Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone PMF JUL 6 1977 urz OBJ CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES Office of Technology Assessment WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510 June 1977 Office of Technology Assessment CONGRESSIONAL BOARD Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Mass., Chairman Representative MARJORIE S. HOLT, Md., Vice Chairman SENATE ERNEST F, HOLLINGS South CaroUna HUBERT H. HUMPHREY Minnesota CLIFFORD P. CASE New Jersey RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER Pennsylvania TED STEVENS Alaska HOUSE OLIN E. TEAGUE Texas MORRIS K. UDALL Arizona GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. Califortjia CLARENCE E. MILLER Ohio LARRY WINN, JR. Kansas DIRECTOR'S OFFICE EMILIO Q. DADDARIO Director DANIEL DE SIMONE Deputy Director ADVISORY COUNCIL JEROME B. WIESNER Chairman EDWARD WENK, JR. Vice Chairman RONALD DAVENPORT GILBERT GUDE HAZEL HENDERSON J. M. LEATHERS JOHN T. McALISTER, JR. EUGENE P. ODUM FREDERICK C. ROBBINS ELMER B. STAATS EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Ex Officio {^ I I \ Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone .oc OFFICE OF niM 24 1977 THE DIRECTOR ^"" OTA OCEANS PROGRAM STAFF Robert W. Niblock, Program Manager Peter A. Johnson, Project Director Prudence S. Adler Kathleen A. Beil Thomas A. Cotton Renee M. Crawford Emilia L. Govan Richard C. Raymond Judith M. Roales Bennett L. Silverstein CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES Os x= ffl- 21 ' a ; m ■ _D ■ cO z O i D = a s rn i ° = CD Office of Technology Assessment WASHINGTON. D. C. 20510 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600021 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfTice Washington, D.C. 20402 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD EDWARD M. KENNEDY. MASS.. CHAIRMAN MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD.. VICE CHAIRMAN ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. S.C. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. MINN. CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER. PA. TED STEVENS. ALASKA OLIN E. TEAGUE. TEX. MORRIS K. UDALL. ARIZ. GEORGE E. BROWN. JR.. CALIF. CLARENCE E. MILLER. OHIO LARRY WINN. JR.. KANS. EMILIO O. DADDARIO Congress of fbc SUniteb States Office of Technology Assessment Washington, D.C. 20510 Mr 2 1 1|T7 EMILIO Q. DADDARIO DIRECTOR DANIEL V. DeSIMONE DEPUTY DIRECTOR The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Chairman National Ocean Policy Study United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable John P. Murphy Chairman Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairmen: On behalf of the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment, we are forwarding to you the report. Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone. This report concludes OTA's assessment of important problems and opportunities which result from implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which became effective March 1 of this year. The assessment was conducted in accord with a request from the Senate National Ocean Policy Study in January 1974, and a subsequent request by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. A draft of this report was made available to the committees in March 1977, and the final report was approved by the Technology Asse^ment Board on April 19, 1977. Sin Edward M. Kennedy Chairman Sincerely, Marjorie S, Holt Vice Chairman TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD COngtegg Of tlje ^HnitCll States EMILIO Q DADDARIO EDWARD M. KENNEDY. MASS.. CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR MARJORIE S. HOLT. MD.. VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DANIEL V. DeSIMONE ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE. TEX. DEPUTr DIRECTOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. MINN. MORRIS K. UDALL. ARIZ. WASHINGTON, D.C... ZOdIO CLIFFORD P. CASE. N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN. JR.. CALIF. RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER. PA. CLARENCE E. MILLER. OHIO „ « TED STEVENS. ALASKA LARRY WINN. JR., KANS. flftY 2 8 'j'T EMILIO Q. DADDARIO The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy- Chairman of the Board Office of Technology Assessment U.S. Congress Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report, Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone, presents OTA's analysis of important problems and opportunities which result from implementing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The assessment which led to this report was requested by the Chairmen of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study and the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The assessment was con- ducted by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with input from representatives of the fishing industry and government agencies which are involved in carrying out provisions of the legislation which extended U.S. jurisdiction over commercial fisheries out to the 200-mile limit. The report analyzes four major aspects of the new fisheries law: 1) enforcement of fisheries regulations and U.S. juris- diction over the fishery zone; 2) management of the new fishery zone; 3) information which will be needed for