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.

3. Enforcement

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

. I"

4tJOMl '.-U!. " ... -H.r '~ .1

940Mi e!FJtHr Feb-Jul

.. ,'

180

Miles I , I , I

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