharacteristics of men who were “early adop-ters” of innovations in the past; the factors
91
necessary for successful adoption of new tech-nology; the social, economic, and cultural fac-tors which in the very recent past have im-pinged on the decisions of men to innovate ornot; and biographic and motivational infor-mation on men who control the requirementsfor adoption of new technology.
Status of Current Information
Almost none of the information is availableto complete the kinds of studies suggestedhere.
There are only a few monographs onmodern fishing communities and a few bookson ancillary topics such as organization offishing crews and marketing. Of course, theNational Marine Fisheries Service compilesinformation on landings and fish prices. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service, however,collects little data about the fishing fleet andno information about fishing effort or anyother kind of data on social and political in-stitutions or economic performance. TheBureau of the Census has compiled generaldata on fishing as an occupation and on com-munities where fishing is done. The Census’data are very superficial and are aggregated inways that give a picture of units no smallerthan towns. Existing studies do not give socio-cultural data on the U.S. fishing industry as awhole.
Methods of Improving Information Base
The information needed for these studiesoverlaps a great deal. The first studies to becompleted would be indepth studies of impor-tant fishing communities, since all the other
studies can to some degree draw on the infor-mation generated. It would be reasonable toexpect, if 10 to 15 community studies werebegun at the same time, a set of monographscould be completed in 2 to 3 years.
The second study should be a survey of at-titudes towards management proposals andfactors necessary for technical innovation. Thequestions to be included might very well de-pend on the part of the country being dealtwith.
The amount of time such a study wouldtake depends greatly on the number of inter-views needed to obtain statistical reliability. Itis estimated that as many as 6,000 interviewswould be necessary in the entire coastal regionof the United States, and it could take a year ormore to collect and tabulate the data.
Once this information was available, the re-maining studies on innovation and the accept-ability of management alternatives couldbegin. All of these would involve indepth in-terviews—perhaps at the same locationswhere the community studies were done.These studies would take another year of in-terviews and analysis. However, these twogroups of studies could not be done by thesame person in any given area, since the kindsof people who have the analytical tools toanalyze costs and benefits of various manage-ment alternatives probably would not be ableto concentrate on the very different issuesconnected with studying technical innovationand impact.
A group of projects similar to those whichare used as examples here could be completedin 4 to 5 years. However, these suggestionsand others which may be offered should firstbe tested and refined by social scientists inorder to devise an acceptable research plan.Such a plan should be implemented on boththe regional and national level in order todevelop data which will be useful to NMFSand the Regional Councils,
92
6. Future Developmentsin the Fishing Industry
Background
One of the purposes of the Fishery Conser-vation and Management Act of 1976 is to en-courage the revitalization of the U.S. fishingindustry, particularly through development ofnow underutilized stocks.
Development of the fishing industry is acomplicated subject about which little reliableinformation has been accumulated in the past.With the stimulus provided by the Act,however, new efforts are being made to deter-mine the needs of the industry and the role ofthe Federal Government in meeting thoseneeds or aiding the industry in meeting them.
Because several other studies85 w e r ealready underway dealing with the needs ofthe fishing industry, the OTA analysis of thissubject was limited to a very general look atthe industry. It was intended that once sur-veys mandated by the Eastland Resolution arecompleted, that information, together withdata collected by the General AccountingOffice and OTA, should be correlated andanalyzed before further study of the industryis undertaken.
In the meantime, there appears to begeneral agreement among the Eastland group,GAO, and OTA about the status of relation-ships between the Federal Government andthe fishing industry:
1) The capability and equipment exists forcatching almost any kind of fish. Some ofthis capability is vested in foreign fishingfleets, but it could be adopted fordomestic use if there were incentive to doso. What is needed most is a dependableresource and good markets for the catch.These two factors would cause increasedinterest in technology transfer and newequipment and would allow industry togenerate capital for such investments.
2) The Federal Government does not havemuch dependable information abouttechnology in the fishing industry.
3) Fishing technology is very uneven withinthe industry, ranging from very poorequipment which results in unsuccessfuloperations to modern, sophisticatedequipment which results in highly suc-cessful operations—all in use in the samefishery.
4) Assessment of fishing equipment and thedevelopment of new equipment isdifficult without “hands on” experiencein the fishing industry.
5) Established fishermen and boat operatorsgenerally do not favor Governmentdevelopment of new fishing technology.
6) The industry generally prefers that theGovernment limit itself to technologytransfer and information services ratherthan massive financial or research sup-port.
The following discussion of future develop-ments in the fishing industry is based on OTAresearch on the west coast and in the NewEngland ground fishery. It is divided intothree areas which are key to improving theoverall picture of domestic fishing:
1) stock enhancement (increasing the totalamount of product available to thefishermen),
2) creation of new markets for fish whichare not presently harvested by U.S.fishermen because they are not a saleableproduct, and
3) methods of revitalizing the fishing indus-
try.
Each of these areas is discussed in terms ofwhat will be necessary in order to developuseful programs.
95
Stock Enhancement
The Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of 1976 could be a stimulus for com-prehensive stock enhancement programswhich would improve many of the U.S. fish-eries. For example, the National Marine Fish-eries Service (NMFS) has projected that en-hancement could result in the ultimaterestoration and a 100 percent increase in thecatch of U.S. groundfish.86
Basically stock enhancement is the use ofprocedures which will increase the totalamount of edible biomass by increasing thenumber of fish and/or the size of fish in thepopulation.
Stock enhancement is a complex subject,and in spite of erratic periods of intense in-terest by various private and governmentalgroups, detailed studies are not numerous. Ingeneral, certain fisheries, such as salmon, arebetter understood in terms of stock enhance-ment than others. Various reasons can begiven for this lack of data, but one major fac-tor is the problem of control and recovery ofstock by the government responsible for theenhancement activities. By extending fisheryjurisdiction to 200 miles, the United States hastaken control over the fisheries which wouldbenefit from enhancement and has assuredthat US. citizens or permit holders could reapthe harvest of stocking programs.
There are a number of commercially impor-tant species which could benefit from en-hancement programs. Some of these are cod,haddock, yellowtail and blackback flounder,ocean perch, pollock, Gulf shrimp, Pacificsalmon, Alaska crab, Atlantic herring, andPacific pollock.87 Enhancement possibilitiesand the benefits to be gained are different foreach. These species were selected somewhatarbitrarily in order to study enhancementpossibilities as described in OTA Working
Paper No. 4. The heavy fishing of these speciesin the past, with the depletion of stocks ofsome, and the existing well-developedmarkets for products of these species makethem likely targets for enhancement.However, if a comprehensive program wereto be undertaken in reality, careful analysisshould go into the selection of the species forenhancement and the specific enhancementmethods to be used with each species.
The most commonly used methods of en-hancement are control of the harvest, recruit-ment, development of new stocks, habitatmanagement, and aquiculture. The followingis a brief description of how each of thesemethods is used:
1) Control of harvest: If the amount ofbiomass removed from the stock is prop-erly regulated, then the maximum sus-tainable yield can be achieved. However,a depleted stock, such as haddock, mightincrease in biomass by natural processesif the amount of fishing is decreased. Thelevels of harvest which allow this naturalrecovery are not always easily deter-mined and must be evaluated constantly.
2) Recruitment: to Assist a natural popula-tion in attaining a maximal size consist-ent with the marine ecosystem, addi-tional fish can be added to the stock,Many fish can be reared in hatcheriesunder man-controlled conditions andthen released into the natural environ-ment when they are large enough to sur-vive the predation and environmentalhazards encountered by very young fish.Hatchery programs related to PacificCoast salmon and many freshwaterspecies, such as trout and bass, provideexcellent examples of successful recruit-ment. Unfortunately, many marinespecies have not yet been reared underhatchery conditions although some at-tempts have been made.
96
3) Development of new stocks: Utilizing stand-ard breeding and genetic selection tech-niques, new stocks which have desirabletraits, may be developed and introducedinto marine waters or into confinedwaters for aquiculture purposes.
4) Habitat management and environmentalquality: Some species spend a portion oftheir life cycle in estuaries, rivers, or nearshore environments. Poor water qualitycan have a detrimental effect on the sizeof the stock either through a marked in-crease in mortality or sublethal effectssuch as stunted growth. Programs ofpollution abatement will assist in stockenhancement. In addition, some attemptsat habitat manipulation may increase theavailability of a suitable habitat for aspecies, such as artificial reefs or an in-crease in the level of nutrients by ar-tificial upwelling. These nutrients stimu-late the growth of phytoplankton, mak-ing more food available.
5) Aquiculture or mariculture: Animal hus-bandry of marine organisms has been ex-tensively tried within the 3-mile limit;however, open-sea mariculture experi-mentation is now underway. Typicallyaquacultural techniques are used withorganisms that are confined to a specificarea for harvesting as opposed to nurseryprograms where organisms are usuallyreleased to natural bodies of water,
Any of these enhancement techniques haveimplications for data gathering programsbecause specific information is necessary forcarrying out the procedures, beginning with
an understanding of the genetic and func-tional differences—the different stocks orpopulations —that exist within one species offish. Most of the economic, social, and stockassessment information mentioned in the pre-vious section would also be necessary todesign and implement enhancementprograms which carry out the spirit of PublicLaw 94-265.
Decisions for improving an existing fisheryor developing a new fishery by enhancementtechniques would require an intensive andintegrated examination of all facets of a fish-ery: resource assessment, harvest and process-ing technologies and costs; market potentials;and institutional factors including artificialbarriers to trade. But the absence of viable in-dustry for the fishery make it likely thatspecial studies will be necessary to collect dataand project economic effects. If the enhance-ment efforts were successful, these specialstudies could become the starting point for thecontinuous monitoring and periodic collec-tion of statistics which will be part of manage-ment and conservat ion programs inestablished fisheries.
97
New Markets for Fish
Extended jurisdiction will undoubtedlyopen new markets for species now caught aswell as markets for species not caught by U.S.fishermen at present. It is reasonable toassume that the response to these economicopportunities will be highly varied. Some ofthe factors influencing acceptance or rejectionof these opportunities are similar to thoseaffecting technical innovation. In addition, theresponsiveness of fishermen to new marketsdepends on their ability and willingness tocatch new species and to process them in waysthat make them saleable. Two questions areparamount:
1) Under what conditions will fishermenexploit new species and markets?
2) How many fishermen will exploit a set ofspecies under a given set of conditions?
Studying the conditions under whichfishermen will exploit new species issimplified by the fact that fishermen nowoften exploit many different species over thecourse of the year. At present, it appears thatprice is one of the primary factors influencingthe decision of fishermen to catch variousspecies. That is, they choose the species whichwill give them the highest revenues relative tocosts. If this is generally true, then a change inthe economic climate, especially changes inex-vessel prices, would be one of the key fac-tors influencing the responsiveness of fisher-men to exploit new species. In addition to theprices which might be paid for new species,stock assessments and projections of yieldsfrom new species are needed in order to deter-mine if the stocks can sustain a market.
In addition, some social information maybeneeded to determine the preferences fisher-men will have for entering some markets andavoiding others. Their unwillingness to acceptcertain innovations may limit their ability toenter some markets. This may be true in spiteof changes in prices.
98
In order to study the social, cultural, andeconomic factors influencing the decision offishermen to enter certain markets at present,two kinds of studies are needed:
1) Data needs to be gathered comparingfishing practices of boats which exploit awide range of species over the annual cy-cle with practices of those that do not.Emphasis should be placed on such fac-tors as the prices paid for fish, the catchof various species, the locations wherefish are caught, etc. Interviews should beobtained with fishermen concerningtheir decision to enter a given market(i.e., exploit a given species requiring cer-tain handling and processing pro-cedures), and the social and cultural fac-tors inhibiting them from enteringothers.
2) A set of questionnaires might be ad-ministered to a carefully selected sampleof fishermen to obtain data on theirpreferences concerning entry and exitfrom particular fisheries,
3) Information needs to be gathered to iden-tify factors which affect the price paid forfish at the docks, the stability or flex-ibility of that price, and how the priceaffects the fisherman’s willingness todirect his efforts toward certain species.This information should be supple-mented by identification of ways inwhich prices could be stabilized or other-wise manipulated by Government or in-dustry in order to encourage fishing ac-tivity.