implementation of the law; and 4) opportunities for expanding and revitalizing the U.S. fishing industry as a result of implementation of the law. Among the conclusions of the report are suggestions for four pilot projects which could aid Federal agencies in determining the most successful and cost-effective means of implementing certain aspects of the law. This transmittal includes two volumes: the assessment report and working papers which provide back-up material for discus- sions in the report. Sincerely, (ZlxjjSasS) EMILIO Q. DADDARIO Director Acknowledgements The staff wishes to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the following contractors and consultants in the gathering and formulation of the background data: James M. Acheson, University of Maine Frederick W. Bell, Florida State University Development Sciences Inc., East Sandwich, Massachusetts Douglas Campbell Eastland Resolution Fisheries Survey, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commissions John M. Gates, University of Rhode Island William Jensen, Willamette University, Oregon Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California Synergy Inc., Washington, D.C. Robert M. Snyder, Jupiter, Florida Robert E. Taber, University of Rhode Island John Vernberg, University of South Carolina The staff further wishes to acknowledge the assistance of former OTA staff member Cynthia Mercing, who worked on the early development of this study, and those other people and organizations, both public and private, which reviewed and commented on various draft documents circulated by OTA or provided other types of assistance: William T. Burke, University of Wash ington Francis T. Christy, Resources for the Future Patrick J. Doody, Zapata-Haynie Corp. David J. Etzold, Univeristy of Southern Mississippi Wade L. Griffin, Texas A & M University Sig Jaeger, North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Assn. Lauriston R. King, National Science Foun- dation J.L. McHugh, State University of New York William G. Mustard, Atlantic States Fish- eries Commission Virgil Norton, University of Rhode Island Susan B. Peterson, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Gilbert C. Radonski, Sport Fishing Institute Courtland L. Smith, Oregon State Univer- sity Richard Stroud, Sport Fishing Institute U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy U.S. Department of State, Oceans and Fish- eries Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard Lee Weddig, National Fisheries Institute Walt V. Yonker, Association of Pacific Fisheries IV Preface This report, "Establishing a 200-Mile Fishery Zone," is the result of a study of the major problems and opportunities which may occur because of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The study was re- quested by Senator Ernest F. HoUings on behalf of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study in January 1974, and by former Representative Lenore K. Sullivan of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in April 1974. Upon retirement, Mrs. Sullivan was replaced by Representative John Murphy as Chairman of that Committee. These requests were endorsed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in September 1975, and subsequently approved for execution by the Technology Assessment Board. The report was prepared by the Oceans Program staff of OTA with the assistance of advisors from the fishing industry. Government, and academia who reviewed draft materials and provided guidance. The work undertaken by the Office of Technology Assessment, and reported in this document, was confined to evaluation of techniques which will be used for enforcing regulations in the 200-mile fishery zone, problems which may be encountered in the management of fisheries, and information which will be needed in order to implement the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. This limited scope made it possible for OTA to offer specific criticism of existing systems and specific suggestions for con- gressional action to further improve fisheries conservation and manage- ment. The Technology Assessment Board, governing body of OTA, approves the 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 are not necessarily those of the Board, the OTA Advisory Council, or of in- dividual members thereof. Table of Gintents PAGE LIST OF WORKING PAPERS ix LIST OF FIGURES x Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter II SUMMARY 7 Chapter III ENFORCEMENT 19 Background 21 Brief History of Fisheries Law Enforcement 21 Requirements of the Law 23 Present Plans for Near-Term Enforcement 24 Level of Enforcement 27 Existing Capabilities 29 Other Possibilities for Near-Term Enforcement 38 Recommended Pilot Project 42 Possibilities for Long-Range Enforcement 43 Recommended Pilot Project 43 New Technologies 45 Remote-Sensing Devices 46 Transponders 47 Microwave Radar 50 Over-the-Horizon Radar 52 Microwave Radiometry 53 Optical and Electro -Optical Techniques 55 Electromagnetic Intercept Techniques 57 Magnetic Techniques 57 Acoustic Techniques 58 VII PAGE Chapter IV MANAGEMENT OF NEW U.S. FISHERIES ZONE 59 Background 61 Optimum Sustainable Yield 62 Regional Fishery Management Councils 63 Preliminary Management Plans for Foreign Fisheries 69 Final Management Plans for Domestic Fisheries 73 Evaluation of Management Effectiveness 74 Chapter V INFORMATION NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 94-265. . . 75 Biological Information 77 Status of Current Information 78 Methods of Improving Information Base 79 Economic Information 81 Status of Current Information 85 Methods of Improving Information Base 86 Social Information 88 Status of Current Information 92 Methods of Improving Information Base 92 Chapter VI FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY 93 Background 95 Stock Enhancement 96 New Markets for Fish 98 Revitalization of Fishing Industry 99 Chapter VII GLOSSARY 105 Chapter VIII FOOTNOTES 1 09 Chapter IX FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 115 VIII List of Working Papers Working Paper No. 1: Economic Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Ex- tended Jurisdiction by John M. Gates Working Paper No. 2: Social Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Extended Jurisdiction by James M. Acheson, University of Maine Working Paper No. 3: Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment: Issues and Needs by Development Sciences Inc. Working Paper No. 4: A Short Analysis of Stock Enhancement Possibilities for Certain Commercially Important Marine Species by John Vernberg, University of South Carolina Working Paper No. 5: Survey of the Potential of Remote Sensing Technology to Sup- port Enforcement of the 200-Mile Fishing Zone by Stanford Research Institute IX Figures Figure No. Page 1 U.S. Landings, Imports, and Consumption of Edible Fishery Products 3 2 Overfished Species of Importance to U.S. Fisheries as of August 1975 4 3 Historic World and U.S. Landings of Fish and Shellfish 5 4 Summary of Fisheries Regulations, Where Proposed, Effectiveness of Selected Surveillance Techniques 26 5 Expected Number of Undetected Violations by Month Under "No Effort," FY 75 Level, and Planned Enforcement 31 6 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - New England 32 7 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - Mid Atlantic 33 8 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - Gulf of Mexico 34 9 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - West Coast 35 10 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols - Alaska 36 11 Possible Flow of Surveillance Data 44 12 Summary of the Potential of Remote-Sensing Technology To Support En- forcement of the 200-nmi Fishing Zone 48-49 13 Useful Surveillance Coverage by a State-of-the-Art Microwave Radar 51 14 Over-the-Horizon Radar 53 15 Over-the-Horizon Radar Coverage From Hypothetical Stations 54 16 Airborne Scanning Microwave Radiometer 55 17 Regional Council Jurisdictions and National Marine Fisheries Service Regions 64 18 Appointed Voting Members of Regional Councils 65-66 19 Duties of Regional Council and National Marine Fisheries Service 67 20 Fishery Management Plans, as of February 1977 70 21 Preliminary Management Plan Allocations 71 22 1977 Northeast Stock Assessment and U.S. and Foreign Quotas 72 23 Summary of Projected Program Costs for Economic Data Collection 87 24 Nature and Effect of Canadian Government Subsidies at Each Level of Can- adian Groundfish Industry 100 25 Fishermen's Opinions of Their Gear 101 26 Fishermen's Sources of Information 102 1. Introduction 1. Introduction Fish are an important part of man's pattern of survival. Directly — ^that is, fish and shellfish con- sumed by man — fish provide about 14 percent of the world's supply of animal protein. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has estimated that every man, woman, and child in the world con- sumes an average of 26 pounds of fish each year.i However, that figure varies greatly from country to country, ranging from only a small fraction-of-a-pound per person per year in Afghanistan to more than 86 pounds per person per year in Iceland. In the United States, the average consumption per person is about 12 pounds of fish annually. 2 According to FAO the consumption of fish is likely to in- crease through 1990 at a growth rate higher than that of beef, pork, vegetables, cereal, or milk. 3 This suggests increasing pressure on already heavily utilized ocean resources worldwide in the next 10 years. Indirectly — in the form of meal and oil fed to pigs and chickens which are in turn eaten by man — fish provide another 10 or 11 per- cent of the world's animal protein. * Twenty years ago, the United States was the world's second largest fishing nation. 5 But by 1974 American fisherman were fifth, catching only 4 percent of the world's supply of fish.^ In that time, the U.S. catch had dropped only about 8 percent, but the catch of some foreign nations had increased by as much as 250 per- cent.'' In 1974, the world catch was nearly 70- million metric tons.^ Much of that was coming from waters off the United States where, with- in 200 miles of the coasts, about one-fifth of the world's fishery resources are located. ^ Worldwide, the National Oceanic and At- mospheric Administration has projected that the oceans can sustain an annual catch of only 100-million metric tons, a catch figure they expect to be reached by 1980.^0 Already, in- creased fishing has caused acute pressure on some stocks, depleting the supply and threatening their existence. For example, off the coast of the United States about 20 species of fish and shellfish are believed to be seriously depleted ii (see figures 1 and 2). Figure 1 U.S. Landings, Imports, and Consumption of Edible Fishery Products Source: US. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmosptieric Administration Figure 2 Overfished Species' of Importance to U.S. Fisheries as of August 1975 Abalones' Alaska pollock Atlantic herring Atlantic menhaden Atlantic salmon Atlantic sea scallop Flukes^ Haddock Halibut Oysters' Pacific salmon' Pacific sardine Pandalid shrimps' Plamo clam' River herrings' Rockfishes' Sea run trout' Striped bass' Yellowfin sole Yellowtail flounder 'Some stocks have been so reduced through overfishing, or any other man-induced or natural cause, that a substantial reduction in fishing effort must be achieved so that stocks can replenish themselves to produce optimum yield. 'Not all stocks depleted. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Historically, access to fishing grounds has been uncontrolled. Fish have been a common- property resource, available to any and all na- tions and individuals who seek to hunt them and harvest them. This common-property nature has prevented any one nation from assuming management control and has made regulation of the catch difficult. Conservation of stocks has not been successful in spite of in- ternational agreements and treaties with other fishing nations. As a result, technically sophisticated foreign fishing fleets have taken a heavy toll in tradi- tional U.S. fisheries, particularly off the north- east and northwest coasts where there are several species of prime interest to U.S. com- mercial fishermen and consumers. The decline of the New England haddock fishery which was reduced from a major commercial en- terprise in 1950 to a relatively small activity today, is a principal example of the effects of overfishing within 200 miles of the U.S. coasts. The U.S. haddock catch in 1950 was 20 times larger than it was in 1974.12 Total catch of other important commercial species, such as flounder and ocean perch, also declined as overfishing reduced the amount of stock available (see figure 3). In response to widespread public concern about overfishing, the U.S. Congress moved to adopt a 200-mile fishery zone to give the United States power to limit or exclude foreign fishing off its coasts and impose on both foreign and U.S. fishermen respon- sibilities for conservation and utilization of the fishery resources within the zone. In passing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265), Con- gress officially noted that certain stocks of fish off the coasts of this country "have been over- fished to the point where their survival is threatened and other such stocks have been so substantially reduced in number that they could become similarly threatened. "'3 The law made it the policy of the United States to establish a "workable and effective" fisheries management and conservation program based on the best scientific informa- tion available, involving interested States and citizens, and drawing on Federal, State, and academic capabilities to carry out research, administration, management, and enforce- ment.i* On March 1, 1977, the law went into effect. A beginning was made toward reaching the difficult goals of conserving, managing, and developing the fisheries off U.S. coasts. To ac- complish these goals, the law establishes Regional Councils— groups which reflect the expertise and interests of the States along each Figure 3 Historic World and U.S. Landings of Fish and Shellfish 200-1 CO © sz o ^- S 150- ^m^ o ^^HH 0) ^^^^^^^^^^H ■D ^^^^^^^^^^H c ^^^^^^^^^^H 3 ^^^^^^^^^^H o ^^^^^^^^^^H Q. ^^^^^^^^^^H o 100- World ^H ^^^^H M Landings^^H ^^^^^^H c ^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 .9 ^^^^^^1 S ^^^^1 CO ^^^^^^H Q) ^^^^^^^^^^H ^ ^^^^^^^^^^H o 50- ^^^^^^^H co ^^^^^^^^^^H o ^^^^^^^H 16 ^^^^^^^H 3 c c < U.S. Landings 1950 1960 1970 Source: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fishery — to oversee implementation of the law and become managers of the fish and shellfish resources off their coast. Already these coun- cils have been involved to some extent in the National Marine Fisheries Service work to set some 1977 catch limitations and draw up preliminary regulations. But this is just the outline of a system which must be developed in future years as the coun- cils. Government, fishermen, and the Nation gain better information and understanding for their job. The task of husbanding the U.S. fishery resources is a major one. At stake is not only a major supply of animal protein, but also an American industry which provides employ- ment for more than a quarter -of-a-million people! 5 and has a $6.5 billion impact on the U.S. economy. 16 It is a resource used by foreign fishermen from more than 17 na- tions,i7 U.S. commercial fishermen, and an estimated 30 millioni^ recreational fishermen, whose catch is roughly equal in size and value to the catch of edible fish by U.S. commercial fishermen. 