This kind of information is of particular im-portance for fisheries managers. A knowledgeof the factors affecting entry and exit intodifferent markets would allow managers todraw up management plans influencing ex-vessel prices paid (e.g., taxes and subsidy) andto manipulate the relative fishing pressure onvarious species.
Revitalization of Fishing Industry
Presently, the fishing industry may be un-able to take advantage of opportunities whichcould be offered by stock enhancement or newmarkets because many sectors of the industryare experiencing economic difficulty and areunable to attract capital and labor. Yet, nocoherent program has been developed toassist the industry or fishermen,
As noted in the previous section of thisreport, economic information about the fish-ing industry is not available in the quality orquantity which is necessary to evaluateproblems in any segment of the industry. Thestatus of investment in new harvesting tech-nology and systems, however, has been usedas a measure of economic well-being. Manystudies of the New England fishing industryconclude that technology is old and ineffi-cient. It is clear that investment in new shipsand harvesting technology in New Englandfisheries was at a low point until passage ofthe Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of 1976 was assured. The Act stimulatednew confidence in the future of the fishing in-dustry and at least 20 new boats were orderedfor fishing fleets in New Bedford, Mass., andPoint Judith, R.I. However, there is concernamong some Regional Council members88
that investment in U.S. fishing vessels maycontinue to lag, in part due to the industry’slack of success in getting import duties leviedor increased on fish products from countrieswhich subsidize their fishing industry.
Members of the fishing industry have longcontended that the flow of subsidized prod-ucts into the United States adversely affectsthe competitive position of the U.S. fishing in-dustry (see figure 24). Imports from Canadaare of particular concern because the United
States and Canada share access to many fishstocks. The Canadian Federal and ProvincialGovernments have traditionally providedgrants, bounties, and other forms of direct andindirect subsidies to their groundfish industryand the cumulative effect of these grants andsubsidies has been calculated to reach 35 cents(Canadian) a pound for some types of fishproducts. In 1975, 150 million pounds of ma-jor groundfish species which may havebenefited from such subsidies were exportedfrom the Atlantic fishery in Canada to theUnited States.89
By law,90 the Bureau of Customs may levy aduty on imported products which are pro-duced with the support of a foreign govern-ment subsidy or increase an existing duty ifthere is proof the import is injuring a U.S. in-dustry, Such duties could help protect boththe U.S. fishery resources and U.S. invest-ments in fishing vessels. They could also, ofcourse, raise the price of foreign fish productsto U.S. consumers and possibly encourageretaliation by foreign governments againstsome U.S. products.
Under existing practices,91 the Tariff Affairssection of the Treasury Department considersduties on fish imports on a case-by-case basisas some segment of the U.S. fishing industryrequests that a particular duty be levied or in-creased. Treasury does not routinely monitorduties on fish imports in order to determinetheir effects; does not initiate action to coun-terbalance any unfavorable effects; and doesnot develop the case when a U.S. industry re-quests some change in a particular duty situa-tion, Therefore, the full burden of proving thatchanges are needed in duties on imported fishproducts falls on individual fishermen orfirms which initiate action.
This is an extremely difficult task. There areno established criteria for demonstrating thatsubsidized imports injure U.S. producers, butthe fishermen must generally prove that par-
9 9
100Source: Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island
ticular subsidized imports have caused declin-ing production in the United States,unemployment, or decreased markets for U.S.products. Therefore, large corporations withexperienced tariff attorneys are frequentlysuccessful in winning their cases, and smallindustries and fishing groups which generallydevelop their own cases are less successful orare discouraged from making a request,
To date, in spite of the urging of fishermen,no overall review of duties on subsidized fishimports has been made in order to determinehow the U.S. fishing industry in general isaffected. Such a review would allow investorsto assess the competition from foreign prod-ucts accurately before putting money intovessels or other fishing operations. SomeRegional Council members feel that encourag-ing U.S. interests to invest in the fishing in-dustry is unrealistic and counterproductiveuntil such basic assessments can be made.
In addition, there has been a general declinein some fisheries which has been evident interms of technology and investment, employ-ment and income, productivity and profit.
To provide some insight into conditions oftechnology in the fishing industry, OTA infor-mally surveyed fishermen on the west coastabout their gear and sources of technical in-formation. The survey consisted of a shortquestionnaire which was included with othermaterials distributed by the Eastland Resolu-tion Fisheries Survey group at their west coastmeetings. About 100 fishermen from a varietyof fisheries responded to the questions.
The survey showed that nearly all crabbers,aquaculturists, and charter-boat operatorsconsidered their gear the best available fortheir operation; a majority of the trollers andseiners were equally confident about the
Source: OTA
quality of their gear; and half or slightly moreof the tuna, bottom, swordfish, and recrea-tional fishermen were satisfied. Gillnettersand trawlers reported very low levels ofsatisfaction, indicating that improvement intheir gear is badly needed. Figure 25 illustratesresponses to the question of whether gear wassatisfactory. Several specific types of neededimprovements were cited:
. better nets for groundfish;
● better gillnets;
101
● development of a multipurpose, smallscale mid-water trawl; and
● more efficient equipment to freeze, han-dle, and store fish onboard fishingvessels.
Although more than one-third of the fisher-men responding expressed an interest inmodernizing equipment and using electronicsonboard their vessels, many fishermenemphasized that the job could better be doneby private industry than Government.
However, Government assistance wasstrongly advocated for work in several areasof more public concern, such as:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
habitat improvement;
location of fish;
identifying migration patterns of fish;
improving dissemination of weather andwater-surface temperature data to fisher-men;
finding solutions to localized pollutionproblems;
stressing the need for conservation; and
improvement of stock assessment infor-mation.
OTA also asked the Pacific fishermen howthey presently receive technical informationand how useful that information is to them.The major source of information was the SeaGrant program through an informationsystem similar to the Agricultural ExtensionService. Other sources of information were in-dividual State programs or State universitiesand fishermen’s publications. Informationfrom these sources reached about two-thirdsof those surveyed, but only slightly more thanhalf of the respondents considered the infor-mation useful (see figure 26).
Source: OTA
The National Marine Fisheries Service andsome industry sources also provide informa-tion, but only 40 percent of the respondentsfound it useful.
A small group of fishermen got their infor-mation only from other fishermen, but suchinformation had the highest reliability ratingof any of the sources of information men-tioned.
Since the Federal Government throughNMFS and Sea Grant already has some struc-ture for disseminating information to fisher-men, it appears likely that this structure couldbe expanded and improved to reach a largersegment of the fishing population. It shouldprovide more information from a variety ofsources, including trusted segments of thefishing industry itself. Such an information
102
system could make use of a clearinghouseconcept that gathers and distributes data andperhaps daily NOAA radio reports withweather forecasts, water temperature, weeklyreports of fish landings, announcements ofcurrent research programs, results of research,and information on grants and financialassistance available to fishermen. Such infor-mation could be provided with relatively littleeffort and expense. Other information whichwould be useful to fishermen, but would re-quire additional research and expense, in-cludes reports on foreign fishing techniques,data on migration patterns of fish, and reportson stock assessment, marketing, distribution,and handling of fish.
The equipment and information needs ofthe industry will inevitably be debated by theRegional Councils in the course of formulat-ing regulations for the domestic fishery. Gearparticularly will come under scrutiny as thecouncils consider gear restrictions as a meansof regulating catch. Such restrictions will limitthe efficiency of existing gear and are sure tobe challenged by the fishermen. The resultmay be an increased need for innovations ingear or it may be that councils will be forcedto find alternate ways of regulating catch. (Forexample, a system of fees for illegal bycatch,instead of restrictions on mesh size, may beused, leaving fishermen free to find their ownways of modifying gear or fishing practices sothat illegal fish are not taken.)
Since the councils will be deeply involvedin this area, they should be charged withstudying the needs of the fishing industry intheir areas and proposing appropriate actionsto the Federal Government. In this way, suchproposals are likely to more accurately reflectthe thinking of the industry and be compatiblewith industry desires an-dment plans. The councils,
fishery manage-through NMFS,
should also be charged with sharing withother regions what knowledge they havegained about industry practices and problems,proposed Government actions, and successfulor unsuccessful management techniques.
Revitalization of the U.S. fishing industry isthe subject of a recent report by the GeneralAccounting Office92 and a study by the East-land Fisheries Survey which will be completedsoon. Programs for assisting the industry orremoving constraints are being proposed byboth groups. But sufficient data about varioussegments of the fishing industry are not nowavailable for evaluating what revitalizationproposals are justified. At least the followingquestions should be addressed for each indus-try segment so that Government agencies,fisheries managers, and private industry candetermine what programs are needed andwhat actions are best suited to each group:
1) What is the status of the fish product in-volved, including history and trends ofcatch, value, prices, market demand, anddistribution? What competition with im-ports exists?
2) What is the status of the technology usedfor harvesting, its efficiency, its pro-ductivity, the effect on the resource, andthe cost of production?
3) What is the status of the labor force andearnings in the fishery?
4) What is the normal and possible area ofcoverage of the fishery? What mobilityand flexibility is available to expand orchange?
‘4 1.(372 () - 77 . 8103
5) What is the status of the resource? Isthere foreign competition for the sameresource or another species in the sameecosystem ? C a n t h e r e s o u r c e b eenhanced or the yield increased? A r ethere other underutilized resourcesavailable for the same industry?
6) What is the economic condition of the in-dustry? What future changes are likelywith assistance programs and would theyprovide short-term or long-term solu-tions?
These questions could be tested on specificindustry segments and with speci f icrevitalization proposals in order to develop acomprehensive program which addresses na-tional needs most completely.
That job could be undertaken by a commit-tee of representatives from each of theRegional Councils. The council committeecould synthesize information on industryneeds which has been collected by the East-land Survey, the General Accounting Office,OTA, and NMFS. The council committeecould then identify important informationwhich is still missing, gather that informationitself or through contracts, and recommend aspecific course of action for Congress to followif it desires to take legislative action whichcould encourage growth in the fishing indus-try. The council committee could also recom-mend specific changes which could be madeadministratively by NMFS, NOAA, or otheragencies currently responsible for programswhich include financial aid, research or infor-mation pertinent to the fishing industry.
104
7. Glossary
acoustic—relating to, containing, producing,arising from, actuated by or carrying sound.
aquiculture —cultivation of natural faunaresources of water.
biomass—the dry weight of living matter, in-cluding stored food, present in a speciespopulation and expressed in terms of agiven area or volume of the habitat.
catch effort—the ratio of amount of fishcaught to some measure of fishing effortsuch as the number of days a typical vesselis fishing.
demersal fish—living at or near the bottom ofthe sea.
electro-optics—the study of the influence ofan electrical field on optical phenomena, asin the electro - optical Keer effect and theStark effect. Also known as optoelectronics.
ex-vessel—price received by fisherman forfish, shellfish, and other aquatic plants andanimals landed at the dock.
finfish—classes cyclostomata, elasmo-branchin and pieces of the phylum ver-tebrata; excludes other marine organisms.
fish meal—a protein rich, dried-food productproduced from inedible portions of fishesby dry or wet rendering. Also known as fishprotein concentrate.
fish oil-oil obtained from fish such asmenhaden, herring, sardine, and pilchard;used as a drying oil in paint and as a rawmaterial for detergents, resins, andmargarine.
gear—implements developed for the captureof all aquatic animals.
gill net—a wall of webbing suspended ver-tically in the water by means of weights(lead) on the bottom line and corks on thetop line. The webbing may be made of cot-ton, linen, or synthetic material. The meshis selected according to the fish which willbe captured.
groundfish—broadly, fish that are caught onor near the sea floor. Bottom fishes,rockfishes, and flatfishes, cod, haddock,pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch.
hydroacoustics-study of the propagation ofsound waves in water, especially in theoceans, and of phenomena produced bythese sound waves. Also known as under-water acoustics.
landings—commercial quantities of fish,shellfish and other aquatic plants andanimals brought ashore and sold. Landingsmay be in terms of round (live) weight ordressed weight. Landings of crustaceans aregenerally on a live-weight basis except forshrimp which may be on a heads-off basis.