19 Managing such a resource will involve scientific, social, and political problems for many years to come. Not the least of these problems is the fact that implementation of the law will require the use of much informa- tion about all phases of the fishing industry — information which has not been consistently collected and analyzed in the past. But if the principles established by the Fishery Conser- vation and Management Act are pursued, there is substantial promise of a rational system for resolving conflicts between the needs of foreign, domestic, and recreational fishermen and the need for conservation. The major problems relate to how the United States will determine and enforce new management regulations, how it will build the information base necessary for reaching management decisions and laying conserva- tion strategies, and how it will revitalize the existing fishing industry and develop new op- portunities. This report addresses some of those 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 and Management Act or this report cover all problem areas or possible solutions. For ex- ample, many species of inshore and migratory high seas fisheries are still unregulated and may be subject to increasing fishing pressures if stronger controls are placed on stocks in the 200-mile zone. Tuna is the major commercial stock which is excluded from U.S. jurisdiction as a highly migratory species. The Act does, however, raise considerable hope for restoring stocks and encouraging the American fishing industry to expand. Some of the potential new opportunities which may result are also dis- cussed in this report. XatwTtal Ocramc ajvi Atmospheric Admttmtmton Photo Fishermen bail their catch from a purse seine into the hold of the boat. 2. Summary 2. Summary In March 1977, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 became effec- tive, extending U.S. jurisdiction over offshore fisheries within 200 miles of its coast and possessions, and making it the poHcy of the land to use some of the most advanced ideas available about ways to mange marine fish- eries. Implementation of the law will require a level of understanding about the fishing resources and industry that has never before been attempted by the U.S. Government. It will require development of methods of balancing biological, economic, and social fac- tors relating to fisheries in order to best serve the national needs. Most of the information necessary for this process does not yet exist. The law establishes Regional Councils to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce in managing fishery resources and setting out regulations, including allocation of the catch of commercial species between domestic and foreign fishermen. Preliminary regulations and catch allocations have been drawn up, but better working relationships between all in- terested parties are needed and many changes will be necessary in early management ac- tivities as experience is gained. Management of the 200-mile fishery zone will, of necessity, have enforcement of regula- tions as an integral part if it is to accomplish restoration and conservation of fish stocks and provide the domestic fishing industry with incentive to grow. The U.S. Coast Guard will be primarily responsible for enforcing regulation of foreign fishermen and the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service will oversee domestic fishing. Both enforcement groups are beginning their tasks by increasing exist- ing activities. This appears appropriate for the time being, but it is likely new enforcement techniques and advanced equipment will be needed in the future. Improvements are needed in long-term evaluation of enforce- ment needs, costs and benefits, and attention should be given to coordinating some military information and equipment with Coast Guard requirements for fisheries. The Office of Technology Assessment's analysis of implementation of the new 200- mile fisheries zone can be expressed in terms of the conclusions reached during the assess- ment, the practical and organizational problems which were discovered, and the OTA suggestions for resolving those problems. The overall conclusions of the assessment are given here for each of the major subject areas of the report. These conclusions are grouped as they relate to: • enforcement of the U.S. fisheries regula- tions and jurisdiction; • management of the new fisheries zone; • data which will be needed for implemen- tation of the law; and • opportunities for expanding and revitalizing the U.S. fishing industry which may result from implementation of the law. These overall conclusions include four pilot projects, which are OTA's major suggestions for determining the most successful and cost- effective means of enforcing U.S. jurisdiction in the 200-mile fisheries zone. Enforcement Also included in this Summary are some of the specific problems which stand in the way of full implementation of the Fishery Conser- vation and Management Act of 1976. It is the practice of the Office of Technology Assessment to make an objective analysis of a subject and not to recommend specific policy actions to the U.S. Congress. Adhering to that practice, OTA has made no policy recommen- dations in this report. However, due to the practical nature of this report and the desires of the congressional committee which re- quested this study, it seemed appropriate in this case to make a number of specific sugges- tions for more effective implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. These recommendations are outlined in this section and discussed in more detail where appropriate in