Loran-C-a low frequency radio navigationsystem by which hyperbolic lines of posi-tion are determined by measuring thedifference in the times of reception of syn-chronized pulse signals from two fixedtransmitters; as compared to Loran-A, timedifference measurements are increased inaccuracy through utilizing phase com-parison techniques in addition to relativelycoarse matches of pulse envelopes ofreceived signals within the Loran-Creceiver.
magnetic—having properties of a magnet; ex-hibiting magnetism; phenomena involvingmagnetic fields and their effects uponmaterials.
maximum sustainable yield—the balance be-tween the capacity of the resource to renewitself and the harvest that man can take.
107
mesh size-a size of screen or of particlespassed by it in terms of the number of open-ings per linear inch. Also known as mesh.
microwave radiometry—a receiver for detect-ing microwave thermal radiation and simi-lar weak wide band signals that resemblenoise and are obscured by receiver noise;examples include the Dicke radiometer,subtraction type radiometer and two-receiver radiometer.
over-the-horizon radar—long range radar inwhich the transmitted and reflected beamsare bounced off the ionosphere layers toachieve ranges far beyond the line of sight.
pelagic fish-organisms living in the opensea, including both plankton and nekton.
population—a group of organisms occupyinga specific geographic area.
recruitment—young fish that just becomeavailable (vulnerable) to the fishing gear. Inlong-lived species only a portion of a yearclass may be recruited each year untilfinally all are vulnerable.
remote sensing-sensing by a power supply,of voltage directly at the load, so that varia-tions in the load lead drop do not affect loadregulation.
seine net-a net used to catch fish by encircle-ment usually by closure of the two ends andthe bottom.
seining-surrounding a shoal of fish with along net, suitably buoyed and graduallydrawn closer until the fish can be readilyremoved.
stock assessment-the study of individualpopulations of fish in order to determinethe size and composition of the populationas well as estimates of possible yields.
stock enhancement—procedures whereby thetotal amount of edible product (biomass) isincreased by increasing the number ofanimals and/or size of animals in thepopulation.
trolling—method of angling whereby an ar-tificial line or natural bait is drawn behind amoving boat at any depth from the surfaceto the bottom and at varying speeds accord-ing to the species of fish being sought. Ac-complished in all types of craft.
trophic level—any of the feeding levelsthrough which the passage of energythrough an ecosystem proceeds, examplesare photosynthetic plants, herbivorousanimals, and micro organisms of decay.
utilization—use of all fishery products bothedible and inedible. Estimated disap-pearance of the total supply of fishery prod-ucts both edible and inedible on a round-weight basis without taking into considera-tion beginning or end stocks.
year class-all of the progeny of the reproduc-tion from any particular year. In specieswith fluctuatory spawning success theprogeny of the successful spawning of oneyear class may dominate the population atsuccessive ages for several years.
stock—a population of a species which oc-cupies 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, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, National Marine Fisheries Service,Fisheries of the United States, 1975, CurrentFishery Statistics No. 6900 (Washington,D. C.: Government Printing Office, March1976) p. 73.
Comptroller General of the United States,The U.S. Fishing Industry—Present Condi-tion and Future of Marine Fisheries, Reportto the Congress, V o l . 1 Pubn. N o .CED-76-130 (Dec. 23, 1976) p. 7.
Op. cit., “Resources of the Oceans,” p. 20.
Op. cit., The U.S. Fishing Industry—PresentCondition 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—PresentCondition and Future of Marine Fisheries.
Office of Technology Assessment, “Fish-eries Technology Assessment: An In-terim Status Report” (Washington, D. C.,January 1976, Xeroxed) p. 10.
U.S. Department of Commerce, A MarineF i s h e r i e s P r o g r a m f o r t h e N a t i o n(Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, July 1976) p. 7.
Op. cit., “Fisheries Technology Assess-ment: 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 Actof 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 theNation, p. 3.
US. Department of Transportation, U.S.Coast Guard, “Study of Coast Guard En-forcement of 200-Mile Fishery Conserva-tion Zone, (PL 94-265),” 1976 (Internal,Xeroxed) Appendix A.
Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for theNation, p. 1.
Op. cit., The U.S. Fishing Industry—PresentCondition and Future of Marine Fisheries, p.22.
Op. cit., “Study of Coast Guard Enforce-ment of 200-Mile Fishery ConservationZone (PL 94-265),” p. II-8.
Ibid., p. A-1.
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 Enforce-ment of 200-Mile Fishery ConservationZone (PL 94-265),” p. V-2.
William T. Coleman, Jr., U.S. Departmentof Transportation, to Congressman JohnJ. McFal~, Washington,1977, Enforcement ofConservation 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 VesselOwners Association, to Peter Johnson,Washington, D. C., May 21, 1976, Com-mentary on Draft Copy of USCG Plan forDisposition of Enforcement Resourcesand Estimated Effectiveness Under PL94-265.
Commerce Committee hearing, January24, 1977.
Op. cit., Interview, Ocean OperationsDivision.
Ibid.
Interview, Office of Program Planningand Evaluation, National Marine Fish-eries Service, Washington, D. C,, February4, 1977 (By Telephone).
National Marine Fisheries Service, DraftFee Schedule, “Fishing by ForeignVessels in Waters Under the Jurisdictionof the United States of America,” FederalRegister 41, N. 248, December 23, 1976, p.55925.
Op. cit., Interview, Ocean OperationsDivision.
Interview, New England Regional Fish-ery Council, Washington, D. C., February2, 1977.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Rules andRegulations, “Part 601—Regional Fish-ery Managment Councils, ” FederalRegisfer41, N. 180, September 15, 1976, p.39436.
Working Paper No. 5
Op. cit., Interview, Ocean OperationsDivision.
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, OceanDivision.
Ibid.
Working Paper No. 5.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Op. cit., Fishery Conservationrnent Act of 1976, Sec. 3 (2).
Operations
and Manage-
Op. cit., The U.S. Fishing Industry—PresentCondition and Future of Marine Fisheries.
Op. cit., Fishery Conservation and Manage-ment Act of 1976, Sec. 3 (18).
Working Paper No. 4.
Ibid.
Working Papers No. 1 and 2.
Interview, Office of Policy Developmentand Long Range Planning, NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Washington,D.C., February 1, 1977.
Op. cit., Interview, Office of ProgramPlanning and Evaluation.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, National Marine Fisheries Service,Council Memorandum, Vol. 1, January1977, p. 2.
112
.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Op. cit., “Part 601—Regional FisheryManagement Councils.”
Ibid.
Working Paper No. 3,
Ibid.
Working Paper No. 4.
Working Paper No. 3.
Op. cit., Interview, Office of PolicyDevelopment 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 En-terprise, Japanese Investment in Alaska(Alaska: Department of EconomicDevelopment, August 1974) p. 13.
U.S. Department of Commerce, MaritimeAdministration, Applications for Sale ofForeign Fishing Vessels, FY 1971 thruJanuary 1977.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, National Marine Fisheries Service,Economic and Marketing Research Divi-sion, “Foreign Direct Investment in theU.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 Manage-ment Act of 1976, Sec. 303 (d).
Op. cit., “Part 601—Regional FisheryManagement Councils”.
Working Paper No. 2.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Op. cit . , Interview, New EnglandRegional Fishery Council.
Op. cit., The U.S. Fishing Industry—PresentCondition and Future of Marine Fisheriesand The Eastland Resolution FisheriesSurvey Report to be published in 1977.
Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for theNation.
Working Paper No. 4.
Op. cit . , Interview, New EnglandRegional Fishery Council.
Environment Canada, “Canadian Ex-ports by Commodity, 1975.”
The Tariff Act of 1930, Section 30 (a) (1)as amended by Section 331 of the TradeAct 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—PresentCondition 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 94-26594th Congress , H. R. 2 0 0
Apri l 13 , 1976
To provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries, and forother purposes.
Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and policy.Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I—FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF THEUNITED STATES
See. 101. Fishery conservation zone.Sec. 102. Exclusive fishery management authority.Sec. 103. Highly migratory species.Sec. 104. Effective date.
TITLE 11—FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERYAGREEMENTS
Sec. 201. Foreign fishing.Sec. 202. International fishery agreements.Sec. 203. Congressional oversight of governing international fishery agreements.Sec. 204. Permits for foreign fishing.Sec. 205. Import prohibitions.
TITLE III—NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMSec. 3 0 1 .sec. 302.Sec. 303.Sec. 304.Sec.. 305.sec. 300.sec. 307.sec. 308.sec. 309.sec. 310.sec. 311.See. 312.
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 PROVISIONSEffect 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 1801note.
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 orin the Continental Shelf appertaining to the United States, andthe anadromous species which spawn in United States rivers orestuaries, 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 becauseof the inadequacy of fishery conservation and management prac-tices and controls (A) certain stocks of such fish have been over-fished to the point where their survival is threatened? and (B)other such stocks have been so substantially reduced in numberthat the could become similarly threatened.
(3) Commercial and recreational fishing constitutes a majorsource of employment and contributes signifi cantly to the economyof the Nation. Many coastal areas are dependent upon fishing andrelated activities, and their economies have been badly damagedby the overfishing of fishery resources at an ever-increasing rateover the past decade. The activities of massive foreign fishingfleets in waters adjacent to such coastal areas have contributedto such damage, interfered with domestic fishing efforts, andcaused destruction of the fishing gear of United States fishermen.
(4) International fishery agreements have not been effective inpreventing or terminating the overfishing of these valuable fisheryresources. There is danger that irreversible effects from overfish-ing will take place before an effective international agreement onfishery management jurisdiction can be negotiated, signed, rati-
fied, and immplemented.(5) Fishery resources are finite but renewable. If placed under
sound management before overfishing has caused irreversibleeffects, the fisheries can be conserved and maintained so as to pro-vide optimum yields on a continuing basis.
(6) A national program for the conservation and managementof the fishery resources of the United States is necessary to pre-vent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to insure conserva-tion, and to realize the full potential of the Nation’s fisheryresources.
(7) A national program for the development of fisheries whichare underutilized or not utilized by United States fishermen,including bottom fish off Alaska, is necessary to assure that ourcitizens benefit from the employment, food supply, and revenuewhich could be generated thereby.
(b) PURPOSES.—It is therefore declared to be the purposes of theCongress in this Act—
(1) to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fisheryresources found off the coasts of the United States, and theanadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources ofthe United States, by establishing (A) a fishery conservation zonewithin which the United States will assume exclusive fisherymanagement authority over all fish, except highly migratoryspecies, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyondsuch zone over such anadromous species and Continental Shelffishery resources;
(2) to support and encourage the implementation and enforce-ment of international fishery agreements for the conservation andmanagement of highly migratory species, and to encourage thenegotiation and implementation of additional such agreements asnecessary;
(3) to promote domestic commercial and recreational fishingunder sound conservation and management principles;
(4) to provide for the preparation and implementation, inaccordance with national standards, of fishery management plans
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 3 - Pub. Law 94-265
which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, theoptimum yield from each fishery;
(5) to establish Regional Fishery Management Councils to pre-( )pare, monitor, and revise such plans under circumstances A
which will enable the States, the fishing industry , consumer andenvironmental organizations, and other interested persons to par-ticipate in, and advise on, the establishment and administrationof such plans, and (B) which take into account the social andeconomic needs of the States; and
(6) to encourage the development of fisheries which are cur-lirently underutilized or not uti zed by United States fishermen,
including bottom fish off Alaska.(c) POLICY.—It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress
in ‘this Act—(1) to maintain without change the existing territorial or other
ocean jurisdiction of the United States for all purposes otherthan tile conservation and management of fishery resources, asprovided for in this Act;
(2) to authorize no impediment to, or interference with, recog-nized legitimate uses of the high seas, except as necessary for theconservation and management of fishery resources, as providedfor in this Act:
(3) to assure that the national fishery conservation and man-agreement program utilizes, and is based upon, the best scientificinformation available: involves, and is responsive to the needs of,interested and affected States and citizens; promotes efficiency;draws upon Federal. State, and academic capabilities in carryingout research, administration, management, and enforcement; andis workable and effective:
(4) to permit foreign fishing consistent with the provisionsof this Act; and
(5) to support and encourage continued active United Statesefforts to obtain an internationally acceptable treaty. at the ThirdUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which providesfor 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 fishwhich spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the United Statesand which migrate to ocean waters.