later sections. Throughout this Summary, page numbers are noted after individual conclusions in order to simplify reference to fuller discussion in the main text of the report. Need for Enforcement Adequate management and strict en- forcement offer the opportunity for future increase in fish stocks and yields due to tighter controls to prevent overfishing, less pressure on stocks which are normally taken as bycatch, less conflict among fisher- men for certain grounds, less conflict be- tween different types of equipment, and assurance of workable allocation of catch quotas among foreign and U.S. fishermen. (See pages 27 to 29.) The Existing Coast Guard Enforcement Plan for Foreign Fisheries The Coast Guard plan of increasing its present fishery enforcement capabilities is a reasonable first step in enforcement. It is flexible in that resources can be added at a reasonable first cost and the program can be curtailed or accelerated as assumptions and need are proven or disproven by ex- perience. (See pages 29 to 31.) Enforcement of Domestic Fisheries by NMFS and USCG The National Marine Fisheries Service's present approach to enforcing regulations in domestic fisheries by means of dockside inspections may be sufficient under the new law if it is combined with a program of ran- dom at-sea inspections. However, if regula- tions for domestic fisheries duplicate the kinds of gear restrictions and operational controls used in foreign fisheries, more at- sea enforcement capability will be needed. (See pages 29 to 31.) In the event that an at-sea enforcement capability is needed in domestic fisheries, the Coast Guard could use the same types of equipment and techniques which are planned for enforcement activities in 10 foreign fisheries. However, additional facilities would be needed to cover the different areas used by domestic fishermen and the additional fishing vessels. (See pages 29 to 31.) Techniques To Improve Near-Term Enforce- ment Effectiveness Several fairly simple strategies which could be activated almost immediately for enforcement have not been given favorable consideration by the Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Three of these are: 1) establishment of an efficient reporting system which would allow domestic fisher- men to aid in observing foreign fishing vessels, 2) more extensive use of observers on- board foreign fishing vessels, and 3) creation of specific guidelines to be followed in granting annual fishing permits and renewing Governing International Fishery Agreements. (See pages 38 to 42.) Extensive use should be made of observ- ers in a dual role: to collect data needed for management of fisheries and to observe fishing operations for enforcement func- tions. A near-blanket program of observers may be necessary for a dependable, cost- effective enforcement program. (See pages 38 to 43.) Remote-Sensing Systems for Future Enforce- ment Needs The cost of most remote-sensing systems is high and it will probably be necessary to share the cost of such systems with other users. However, remote-sensing devices could be expected to improve enforcement by better coverage, better performance, and a reduction of the need for expanding con- ventional ship and aircraft patrols of fishing areas in the future. (See pages 46 to 47.) Transponders have good future potential for use in fisheries enforcement. Par- ticularly when combined with Loran-C, transponders can be used to detect, identify, and classify fishing vessels. (See pages 47 to 49.) New microwave radar equipment has the technical potential to supplement or sup- plant existing airborne radar for fisheries enforcement within the next 10 years, but the cost would be very high. (See pages 50 to 52.) Over-the-horizon radar techniques have good potential for use in fisheries enforce- ment. However, due to both the classified nature of most of the military work in the field and the high cost, use of this system will be contingent upon close cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard. (See pages 52 to 53.) Planning Needed for Long-Term Enforce- ment It is likely that proposed near-term en- forcement capabilities will not be adequate for long-range demands. Therefore, plans should be made for further improvements in enforcement by use of remote-sensing devices and other advanced technology. (See pages 43 to 45.) 11 Recommended Pilot Projects in Enforcement Recommendations on Enforcement Levels and Evaluation (see pages 24 to 29) Problem 1: No desirable level of enforcement has been determined, based on a policy deci- sion, as to what level of enforcement is most desirable. Recommendation: In order to determine the type of effort and equipment necessary, there should be a specific definition of the desirable level of enforcement, followed by regular assessment of changing enforcement needs and the actual level of enforcement which has been achieved compared to the desired level. In addition, the Regional Councils should make a projection of desired enforcement 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 analysis of the appropriate level of enforcement was made without benefit of an adequate method for assessing the benefits and the cost (in social, economic, political, and scientific terms) of various enforcement strategies, that is, the various combinations of aircraft, ships, electronic devices, and imposition of penalties. Recommendation: A general analytical system is needed to provide quantitative esti- mates of the impacts of alternative manage- ment techniques and enforcement strategies on the quantities and prices of fish available, the state of recreational fishing, and other measures of the benefits of management. Problem 3: Fisheries management-modeling efforts currently being supported by the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, such as the one at Stanford University, do not include enforcement components. Recommendation: The Coast Guard should develop the enforcement component, so that its model could be used in conjunction with one adopted by NOAA. The cost of enforcing fishery regulations in the 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 now planned. Therefore, a reasonable approach to gaining experience with different enforcement techniques is desirable in order to determine which are the most successful and cost-effec- tive methods of achieving the goals of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The research conducted during this study suggests that such experience might be most efficiently gained through a series of pilot programs in various areas of enforcement. The following four projects are an outline of the types of work which may be useful. These projects are suggested with the assumption that in the long-run, the cost of gaining suffi- cient experience on which to make informed choices and trade-offs in enforcement ac- tivities would be less than the cost of possible erroneous decisions about the use of very ex- pensive, electronic-surveillance systems, the cost of adding large numbers of new and possibly unnecessary air and sea craft, and the cost of possibly failing to protect the fishery resources by adequate enforcement of regula- tions. Included in the project discussions are rough-cost estimates whenever such fiscal in- formation was available to OTA. However, it should be pointed out that one of the primary reasons for conducting these projects would be to obtain information that will allow the appropriate agencies to make estimates of the costs of full-scale setup and operation of cer- tain programs. Presently, such information does not exist. 12 It is suggested that these projects should be conducted for at least a year, possibly more, in order to cover the entire fishing season and range of activities on any given area. At the end of the project, each should be evaluated with special attention to determining the com- pleteness of coverage provided, the cost, the timeliness and usefulness of information ob- tained, and a comparison of each method with traditional enforcement activities, and other possible alternatives to the pilot method. Shipboard Observers (for background discus- sion, see pages 38 to 42) OTA's analysis suggests that much could be learned from a pilot project in which a foreign fishery is nearly blanketed with shipboard ob- servers who have both management and en- forcement duties. The New England region would be most suitable for such a pilot project because the fishing grounds are concentrated and foreign- fishing practices are well known; many of the foreign vessels fish in groups which could simplify the arrangement of vessels with ob- servers and control vessels without observers; and the stocks in that region are generally depleted and information for use in restoring stocks is badly needed. About 150 foreign vessels, on the average, have traditionally fished within the 200-mile zone off New England. At this writing, the number of permit applications which had been received suggested that this number will probably go down because of the 1977 catch allocations. Therefore, it appears that a total of about 100 shipboard observers would be suitable for the pilot project. These observers should be selected on the basis of experience in fishing practice and knowledge of fishery matters. If they are given enforcement duties, they should be Coast Guard personnel, in- stead of NMFS personnel. However, they should receive some training from NMFS in observing, collecting, and reporting informa- tion of value. Some familiarity with the nation on whose vessel the observer serves would also be helpful. Based on NMFS estimates for their existing limited-observer program the cost of a 100- man pilot program would be roughly $2 million plus funds for an accurate evaluation of the pilot. Under the law, this cost is passed on to the foreign vessels. However, other fees and charges are also levied, under the law, to reim- burse the United States for management and enforcement activities in the 200-mile zone. Since the observer program would presuma- bly make some other expenditures covered by these levies unnecessary, the gross-tonnage fee or tax on ex-vessel value of the catch could be reduced accordingly. Transfer of Military Data (for background discussion, see pages 43 to 44) OTA proposes a pilot program utilizing one of the existing military systems for the collec- tion and transfer of available surveillance data for one specific region. Some precedent for such a project already exists at the Naval Ocean Surveillance Information Center where the Coast Guard has recently detailed one officer to work on