(2) The term “conservation and management” refers to allof the rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures(A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and whichare useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fisheryresource and the marine environment; and (B) which are designedto assure that-
(i) a supply of food and other products may be taken.and that recreation benefits maybe obtained, on a continuingbasis;
(ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fisheryresources and the marine environment are avoided.; and
(iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available withrespect to future uses of these resources.
(3) The term “Continental Shelf” means the seabed andsubsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast, but outsidethe area of the territorial sea, of the United States, to a depth of200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the super-
90 STAT- 332 90 STAT. 333
Pub. Law 94-265 - 4 - April 13, 1976
jacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resourcesof such areas.
(4) The term “Continental Shelf fishery resources” meansthe following:
COLENTERATA
Bamboo Coral—Acanella spp.;Black Coral-Antipathes spp.;
Precious Red Coral —Corallium spp.;Bamboo Coral-Keratoisis spp,; andGold 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; andDeep-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; andOcean Quahog-Artica islandica.
SPONGES
Glove Sponge—Hippiospongia canaliculata;Sheepswool Sponge-Hippiospongia lachne;Grass Sponge-Spongia graminea; andYellow Sponge-—Spongia barbera.
Publication in If the Secretary determines, after consultation with the SecretaryFederal Regis- of State, that living organisms of any other sedentary speciester. are at the harvestable stage, either-
( A) immobile on or under the seabed, or(B) unable to move except in constant physical contact
with the seabed or subsoil,of the Continental Shelf which appertains to the United States,and publishes notice of such determination in the Federal Register,such sedentary species shall be considered to be added to theforegoing list and included in such term for purposes of this Act.
(5) The term “Council” means any Regional Fishery Manage-ment Council established under section 302.
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 5 - Pub. Law 94-265
means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and(6)The term "Fish" all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marinemammals, birds, and highly migratory species.
(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 whichare identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, tech-nical, recreational, and economic characteristics; and
(B) any fishing for such stocks.(8) The term “fishery conservation zone” 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 whichis conducted by a scientific research vessel.
(11) The term “fishing vessel” means any vessel, boat, ship,or other craft which is used for, equipped to be used for, or of atype which is normally used for—
.
(A) fishing; or(B) aiding or assisting one or more vessels at sea in the
performance of any activity relating to fishing, including,but not limited to, preparation, supply, storage, refrigeration,
transportation, or processing.(12) The term “foreign fishing”’ means fishing by a vessel
other than a vessel of the United States.(13) The term “high seas” means all waters beyond the ter-
ritorial sea of the United States and beyond any foreign nation’sterritorial sea, to the extent that such sea is recognized by theUnited States.
(14) The term “highly migratory species” means species oftuna which, in the course of their life cycle, spawn and migrateover great distances in waters of the ocean. -
—
(15) The term “international fishery agreement” means anybilateral or multilateral treaty, convention. or agreement whichrelates to fishing and to which the United States is a party.
(16) The term “Marine Fisheries Commission” means theAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf StatesMarine Fisheries Commission, or the Pacific Marine FisheriesCommission.
(17) The term “national standards”’ means the national stand-ards for fishery conservation and management set forth in sec.t i o n 3 0 1 .
(18) The term “optimum”, with respect to the yield from afishery, means the amount of fish—
(A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to thenation, with particular reference to food production andrecreational opportunities: and
(B) which is prescribed as such on the basis of the maxi-mum sustainable yield from such fishery, as modified by anyrelevant 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 1811note.
P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 6 - April 13, 1976
(19) The term “person” means any individual (whether ornot 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.
f (20) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary o Commerceor his designee.
(21) The term “State” means each of the several States, theDistrict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Amer-ican Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other Common-wealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(22) The term “stock of fish” means a species, subspecies, geo-graphical grouping, or other category of fish capable of manage-ment as a unit.
(23) The term “treaty” means any international fishery agree-ment which is a treaty within the meaning of section 2 of articleII of the Constitution.
(24) The term United States”’, when used in a geographicalcontext, means all the States thereof.
(25) The term “vessel of the United States” means any vesseldocumented under the laws of the United States or registeredunder the laws of any State.
TITLE I—FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITYOF THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 101 FISHERY CONSERVATION ZONE.There is established a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the
United States to be known as the fishery conservation zone. The innerboundary of the fishery conservation zone is a line coterminous withthe seaward boundary of each of the coastal States, and the outerboundary of such zone is a line drawn in such a manner that eachpoint on it is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which theterritorial sea is measured.SEC. 102. EXCLUSIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The United States shall exercise exclusive fishery managementauthority, 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; exceptthat such management authority shall not extend to such speciesduring the time they are found within any foreign nation’s terri-torial sea or fishery conservation zone (or the equivalent), to theextent that such sea or zone is recognized by the United States.
(3) All Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the fisheryconservation 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, highlymigratory species of fish.SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall trike effect March 1, 1977.
90 STAT. 336
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 7 - Pub. Law 94-265
TITLE II—FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNA-TIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS
SEC. 201. FOREIGN FISHING. 16 USC 1821.(a) IN GENERAL.—After February 28, 1977, no foreign fishing is
authorized within the fishery conservation zone, or for anadromousspecies or Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the fisheryconservation zone, unless such foreign fishing-
(1) is authorized under subsection (b) or (c);(2) is not prohibited by subsection (f); and(3) is conducted under, and in accordance with, a valid and
applicable permit issued pursuant to section 204.(b) EXISTING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.—Foreign
fishing described in subsection (a) may be conducted pursuant to aninternational fishery agreement (subject to the provisions of section202 (b) or (c) ), if such agreement-
(1) was in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and(2) has not expired. been renegotiated, or otherwise ceased to be
of force and effect with respect to the United States.(c) GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.-Foreign
fishing described in subsection (a) may be conducted pursuant to aninternational fishery agreement (other than a treaty) which meetsthe requirements o this subsection if such agreement becomes effec-tive after application of section 203. .Any such international fisheryagreement shall hereafter in this Act be referred to as a “governinginternational fishery agreement”. Each governing international fishery
●greement shall acknowledge the exclusive fishery managementauthor-it of the United States, as set forth in this Act. It is the sense Terms andof the Congress that each such agreement shall include a binding conditions.commitment on the part of such foreign nation and its fishing vessels,to comply with the following terms and conditions:
(1) The foreign nation, and the owner or operator of anyfishing vessel fishing pursuant to such agreement, will abide byall regulations promulgated by ‘the Secretary pursuant to this Act,including any regulations promulgated to implement any appli-cable fishery management plan or any preliminary fishery man-agement plan.
(2) The foreign nation, and the owner or operator of anyfishing vessel fishing pursuant to such agreement, will abide by therequirement that-
(A) any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of thisAct (as provided for in section 311) be permitted— Post p. 358.
(i) to board, and search or inspect, any such vesselat any time,
(ii) to make arrests and seizures provided for insect ion 311 (b) whenever such officer has reasonable causeto believe, as a result of such a search or inspection, thatany such vessel or any person has committed an actprohibited by section 307, and Post p. 355.
(iii) to examine and make notations on the permitissued pursuant to section 204 for such vessel;
(B) the permit issued for any such vessel pursuant tosection 204 be prominently displayed in the wheelhouse ofsuch vessel;
(C) transponders, or such other appropriate position-fixing and identification equipment as the Secretary of thedepartment 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 workingorder on each such vessel;
(D) duly authorized United States observers be permittedon board any such vessel and that the United States bereimbursed 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 UnitedStates who are authorized to receive and respond to any legalprocess issued in the United States with respect to such owneror operator; and
(G) responsibility be assumed, in accordance with anyrequirements prescribed by the Secretary, for the reimburse-ment of United States citizens for any loss of, or damage to,their fishing vessels, fishing gear, or catch which is caused byany fishing vessel of that nation;
and will abide by any other monitoring, compliance, or enforce-ment requirement related to fishery conservation and managementwhich is included in such agreement.
(3) The foreign nation and the owners or operators of all ofthe fishing vessels of such nation shall not. in any ear, exceedsuch nation’s allocation of the total allowable level of foreignfishing, as determined under subsection (e).
(4) The foreign 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 underthat section for such vessel: and
(C) abide b , and take appropriate steps under its ownlaws to assure that all such owners and operators comply with,section 204(a) and the applicable conditions and restrictionsestablished under section 204 (b) (7).
(d) TOTAL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FOREIGN FISHING.—The totalallowable level of foreign fishing, if any, with respect to any fisherysubject to the exclusive fishery management authority of the UnitedStates, shall be that portion of the optimum yield of such fishery whichwill not be harvested by vessels of the United States. as determinedin accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(e) ALLOCATION OF ALLOWABLE LEVEL.-Tbe Secretary of State. incooperation with the Secretary, shall determine the allocation amongforeign nations of the total allowable level of foreign fishing which ispermitted with respect to any fishery subject to the exclusive fishermanagement authority of the United States. In making any suchdetermination, the Secretary of State and the Secretary shall con-sider—
(1) whether, and to what extent, the fishing vessels of suchnations have traditionally engaged in fishing in such fishery:
(2) whether such nations have cooperated with the UnitedStates in, and made substantial contributions to. fishery researchand the identification of fishery resources:
(3) whether such nations have cooperated with the UnitedStates in enforcement and with respect to the conservation andmanagement of fishery resources: and
(4) such other matters as the .Secretary of State. in cooperationwith the Secretary. deems appropriate.
(f) Reciprocity.—Foreign fishing shall not be authorized for thefishing vessels of any foreign nation unless such nation satisfies the
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 9 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 5
Secretary and the Secretary of State that such nation extends sub-stantially the same fishing privileges to fishing vessels of the UnitedStates, 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 hassubmitted an application under section 204(b), shall prepare a pre-liminary fishery management plan for any fishery covered by suchapplication if the Secretary determines that no fishery management
lp an for that fishery will be prepared and implemented, pursuant totitle III, before March 1, 1977. To the extent practicable. each suchplan-
(1) shall contain a preliminary description of the fishery and apreliminary determination as to the optimum yield from suchfishery and the total allowable level of foreign fishing with respect
to such fishery;(2) shall require each foreign fishing vessel engaged or wish-
ing to engage in such fishery to obtain a permit from the Secre-tary;
(3) shall require the submission of pertinent data to the Secre-tary, with respect to such fishery, as described in section 303(a)(5) ; and
(4) may, to the extent necessary to prevent irrevesible effectsfrom overfishing, with respect to such fishery, contain conserva-tion and management measures applicable to foreign fishing
(A) are determined to be necessary and appropriate forthe conservation and management of such fishery,
(B) are consistent with the national standards, the otherprovisions 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 withrespect to foreign fishing for which permits have been issued until afishery management plan is prepare and implemented, pursuant totitle III, wit respect to such fishery. The Secretary may, in accord-ance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, also prepare andpromulgate interim regulations with respect to any such preliminaryplan. Such regulations shall be in effect until regulations implementingthe applicable fishery management plan are promulgated pursuant tosection 305.SEC. 202. INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.
( a ) NEGOTIATIONS.-The Secretary of State-(1) shall renegotiate treaties as provided for in 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 Sec-
retary, initiate and conduct negotiations for the purpose of enter-ing into international fishery agreements-
(A) which allow fishing vessels of the United States equi-table access to fish over which foreign nations assert exclusivefishery management authority, and
(B) which provide for the conservation and managementof anadromous species and highly migratory species; and
90 STAT. 339
Regulations.
16 USC 1822.
90 STAT. 338
4
IQN
Pub. Law 94-265 - 10 - Apri l 13 , 1976
(5) may enter into such other negotiations, not prohibited bysubsection (c), as may be necessary and appropriate to furtherthe purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act.
(b) TREATY RENEGOTIATION.—The Secretary of State, in coopera-tion with the Secretary, \shW initiate, promptly after the date ofenactment of this .4ct, the’ renegotiation of any treaty which
rstains
to fishing within the fishery conser~.ation zdpe (or within t e nreathat will collstit.ute such zone after February 28, 1977), or for anad-romous species or (’ont inental She] f fishery resourms beyond such zoneor 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 tOsuch purposes, policj., and provisions. It is the sense of Congress thatthe l~nited States shall withdraw from any such treaty, in accord-ance with its pro~-isionst if such treaty is not so renegotiated within areasonable period of time after such date of enactment.
(c) IWrERN.\T1O~AL FMIIERY .+~REEMEXTS.-XO international fisheryagreement (other than a treaty) which pertains to foreign fishingwitl]in tile tishery conser~ation zone (or w“ithin the area that willconstitute such zone after February 28, 1977), or for anadrornousspecies or Continental She] f tishery resources be~.ond such zone orarea—
(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 ofsm-tion 201 (c).
(d) BoI”x~.iRY NEooTI.\Tloxs.—The Secretarv of State, in coopera-tion with the Secretary, may initiate and conduct negotiations withan~’ adjacent or opposite foreign nation to establish the boundariesof the tisbery cOllSel’\’iltiOll zone of the l’nited States in relation toalley such nation.
(e) NomtEcoGxrrmx.-It is the sense of the (’ongress that the[-nited Stntes Government shall not recognize the claim of any foreignnation to a fishe;~’ conservation zone (or the equivalent) beyond snchnation”s territor]i~l sea. to the extent that such sea is reco=~ized bythe l-nited States, if such nation—
(.1 j fails to consider and take into account traditional fishingactlwty of fishing vessels of the United States;
(2) fails to recognize and accept that highly migratory speciesare 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 condi-tions or restrictions which are unrelated to fishery conservationand management.
16 USC 1823. SEC. 203. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNING INTERNA-TIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS.
Transmittal to ( a ) IN GENERAL.—h-o governing international fishery agreementCongress. 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 Rep-resentatives and to the Senate a document setting forth the text ofsuch governing international fishery agreement. .4 copy of the docu-ment shall he delivered to each House of Congress on the same dayand 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, ifthe Senate is not in session.
Apri l 13 , 1976 11 - Pub. Law 94-265
(b) REFERRAL m Comm-rEss.-.lny document &scribed in sub-section (a) shall be immediately referred in the House of Representa-tives to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and inthe 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 adjournmentof (’ongress sine die; and
($?). the days on which either IIouse is not in session IMXWIIW ofan adjournment of more tl~an 3 tla~”s to a day certain are excludedill 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 aredeemed a part of the rules of each Holise, respectively, butupplicabie only with respect to tile procedure to he followed inthat House in the case of fisl)ery agreement resolutionsdescribed in paragraph (2), and tl~e~’ supersede other rulesonly to the extent that tlle~’ are inconsistent therewith; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right ofeither House to change tl~e rules (so far as they relate to theprocedure of that Holw) at any time. and in the .smne n~an-ner aml to tile sanie extent as in tile ctise of an~. other rule ofthat House.
(2) Definition.—For purlmses of this subsection, the term“fishery Rgreenlellt reso]l]t ion” refers to a joint resolution of eitherHouse of Congress—
(A) the effect of w’l~ich is to prohibit t}ie entering intoforce und effect of any go~.erning international fishery ngree-ment tlw text of whicl~ is t ransmitte(l to the (’ongress pur-suant to subsection (a) : and
( 13) w.llich is reported from tile Conunittee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries of the Hmuw of Representatives orthe C(m~n~ittce on (’on~]l~ercc or the Cmnn~ittee on ForeignRelations of the Senate, not later than 45 days after tl~e dateon which tlm document described in sllbsectlon (a) relatingto that agreement is transmitted to the Congress
(:3) PI.A(.ESIRXT OX ~ALEND.\R.- .iny fishery agreement resolu-tion upon Iwing reporte(] .sImll immediately be place(l on theappropriate 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)allbe highly privileged an(l not dchatab]e. .fn amen(lnwnt tothe mot]on shall not be in or(ler, nor shall it be in order tomove to reconsider tl~e \“ote b~. which the motion is agree(lto or disagreed to.
(11) Debate in the House of Represe]:tati~.es on an~. fisher} Debateagreement resolution sl~all he lin]itcd to not more than 10 limitation.hours, which shall be di~idcd equally hetween those faj”oringand those opposing tl~e resolution. .i motion fllrt]]er to limltdebate shall not be delmtal)]e. It S.liiill not be in order to nm~.eto recommit any fisher~. agreement resolution or to mol-e toreconsider the vote by which any fishery agreement resolu-tion is agreed to or disagreed to.
90 STAT. 34090 STAT. 341
Pub. Law 94-265 - 12 - April 13, 1976
Debatelimitation.
(C) Motions to postpone, made in the House of Represent-atives with respect to tile considerate ion of any fishery agree-ment resolution, anti motions to proceed to the considerationof other business, shall be decided without debate.
(D) All appeals from the decisions of the Chair relatingto the application of the Rules of the House of Representa-tives to the procedure relating to any fishery agreement reso-lution shall be decided without debate.
(E) Except to the extent specifically provided in the pre-ceding provisions of this subsection, considerate ion of anyfishery agreement resolution shall be governed by the Rulesof the House of Representatives applicable to other bills andresolutions in similar circumstances.
(5) FLOOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.—(i) A motion in the Senate to proceed to the consideration
of any fishery agreement. resolution shall be privileged andnot debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be inorder, nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the voteby which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(B) Debate in the Senate on any fishery agreement resolu-tion and on all debatable motions and appeals in connectiontherewith shall be limited to not more than 10 hours. Thetime shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, themajority leader and the monority leader or their designees.
(C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion orappeal in connection with any fishery agreement resolutionshall be limited to not more than 1 hour. to be equally dividedbetween, and controlled by,the mover of the. mot ion or appealand the manager of the resolution, except that if the managerof the resolution is in favor of any such motion or appeal, thetime in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the minor-ity leader or his designee. The majority lender and the minor-it}’ leader, or either of them. may allot additional time toany Senator during the consideration of any debatable motionor appeal, from time under their control with respect to theapplicable fishery agreement resolution.
(I)) A motion in the Senate to further limit debate is notdebatable. A motion to recommit any fishery agreement reso-lution is not in order.
16 USC 1824. SEC. 204. PERMITS FOR FOREIGN FISHING.(a) IN GENERAL.-AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1977, no foreign fishing
vessel shall engage in fishing within the fishery conservation zone, orfor anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery resources beyondsuch zone. unless such vessel has on board a valid permit issued underthis sect ion for such vessel.
(b) APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS UNDER GOVERNING INTERNATIONALFISHERY AGREEMENTS.—
(1) ELIGIBILITY.-Each foreign nation with which the UnitedStates has entered into a governing international fishery agree-ment shall submit an application to the Secretary of State eachyear for a permit for each of its fishing vessels that wishes toengage in fishing described in subsection (a).
(2) FORMS.-The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretaryof State and the Secretary of tile department in which the CoastGuard is operating, shall prescribe the forms for permit applica-tions submitted under this subsection and for permits issuedpursuant to any such application.
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 13 - Pub. Law 94-265
(3) CONTENTS.—Any application made under this subsectionshall specify—
(A) the name and official number or other identificationof each fishing vessel for which a permit is sought, togetherwith the name and address of tile owner thereof;
(B) the tonnage. capacity, speed, processing equipment,type and quantity of fishing gear, and such other pertinentinformation with respect to characteristics of each such vesselas the Secretary may require;
(C) each fishery in 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 periodduring which, such fishing will be conducted:
and shall include any other pertinent information and materialwhich the Secretary may require.
(4) TRANSMITTAL FOR ACTION.-Upon receipt of any applica-tion which complies with the requirements of paragraph (3), theSecretary of State shall publish such application in the FederalRegister and shall promptly transmit-
(A) such application, together with his comments andrecommendations thereon, to the Secretary;
(B) a copy of the application to each appropriate Counciland to tile Secretary of the department in which the CoastGuard is operating: and
(C) a copy of such material to the Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives andtot he Committees on Commerce and Foreign Relations of theSenate.
(5) ACTION BY COUNCIL.-.After receipt of an application trans-mitted under parpgrapph (4) (B), each appropriate Council shallprepare and submit to the Secretary such written comments on theapplication as it deems appropriate. Such comments shall be sub-mitted within 45 days after the date on which the application isreceived by the Council and may include recommendations withrespect to approval of the application and, if approval is recom-mended, with respect to appropriate conditions and restrictionsthereon. Any interested person may submit comments to suchCouncil with respect to any such application. The Council shallconsider any such comments in formulating its submission to theSecretary.
(6) APPROVAL.-After receipt of any application transmittedunder paragraph (4) (A), the Secretary. shall consult with theSecretary of State and, with respect to enforcement, with theSecretary of the department, in which the Coast Guard is operat-ing. The Secretary, after taking into consideration the views andrecommendations of such Secretaries. and any comments submittedby any Council under paragraph (5), may approve the applica-tion, if he determines that the fishing described in the applica-tion w-ill meet the requirements of this Act.
(7) ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS .-ThCSecretary. shall establish conditions and restrictions which shallbe included in each permit issued pursuant to any applicationapproved under paragraph ( 6 ) and which must be complied withby the owner or operator of the fishing vessel for which thepermit is issued. Such conditions and restrictions shall includethe following:
Publication inFederal Regis-ter.
Transmittal tocongressionalcommittees.
Writtencomments.
90 STAT. 34290 STAT. 343
Pub. Law 94-265 - 14 - April 13, 1976
(A) A11 of the requirements of any applicable fisherymanagement 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 anyvessel 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 prmcribesas nccess:tr). nn{l appropriate.
(8) SOTICE OF .il’l’lt(jv.ir..—llele Secrctar - shall promptly trana-?nlit 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 foreignnation in}-olved;
(11) the Secretary of the departnlent ill which the CoastGuard is operating;
(C) any Council which has authority over any fisheryslw.ifiwJ in SII(+ application; and
Transmittal to (1)) tile (Uo]lllllittee on Mercilant Marine and Fisheries ofcongressional tlw 11ou.* of ltepresentatives and the Conm]ittees on Conl-committees. 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 llOtal)prol-c it]~j” apl)lication subnlittwl bj. a foreign nation under thissubswt ion. IW SIIU1l prwnptly inform the Secretary of State oftlw (1 iSilpl)ll}\”ill illld his reasolw therefore. ‘rhe ~Secretar~. of Stateslml I l~ot i f}. su(.1~ forcigli nation of the dis~pproviil and the reasonstill’refer. Au(.]i foreign lliltiOIL after taking into consideration thel.~~i~so]l~ for (lisill)l)l.()\”iil, IIIU}. submit a revised application underthis sul)s(’l”t iol~.
( 10) F~:}:s.-Reasonahle fees shall be paid to the Secretaryb~ tile owner or operator of any foreign fishing vessel for whicha 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 pub-lish 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 thepro~-isions of this -ht. with respect to foreign fishing, including,but not limitwi to. the cost of fishery conservation and nlanage-nlent, fisheries research, administration, and enforcement.
(11) k+(-.~xcw (w rEnx[rrs.-If a foreign nation notifies theSecretary of State of its acceptance of the conditions and restric-tions [Jstill)lislled b~. the Secretnr~’ under paragraph (7), theSecret:lry of StiltC slmll pronlpt]j. trimsmit such notification tothe Secretary. L’pon payment of the applicable fees establishedpllrsllill~t to p~ri~~ri~]~l~ ( 10), the S e c r e t a r y s h a l l t h e r e u p o n i s s u eto such foreign nation, through the Secretary of State, permitsfor the appropriate fishing \-esscls of that nation. IZach permitshall contmn a statement of all conditions and restrictions estab-lished under paragraph (7) which apply to the fishing vessel forwhich the permit IS issued.
(12) SANCTlONS.- If any foreign fishing vessel for which a per-mit has been issued pursuant to this subsection has been usedin the commission of any act prohibited by section 307 the Secre-tary may , or if any civil penalty imposed under section 308 or anycriminal fine imposed under section 309 has not been paid andis overdue the Secretary shall—
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 15 - Pub. Law 94-265
(A) revoke such permit, with or without prejudice to theright of the foreign nation involved to obtain a permit forsuch vessel in any subsequent year:
(13) suspend such permit for the period of time deemedappropriate: or
((’) impose a(lditional con(litions and restrictions on theappro~-ed iip[)l icilti~ll of the foreign nation involved andon any. pern~ it issxml umler such application.
.iny perrnlt which is suspended under this paragraph for non-payment of a cit”il Penitlty shall be reinstated by the Secretaryupon the pa~’ment of such civil penalty together with interestthereon at the prefwil ing rate.
(c) RECISTSATION l%rtxITs.—The Secretary of State, in coopera-tion with the Secretary, shall issue annually a registration permit foreach fishing t’essel of a foreign niit ion winch is a party to an inter-nittional fishery agreement under which foreign fishing is authorizedby section 201 (b) and which wishes to engage in fishing described insubsection (a). Each such permit shall set forth the terms and condi-tions contained in the agreement, that apply with respect to suchfishing, and shall include the additional requirement that the owneror operator of the fishing vessel for which the permit is issued shallprominently display such permit in the wheelhouse of such vessel andshow it, upon request, to any officer authorized to enforce the provi-sions of this Act (as provided for in section 311). The Secretary ofState. after consultation with the Secretary and the Secretary of thedepartment in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall prescribethe form and manner in which applications for registration permitsmay be made, and the forms of such permits. The Secretary of Statemay establish, require the payment of, and collect fees for registra-t ion permits; except that the level of such fees shall not exceed theadministrative 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 ofSt i~te determines tl)at—
(1) he has been unable, within a reasonable period of time,to conclude with any foreign nation an international fisheryagreement allowing fishing \“essels of the United States equitableaccess to fisheries over which that nation asserts exclusive fisherymanagement authorit,v. as recognized by the IJnited States, inaccordnnm with tradlt ionill fish ing activities of such vessels, ifany, and under terms not more restrictive than those establishedunder sections 201 (c) and (d) and 204 (b) (7) and (10), becausesuch 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 theI“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 obligationsunder any existing international fishery agreement concerningfishing by fishing vessels of the I’nited States in any fishery overwhich that nation aswrts exclusive fishery management authority;or
(4) any fishing i-essel of the l’nitcd States. while fishing inwaters hq.ond any forei~w nation’s territorial sea, to the extentthat such sea is recognized by the I“nited States, is seized by anyforeign nation—
90 STAT. 34590 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 betweenthe l~nitrvl States and .suclk nat ion.; or
(C’) as a consequence of a clalm of jurisdiction which isnot 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 Treasuryshall inlmcclmtelv take such nction as may be necessary and appropri-ate to prohihit the irnportrrt ion into the ITnited Statw-
(1) of all fkh :Iml fish ]Irrrdlwts from the fislwr~ iniolJ-ed,i f flny; nnd
(~) Ilpon I.ccomnlendntioll o f t h e Secretarcv of St:lte. sllchother- fisl~ or fish prodllcts. fro]]l nny fishery of the foreign nationconwrmed. wll ich the Secret rr.r}- of Strrte Grids to be appropriateto carry out the pllrposes of t II ]s section.
(c) RI: MOV.iT, OF pRorllrm”Iox.-Tf the %cretary of state finds thattl~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 theSerr(*tzrV of thr ‘heasllry, WIIO shall promptl~~ rernok”e SIII-h ]mportl)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.
T I T L E I I I — N A T I O N A L F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N TP R O G R A M
16 USC 18S1. SEC. 301. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY CONSERVATION ANDMANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.-.iny fishery management plan prepared, andany regulnt ion promulgated to irnplrment :m~r such plan. pursuantto this title shall be consisterlt with the follow]ng rmtionrrl stnndarckf~)l’ fisll(’l”y (wnserl-ation and I ] NUlilgelrlelit :
( 1 ) ~onservation nnd management mcrrsures shall prrvcnt ovcr-fisl~ing wllilv :~chiet’ing, on a contirruing basis, the optimum }’ieldfrom (’acll fisher}’.
(2) ~~ns~rt-~tion tlnd mana~ernent m e a s u r e s Shilll b ~):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 stocksof fish slIall he nmnaged as a unit or in close coordination.
(4) Conwr\vltion nnd management measures shall not discrim-i n:lte hetwern residents of d i ffrrcnt .Strrtes. If it becomes neces-
SZICV to allocate or rrssign fishing prit’ilegw among wrrious IlnitmlSt:ltes fishermen, sncll rrllocation shall be (.~) f:lir nnd cqrlitrrhleto all such fishermen; (B) rertsonnbly calculated to promote con-serl.ntion: and (C) carried ollt in such manner that no particularindividmll, corporation, or otlw rmtity acquires an cxcessi~reshrrrr of such pri~’ilcges.
(5) C’onser\.rrtion :~nd mrrnagement measures shall, where prac-ticable. promote efficiency in t]le Iltilization of fisher-y resources;except that no such measure shall have economic allocation rLs itsSOle purpose.
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 17 - P u b . L a w- 9 4 - 2 6 5
(6) Conservation and management measures shall take intoaccount and allow for variations among, and contingencies in,fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where prac-ticable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary deplication.
(b) GUIDELINES.–The Secretary shall establish guidelines, baaedon the national standards, to assist in the development of fisherymanagement plans.SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be established, within 120 daysafter the date of the enactment of this Act, eight Regional FisheryManagement Councils, as follows:
(1) NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL.-The New England Fishery Man-agement Council shall consist of the States of Maine, NewHampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut andshall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean sea-ward of such States. The New England Council shall have 17voting members, including 11 appointed by the Secretary pursuantto subsection (b) ( 1 ) ((’) (at least one of whom shall be appointedfrom each such State).
(2) MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL.—l’he Mid-Atlantic Fishery Man-agement Council shall consist of the States of New York , NewJersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia andshall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean sea-ward of such States. The Mid-Atlantic Council shall have 19voting members, including 12 appointed by the Secretary pursuantto subsection (b)(1) (C) (at least one of whom shall be appointedfrom each such State).
(3) SOUTH ATANTIC COUNCIL.-The South Atlantic FisheryManagement Council shall consist of the States of North Carolina,South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and shall have authorityover the fisheries the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States.The South Atlantic Council shall have 13 voting members, includ-ing 8 appointed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) (1)(C) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each suchState).
(4) CARIBBEAN COUNCIL.-The Caribbean Fishery Manage-ment Council shall consist of the Virgin Islands and the Com-monwealth of Puerto Rico and shall have authority over thefisheries in the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean seaward ofsuch 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 eachsuch State).
(5) GULF COUNCIL.-The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Manage-ment Council shall consist of the States of Texas, Louisiana,Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and shall have authority overthe fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico seaward of such States. TheGulf Council shall have 17 voting members, including 11appointed 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 ManagementCouncil shall consist of the States of California, Oregon, Wash-ington, and Idaho and shall have authority over the fisheries inthe Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The Pacific Councilshall 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 ofwhom shall be appointed from each such State).
(7) NORTH PACIFIC COUNCIL.-The North Pacific FisheryManagement Council shall consist of the States of Alaska. Wash-ington, and Oregon and shall have authority over the fisheriesin the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea. and Pacific Ocean seaward ofAlaska. 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 ofAlaska and 2 of whom shall be appointed from the State ofWashington n).
(8) WESTERN PACIFIC COUNCIL.-The Western pacific FisheryManagement Council shall consist of the State of Hawaii, Ameri-can Samoa, and Guam and shall have authority over the fisheriesin the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The Western PacificCouncil shall have 11 voting members, including 7 appointed bythe Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) ( 1 ) (C) (at least oneof whom shall be appointed from each such State).
Each Council shall reflect the expertise and interest of the several con-stituent States in the ocean area over which such Council is grantedauthority.
(b) VOTING MEMBERS .-(1) The voting members of each Councilshall be:
(A) The principal State official with marine fishery manage-ment responsibility and expertise in each constituent State, whois designated as such by the Governor of the State, so long as theofficial continues to hold such position, or the designee of suchofficial.
(B) The regional director of the National Marine FisheriesService for the geohgpaphic area concerned, or his designee, exceptthat if two such directors are within such geographical area, theSecretary shall designate which of such directors shall be the vot-ing member.
(C) The members required to be appointed by the Secretaryshall be appointed by the Secretary from a list of qualifiedindividuals submitted by the Governor of each applicable con-stituent State. With respect to the initial such appointments. suchGovernors shall submit such lists to the Secretary as soon as prac-ticable. not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of
“List of qua- this Act. As used in this subparagraph, (i) the term “list of quali-lified indi- fied individuals” shall include the names (including pertinent bio-viduals. “ graphical data) of not less than three such individuals for each"Qualified applicable vacancy, and (ii) the term “qualified individual” meansml an individual who is knowledgable or experienced with regard to
the management, conservation, or recreational or commercial har-vest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned.
Term. (2) Each voting member appointed to a Council pursuant to para-graph (1) (C) shall serve for a term of 3 years; except that, withrespect to the members initially so appointed, the Secretary shall desig-nate up to one-third thereof to serve for a term of 1 year. up to one-third thereof to serve for a term of 2 years, and the remaining suchmembers to serve for a term of 3 years.
(3) Successorsto the voting members of any Council shall beappointed in the same manner as the original voting members. Anyindividual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expirationof any term of office shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.
90 STAT. 348
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 19 - Pub. Law 94-265
(c) NONVOTING MEMBERS.--(1) The nonvoting members of eachCouncil shall be:
(A) The regional or area director of the United States Fishand Wildlife Service for the geographical area concerned, or hisdesignee.
(B) The commander of the Coast Guard district for the geo-graphical area concerned, or his designee; except that, If twoCoast Guard districts are within such
graphical area, the
commander designated for such purpose by the commandant ofthe Coast Guard.
(C) The executive director of the Marine Fisheries Commissionfor the geographical area concerned, if any, or his designee.
(D) One representative of the Department of State designatedfor such purpose by the Secretary of State, or his designee.
(2) The Pacific Council shall have one additional nonvoting mem-ber who shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, theGovernor of Alaska.
(d) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.-The voting members of eachCouncil, who are not employed by the Federal Government or anyState or local government, shall receive compensation at the daily ratefor GS-18 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual per-formance of duties for such Council. The voting members of eachCouncil, any nonvoting 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 performanceof 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 designatedby the Council may hold hearings. All decisions of any Councilshall be by majority vote of the voting members present andvoting.
(2) The voting members of each Council shall select a Chair-man for such Council from among the voting members.
(3) Each Council shall meet in the geographical area con-cerned at the call of the Chairman or upon the request of amajority of its voting members.
(4) If any voting member of a Council disagrees with respectto any matter which is transmitted to the Secretary by suchCouncil. such member may submit a statement to the Secretarysetting forth the reasons for such disagreement.
(f) STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION.—(1) Each Council may appoint, and assign duties to, an execu-
tive director and such other full- and part-time administrativeemployees as the Secretary determines are necessary to the per-formance of its functions.
(2) Upon the request of any Council, and after consultationwith the Secretary, the head of any Federal agency is authorizedto detail to such Council, on a reimbursable basis, any of thepersonnel of such agency, to assist such Council in the performanceof its functions under this Act.
(3) The Secretary shall provide to each Council such admin-istrative and technical support services as are necessary for theeffective functioning of such Council.
(4) The Administrator of General Services shall furnish eachCouncil with such offices, equipment, supplies, and services ashe is authorized to furnish to any other agency or instrumentalityof the United States.
5 USC 5332note.
90 STAT. 349
Pub. Law 94-265 - 20 - April 13, 1976
(5) Tile Secretary and the Secretary of +State shall furnish eachCouncil with relevant information concerning foreign fishingand international fishery agreements.
(6) Each Council shall determine its organization, and pre-scribe its practices and procedures for carrying out its functionsunder this Act, in accordance with such uniform standards asare prescribed by the Secretary. Each Council shall publish andmake available to the public a statement of its organization,practices, and procedures.
(7) The Secretary shall pay—(A) the compensation and expenses provided for in sub-
section (d) ;(B) appropriate compensation to employees appointed
under paragraph (1) ;(C) the amounts required for reimbursement of other
Federal agencies under 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 nec-
essary to the performance of the functions of the Councils.(g) COmmitteeS AND PANELS .—
(1) Each Council shall establish and maintain, and appointthe members of. a scientific and statistical committee to assist itin the development, collection, and evaluation of such statistical,biological, economic, social, and other scientific information asis relevant to such Council's development and amendment of anyfishery management plan.
(2) Each Council shall establish such other advisory panels asare necessary or appropriate to assist it in carrying out its func-tions under this Act.
(h) FUNCTIONS.—Each Council shall, in accordance with the pro-visions of this Act—
Fishery manage- (1) prepare and submit to the Secretary a fishery managementment plan. plan with respect to each fishery within its geographical area of
authority and, from time to time, such amendments to each suchplan as are necessary:
Comments. (2) prepare comments on any application for foreign fishingtransmitted to it under section 204(b) (4) (B), and any fisherymanagement plan or amendment transmitted to it under section304(C) (2) :
Public hearings. (3) conduct public hearings, at appropriate times and in appro-priate locations in the geographical area concerned, so as to allowall interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the develop-ment of fishery management plans and amendments to such plans.and with respect to the administration and implementation ofthe provisions of this Act:
(4) submit to the Serretarv-(.4) a report. before February 1 of each year, on the Coun-
cil’s activities (during the immediately preceding calendaryear ,
(B) such periodic reports as the Council deems appropriate,and
(C) any other relevant report which may be requested bythe Secretary:
(5) review on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, theassessments and specifications made pursuant to section 303(a)(3) and (4) with respect to the optimum yield from, and the totalallowable level of foreign fishing in, each fishery within itsgeographical area of authority; and
Reports.
Review.
90 STAT. 351
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 21 - Pub. Law 94-265
(6) conduct any other activities which are required by, orprovided for in, this Act or which are necessary an appropriateto 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 anyfishery, shall-
(1) contain the conservation and management measures, ap-plicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the UnitedStates, which are-
(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation andmanagement of the fishery;(B) described in this subsection or subsection (b), or
(C) consistent with the national standards, the other pro-visions oft his Act, and any other applicable law;
(2) contain a description of the fishery, including, but not lim-ited to, the number of vessels involved, the type and quantity offishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their locationthe cost likely to be incurred in management, actual and potentialrevenues from the fishery, any recreational interests in the fishery,and the nature and extent, of foreign fishing and Indian treatyfishing rights, if any;
(3) assess and specify the present and probable future condi-tion of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yieldfrom, the fishery, and include a summary of the information uti-lized 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. opti-mum yield specified under paragraph (3), and
(B) the portion of such optimum yield which, on an annualbasis, will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the UnitedStates and can be made available for foreign fishing; and
(5) specify the pertinent data which shall submitted to theSecretary with respect to the fishery, including, but not limited to,information regarding the type and quantity of fishing gear used,catch by species in numbers of fish or weight thereof, areas inwhich fishing was engaged in, time of fishing, and number ofhauls.
(b) DISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS.-hy fishery management planwhich is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respectto 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 UnitedStates fishing, or wishing to fish, in the fishery conservation zone,or for anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery resourcesbeyond such zone;
(2) designate zones where, and periods when. fishing shall belimited, or shall not be permitted, or shall be permitted only byspecified types of fishing vessels or with specified types and quan-tities of fishing gear;
(3) establish specified limitations on the catch of fish (based onarea, species, sire, number, weight, sex, incidental catch, totalbiomass, or other factors), which are necessary and appropriatefor 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 specifiedtypes and quantities of fishing gear, fishing vessels, or equipmentfor such vessels, including devices which may be required tofacilitate enforcement of the provisions of this Act;
(5) incorporate (consistent with the national standards, theother provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law) therelevant fishery conservation and management measures of thecoastal States nearest to the fishery;
(6) establish a system for limiting access to the fishery in orderto achieve optimum yield if, in developing such system, the Coun-cil 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 conditionsand restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropri-ate for the conservation and management of the fishery.
(c) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.–Any Council may prepare any pro-posed regulations which it deems necessary and appropriate to carryout any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any fisherymanagement plan, which is prepared by it. Such proposed regulationsshall be submitted to the Secretary, together with such plan or amend-ment, for action by the Secretary pursuant to sections 304 and 305.
(d) CONFIDENTIALITY OF STATISTICS.-Any statistics submitted tothe Secretary by any person in compliance with any requirement undersubsection (a) (5) shall be confidential and shall not be disclosedexcept when required under court order. The Secretary shall, by regu-lation. prescribe such procedures as may be necessary to preserve suchconfidential ity., except that the Secretary may release or make publicany such statistics in any aggregate or summary form which does notdirectly or indirectly disclose the identity or business of any personwho 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, orany 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 shallinclude in such notification a statement and explanation of the Secre-tary’s objections and the reasons therefor, suggestions for improve-ment. a request to such council to change such plan or amendment tosatisfy the objections, and a request to resubmit the plan or amend -ment, as so modified, to the Secretary within 45 days after the dateon which the Council receives such notification.
(b) REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY.-The Secretary shall review anyfishery management plan, and any amendment to any such plan,prepared by any Council and submitted to him to determine whether
90 STAT. 352
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 23 - Pub. Law 9 4 - 2 6 5
it is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions ofthis 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 Guardis operating with respect to enforcement at sea.
(c) PREPARATION BY THE SECRETARY.-(l) The Secretary may pre-pare a fishery management, plan, with respect to any fishery, or anamendment to any such plan, in accordance with the national stand-ards, the other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law,if—
(i) the appropriate Council fails to develop and submit to theSecretary, after a reasonable period of time, a fishery manage-ment plan for such fishery, or any necessary amendment to sucha plan, if such fishery requires conservation and management;or
(B) the Secretary disapproves or partially disapproves anysuch plan or amendment, and the Council involved fads to changesuch plan or amendment in accordance with the notification madeunder subsection (a) (2).
In preparing any such plan or amendment, the Secretary shall consultwith the Secretary of State with respect, to foreign fishing and withthe Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operat-ing with respect to enforcement at sea.
(2) Whenever, pursuant to paragraph (1) the Secretary preparesa fishery management plan or amendment, the Secretary shall promptlytransmit such plan or amendment to the appropriate Council for con-sideration and comment. Within 45 days after the date of receipt ofsuch plan or amendment, the appropriate Council may recommend,to the Secretary, changes in such plan or amendment, consistent withthe national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any otherapplicable law. After the expiration of such 45-day period, the Secre-tary may implement such plan or amendment pursuant to section 305.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (l), the Secretary may not includein any fishery management plan, or any amendment to any such planprepared by him, a provision establishing a limited access systemdescribed in section 303(b) (6), unless such system is first approvedby a majority of the voting members, present and voting, of eachappropriate Council.
(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES.—The Secretary shall by regulation Regulations.establish the level of any fees which are authorized to be chargedpursuant to section 303(b) ( 1). Such level shall not exceed the admin-istrative costs incurred by the Secretary in issuing such permits.
(e) FISHERIES RESEARCH.—The Secretary shall initiate and main-tain a comprehensive program of fishery research to carry out andfurther the purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act. Such programshall be designed to acquire knowledge and information, includingstatistics, on fishery conservation and management, including, but notlimited to, biological research concerning the interdependence of fish-cries or stocks of fish, the impact of pollution on fish, the impact ofwetland and estuarine degradation, and other matters bearing uponthe abundance and availability of fish.
(f) MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES.-(1) If any fishery extends beyondthe geographical area of authority of any one Council, the Secretarymay.—
(A) designate which Council shall prepare the fishery manage-ment plan for such fishery and any amendment to such plan; or
90 STAT. 353
16 USC 1855.Publication inFederal Regis-ter.
Writtencomments.
Regulations.
5 USC 701et seq.
Emergencyregulations.
Pub. Law 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 24 -
(B) may require that the planjointly by the councils concerned.
April 13, 1976
and amendment be prepared
No jointly prepared plan or amendment may be submitted to theSecretary unless it is approk”ed by a majorit of the voting members,
ipresent and voting, of each Councd concerne .(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 manage-
rment p an or 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 promulgateto in~plement such plan or amendment. Interested persons shall beafforded a period of not less than 45 days after such publication withinn-h icl~ to Cubmit in writing data, views, or comments on the plan ornnmndment, and on the prolwsed regmlat ions.
(b) Hn~~I~~.-The Secretary may schedule a hearing, in accord--‘3 of title 5. I-nlted States (’ode. on any fisheryance With sect 1011 ,). ).
Inanagm-nent plan, any amendment to any such plan, and any regula-t ions to implement any such plan or amendment. If any such hearingis s(%wluled, the %v”etary m?-y, pending its outcome-
(A) postpone the e.ffectlvc. date of the regulations proposed toin] plmnent such plan or amendment: or
(J3) tnkc such other action as he deems appropriate to preservethe rights or status of any person.
(c) llrrl.~lci:x~.tTl(lx.—The Secretary shall promdgate regulationsto ilnplemcnt an~. fisher}. managenmnt plan or any amendment to anySIICh 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 anyother applicable law.
To the extent practicable, such regulations shall be put into effcwt inrt )I}annrr which does not disrupt the regular fishing season for anyfishery.
(d) ,JuDIcI.~L Rmmw.-Regulations promulgated by the Secretaryunder this Act shall be subject to judicial review to the extent author-izrxi bJ:. and in accordance with, chapter 7 of title 5. Ilnited StatesC’ode, lf a petition for such review is filed within 30 da after the
idate on whwh the regulations are rornulgated: except t at (1) sec-Etion 705 of s1]c}l. t.ltle is not applica. 1P, and (2) the appropriate court
shall on]v set aside an?’ sllch re=~latmn on a grollnd specified in section70G(~) (Al, (B), (C). or (D) of such title.
(e) E~ER~EXCV .f(T1(~xs.-If the .&cretary finds that an emergencyinvol~’ing nn~” fisherJ. resources exists, he may—
(1) promulgate em~rgency regulations, without regard to sub-sections (a) and (c), to implement any fishery mana=mment plan,if slleh cnwrgency so requires: or
(2) romulgate emergency regulations to amend any regula-rtion w ~ich implements any existing fishery management plan,
to the extent required by such emergency.
90 STAT. 3S4
Apri l 13 , 1976 - 25 - Pub. Law 9 4 - 2 6 5
Any emergency regulation which changes any existing fishery man-agement plan shall he treated as an amendment to such plan for the
period in which such rebgdation is in effect. Any emergency regg-a,tion pronlulgated under this subsection (A) shall be published in
the Federal Register together with the reasons therefor; (B) shallremain in etfect for not more t}mn 4,5 da~.s aftm the date of such pub-lication. except that any such regulation may be repromulgated forone a(lciit ional period of not more than 45 days; and (C) may beterminatwi by the Secreta!y at any earlier date by publication in theFederal Register of a notice of termination.
(f) A~NJAL Rmwm’.—The SecrctarJ” shall report to the Congressand the President. not later than March 1 of each year, on all activitiesof the Councils and the Secretary with respect to fishery managementplans, regulations to implement such plans, and all other activitiesrelating to the col~servation and management of fishery resourcestl~at were undertaken under this .fct during the preceding calendarJ.ear.
(g) I?~SPOXSI~l~.~11’ OF Tll~ Sl:(’swT~RY.-The .&?cretiry shall havegenera] rmponslbd lty to carry out ally fishery management p]an oramendn~ent appro~’vd or pre])ared by him, in accordance with thepro~.isions of this .\ct. The Secretary may promulgate such regula-tions, in accordance witl~ wction 553 of title 5, ITnited States Code,as may be necessary to discharge such responsibility or to carry outan~’ other pro~.ision of this Act.SEC. 308. STATE JURISDICTION.
(a) IN G~:XERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), nothingin this Act shall be construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdic-tion or author~t~. of any State within its boundaries. No State maydirectly or indirect] regulate any fishing which is engaged in by any
Jfishing vessel outsi e its houndaries, unless such vessel is registeredunder the laws of such State.
(b) E X C Em O N. - (1) If the Secretary finds, after notica and anopportunity 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 fisherymana~ement plan implemented under this .ict, is enga~d inpredominately within the fishery conservation zone and beyondsuch zone; and
(B) any State l~as taken any action, or omitted to take anyaction, the results of which will substantially and adversely affectthe carrying out of such fishery maria ement plan;
8the Secretary shall promptly notify such ~tate and the appropriateCouncil of SUC}l finding and of his intention to regulate the applicablefishery within the boundaries of such State (other than its internalwaters), pursuant to such fishery management plan and theregulations promulgated to implement such lan.
L(2) If the Secretary, pursuant to this su tion, assumes respon-sibility for the regulation of any fishery, the State involved mav at
Publication inFederal Regis-ter.
Publication inFederal Regis-ter.Report toCongress andfiesident.
Regulations.
16 USC 1856.
Notice, hearing.
any time thereafter apply to thi secretary for reinstatement of itsauthority over such fishery. If the Secretar finds that the reasons
i“for which he assumed such regulation no onger prevail, he shallpromptly 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 regulationor permit issued pursuant to this Act;
90 STAT. 3SS
A
GIo
Pub. Law 94-265 - 26 - Apri l 13 , 1976
(B) to use any fishing vessel to engage in fishing after therevocation, or during the period of suspension, ofan appli-cable permit issued pursuant to this Act;
(C) to violate any provision of, or regulation under anapplicable governing international fishery agreement enteredinto pursuant. to section 201 (c) ;
(D) to refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforcethe provisions of this Act (as provided for in section 311)to board a fishing vessel subject to such person’s control forpurposes of conducting any search or inspection in connec-tion 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 conductof any search or inspection described in subparagraph (D) :
(F) to resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited by thissection;
(G) to ship. transport. offer for sale, sell, purchase, import.export, or have custody, control. or possession of. any fishtaken 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 thatsuch other person has committed any act prohibited by thissect 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~lo f 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 resourcesbeyond such zone. unles~ swh fishinu k nuthorlzed hy, a n dcondllcted in accordance with, a valid and applicable permitissued pursuant to section 20-4 (b) or (c).
16 USC 1858. SEC. 308. CIVIL PENALTIES.( a ) .fSSHSSMEXT O F 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 anact llrohil)itwl by section 307 shall be 1 iahle to the T-nited States forn 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~ shallhe aswssed b~’ the Secrdary, or his designee, b}- written notice. Indetermining the amount of such p~nalt.v. the Secretiir} sIIall take
i n t o :wmmnt the n a t u r e . ei rcunlst:lllt’es. extent . and gravit}” of the])rollil)itrd acts cotnm ittml and. with respect to the violator. thedegree 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}’ p e r s o n against ll”llolll a rivilpenalt?. is awsswl under sul)swt ion (a) nmJ- ol)tmin review thereofin the appropriate court of tl~e ITR ited .Statcs l)J” filing a notice offl ])peal in Sllcll collrt w-it 11 i 11 3(J tl:l.1’s fmlll tllc date of s1l(.11 {)r(ler an(lhy simultaneously sending a Copj’ of such notice hj. c~rti[ied mailto the Secretary. The Sccretar}- sh:lll promptly file ]n slwh court amrt i fkd mpy of the record Ilpon wl)ich SIIC1l violation was found
90 STAT. 356
April 13, 1 9 7 6 - 27 - Pub. Law 9 4 - 2 6 5
or such penalty imposed, as provided in section 2112 of title 28,United States Code. The findings and order of the Secretary shallbe set aside by such court if they are not found to be supported bysubstantial evidence, as provided in section 706(2) of title 5, UnitedStates Ode.
(c) Acmox I-rox FAII,t-RE To PAY &sZsmKENT.-1f any personfails to pay an assessment of a cil”il pena]ty after it has become a finaland unappealable order, or after the appropriate court has enteredfinal judgment in favor of the secretary, the Semetary shall refer thematter to the Attorney General of the I“nited States, who shall recoverthe amount nssesswl m any apJ~ropriate district court of the ITnitedStates. In such action, the )-alldit~. and appropriateness of the finalorder 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 imposedumler this section.SEC. 309. CRIMINAL OFFENSES. 16 USC 18S9.
(a) OFm:xsEs.-.\ person is guilty of an offmse if he commits anyact 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) ispunishable by a fine of not more than $50.000. or imprisonment fornot more than 6 nlonths. or both; except that if in the commission ofany such offense the person uses a dangerous weapon, engages in con-duct that causes bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce theprovisions of this .\ct (as provided for in section 311), or places anyslich officer in fear of imminent hodily injury, the offense is punishablebl. a fine of not Ji~ore than $100.000, or imprisonment for not more than10 years, or both. Any offense described in subsection (a) (2) is pun-isl~able by a fine of not more than $1 OO,OOO, or imprisonment for notIlmre 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 orretained, in any manner. in connection with or as a result of the com-mission of any act prohibited @ srction 307 (other than any act forwhich the issuance of a citntlon under section 311 (c) is sufficientsanct io]~ ) s}~all be sllbject to forfeitllre to the l~nited States. All orpart of such vessel may. an{l all slwh fish shall. be forfeited to theI’nite(l States pursllant to a cil-il proceeding under this section.
(b) .JI-RISDICTIOX OF Corrrrs.-.Kny district court of the IJnitedStates which ]Ms juris(liction under section 311 ((1) shall have juris-diction. 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 inn civil forf~iture proceeding under this section. the Attorney Generalmav seim any l)rolwrty or other interest declared forfeited to the~-n~t~d States. which has not previously been seized pursuant to thisAct or for which secltrity has not previously been obtained under sub-section (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 tocongressionalcommittees.
Pub. Law 94- Zb5 - L8 - Apri l 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 for-feiture is alleged to be authorized, under this section, unless such pro-visions are inconsistent with the purposes, policy, and pro~’isions ofthis .ict. The duties and powers imposed upon the Commissioner ofCustonls or other persons uncler such movisions shall, with respect to
ithis Act, be performed by officers or ot m persons designated for suchpII rpose l)}. the Secretary.
(d) PWKVW[-RE. -( 1) .~ny officer authorized to ser~-e any process inrrm ~~”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 anyperson claiming such property. Such bond or other security shall beco]lc]it ioned upon such person ( i ) delivering such property to theappropriate court upoJ~ order thereof, ~-ithout any impairment of its\.iil IIe, or (ii) I)nying the monetary value of such property pursuantto aJ~ order of such court. .Ju&grnent shall be recoverable on such bondor other security against both the princi al and any sureties in the
f’elent that an}’ condition thereof is breac led, as determined by suchCOllrt.
(2) .~ny fish seized pursuant to this Act may be sold. subject to thea I)prova] and direction of the appropriate court. for not less than thefi~ir market value thereof, The proceeds of anv such sale shall be(Ieposited with s[;ch court pending the dispo~ition of the matteri ]1~-ol ~.ed.
(e) Rm\rm.mT,E PmXxmTrox.-For purposes of this section, itshxll 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 ersforcwl1)~- the ~ecretar~~ an(l the Secretary of the department in which theCoast Guard is operating. SUCII Secretaries nmy, by agreement, on arci 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}’ otherFWIVJW1 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-~IPSS 1 iste~ iJl section ?03 ( 1) ) and to the C.mincils. on the degree andextent of known nJl(l est i Jnated Compliance wit]) t iie pro~.isions ofthis .frt.
(1)) pInJ”ERS OF .\ I-TJIORIZED OFFJCERS.-Any oficer who is SIllthOr-
izrd (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 sub-sect 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 helievetl)at sllcb person hns committed an act prohibited by section307 :
(B) ~)O~J.d. and Se~ll’}1 or inspect, any fishing vessel wl~icllis 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
Apri l 13 , 19’76 - 29 - Pub. Law 9 4 - 2 6 5
in, or with res wet to which it reasonably appeam that SUC1l\vessel was use( or employed in, the violation of any provi-
sion 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 enforcethe provisions of this -Ict (as pro~’ided for in this section) finds that afishing ~-msel is operating or has been operated in violation of anypro~.ision of this .ict. such oflicer nla~., in accordance with regulationsissuwl jointl~. b}” the Secretar}. and the Secretary of the departmentin which the (’east (;uuJ.d is operating, issue a citation to the owneror 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], suchotli(’er shall note the issuance of any citation under this subswtion,including tile (late thereof and the reason therefor, on the permit. Thesecret:lr~, s}lal~ ll~llintain a record of all citations issued pursuant tOthis subs(@ ion.
( d ) .JL-RISDI(TIOX OF ~OI”RTS.- The district courts of the llnke~lStates slm]l hate exclusi~-e jurisdiction over an~’ case or controversyarising umler the pro~-isions of this .Kct. In the case of Guam, andany ~’ommonwealth, territory, or possession of the [-nited States inthe 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 forthe 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 regu-
lation or permk issued pumuant to this Act, and (B) any pro-vision of, or regulation issued pursuant to, any internationalfish~ry agreement under which foreign fishing is authorized bysectmn 201 (b) or (c). with respect to fishing subject to the exclu-sive 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 =tion 3~71 and (B)the violation of nny regulation, permit, or agreement referrrd toin paragraph ( 1).
SEC. 312. EFFEmIVE DATE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS. 16 USC 1857Sections 307, 308, 309, 310, and 311 shall take effect March 1, 1977. ‘de”
TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSEC. 401. EFFECT ON LAW OF THE SEA TREA’lY. 16 USC 1881.
If the I-nited States ratifies n conlprehensive treaty, which includesprovisions with respect to fishe~y conservation and management juris-diction, result ing from any I-nlted X’ations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea. the Secretary. after consultation with the Secretary of State,may promulgate an.v amendment to the regulations promulgatedunder this Act if such amendment is necessary and appropriate tm
90 STAT. 359
Pub. Law 9 4 - 2 6 5 - 30 - Apri l 13 , 1976
conform such regulations to the provisions of such trerrty, in antici a-!tion 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 repealedas of March 1, 1977.
(b) The Act of May 20, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1081-1086), is repealedas 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 foreigncountry 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 exclusivefislwry management autlmrity is recognized by the united States,and any J-rxsscl of the I’nited States is seized by such foreigncountry on the basis of conditions and restrictions under suchela im. ]f sucl~ conditions and restrictions. -
‘*(A) are unrelated to fishery conservation and nlannge-rnent.
“(B) fnil to consider and take into account tra(litionalfishing practices of vessels of the [Tnited States,
“’(C) are greater or more onerous than the conditions andrestrictions which the I“nited States applies to foreign fish-ing vessels subject to the exclusive fishery managementauthority of the I-nited States (as established m title I of tlieFishery (’(mser\”aricm and }Ianagernent Act of 1976). or
“( T)) frril t o ZIIOW fishit;g vessels o f the l’nitwl Strrtese~llitill)le :lccWS to f i s h su}.qect to such country”s excltwivefisl)er~~ nmnagwnent authmvt?’:
and there IS no displlte as to the material facts with respect totlw l(WiitiOll or ncti\”ity of such \-essel at tile time of such seizure,the Secretary of State shall imnlediatel~’ take such steps as areIN?W+snr}:-
“(1) for the protection of such vessel and for the healthand 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. reg-
ist ration fw~. or other (lirect c.hnrge rein] hursalde under srctionInfra. 3(n) of this .fct.’.: andmuse 1973. (2) b~. wlwn(ling section :I(n) thereof by inserting immediately
before tile lnst sentence thereof the followlng new sentence: “Forpurpo.ws of this section, the term ‘other direct charge’ means anylevy:. howmwr characterized or computed (including. hut notlimltcd to. an}. comlmtntion based on the value of n \-essel or thevalue of fish or other proper-t y on hoard n vessel). which is imposedin 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 Pro-tection .~ct of 1972 (16 [J.S.C. 1362(15) (B) ) is amended by striking
90 STAT. 360
A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 - 31 - P u b . L a w 9 4 - 2 6 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 azone, contifl]olls to the territorial Wa of tllc ~T]lite(] .$tiltCs, of whichthe 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 SUCha 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}. rntionAct of 1975 (16 U. S.(:. 971 (4)) is amended by striking out “thefisheries zone establis]wd pu~llant to the Ad Of october 14, 1%1~ (WStat. 908; 16 U.S.(;. 1091 -1094),” and inserting ill liru thereof “t!wwaters included within a zone, contiguous to the territorial sea of theUnited States, of which the inner boundary is a line coterminous withthe seaward boundary of each coastal State, and the outer boundaryis a line drawn in such a manner that eacli point on it is 2(K) nauticalmiles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.””.
(b) EFFECTIVE 1).\ T};.-The amendment rnwlc by subsection (a) shalltake effect March 1,1977.SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary].. for pur-poses of carrying out the provisions of this Act. not to exceed thefollowing sums:
(1) $5,000+)00 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1976.(2) $5,000,000 for the transitional fiscal quarter ending Septem-
ber 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, 1 9 7 6 .
16 USC 1 3 6 2note.
16 USC 971note.
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. o n A r m e d s e r v i c e s ) all a c c o m p a n y i n g Sand 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