data which are of interest to the Coast Guard and have not, in the past, been processed by Navy personnel. OTA has not investigated the feasibility of using a specific system in any region, but it appears that the Navy's west coast network could be a likely pilot region. Any pilot proj- ect should begin with an indepth investigation of the Navy's existing system and its ability to 13 provide information needed for fisheries en- forcement. Some funding would be necessary to add personnel who would coordinate the transfer of fisheries-related data from the Navy to the Coast Guard district in charge of fisheries en- forcement in that zone. On one hand, there may be difficulties in working with and protecting classified infor- mation and there may be a danger that this ex- tra task might not receive adequate attention in a facility oriented to an existing military mission. However, such an information-shar- ing program could ultimately cut costs sub- stantially by reducing duplication of effort and facilities. It could also provide cooperative experience which might lead to sharing of other services and resources needed for en- forcement and the opportunity to evaluate new technology which may be of use in fish- eries enforcement. Joint Research (for background discussion, see pages 45 to 46) OTA suggests that a pilot project for cooperation and joint research could bring together the Coast Guard, Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop new systems and find efficient ways of using technology in a multimission context. Such a pilot project could include joint preparation of long-range plans for determin- ing the most appropriate research and development strategy for new technologies, identifying the needs of all potential users of such technology, and analyzing the costs and benefits of developing and utilizing new tech- nology, especially remote-sensing devices. Transponders with Loran-C (for background discussion, see pages 47 to 49) OTA suggests early implementation of a pilot program utilizing transponders in two specific regions — the Bering Sea off Alaska and the Georges Bank off New England. Since each of these areas are traditional fishing grounds, but with very different prevailing conditions, the usefulness of transponders could be evaluated for a broad range of ap- plications by this pilot project. The pilot programs would require the design and manufacture of Loran-C trans- ponder equipment specifically for this pur- pose. The Loran-C network is already planned or in operation in the regions proposed. A licensing arrangement and installation tech- nique for fitting transponders on each foreign fishing vessel entitled to fish in the region would need to be devised. Control stations and receivers on patrol ships or aircraft would need to be installed. It is estimated that the transponder which would go on board each foreign vessel would cost less than $2,500. Once the system were developed and installed, operational costs would be roughly equivalent to the opera- tional cost of the aircraft carrying each control station, $1 million to $1.6 million annually. Funds for evaluating the pilot project would be in addition to these costs. The Georges Bank pilot program would re- quire about 150 transponder units and a con- trol station most likely at a Coast Guard shore base in New England. Each vessel entering the 200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishing would be required to activate its transponder which would automatically transmit iden- tification and location to the shore base. The shore base would keep plots of all foreign fishing activity on the banks and give this to patrol craft. Regular patrols of the region would use this information to check on any 14 Management of New U.S. Fishery Zone fishing activity that was not reported by this system. In the Bering Sea region a similar network of transponders could be required aboard foreign fishing vessels. In this region it may be desirable to combine the transponder network with microwave radar systems already used aboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiv- ing stations also aboard the patrol craft. In this way a specific region could be covered by regular overflight, all vessels operating in the region located by radar, each vessel interro- gated to determine whether an approved transponder is aboard stating identification and location, and any vessels without trans- ponders investigated. There are several ad- vantages to a system thus described, especially in Alaska where long distances and large areas can best be covered by aircraft and where fre- quent cloud cover makes visual observation difficult or impossible. New Management Concepts Needed New research concepts need to be developed and much new data must be gathered in order to obtain an integrated view of all the fisheries of the United States and to determine the optimum yield of each fishery. Optimum yield is a judgmental decision on the size of fish catch which will achieve the most advantageous combina- tion of biological, economic, and social results. However, there is presently no agreed-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 other projections used for fishery management. Techniques for dealing with that uncer- tainty will be necessary. (See pages 62 to 63.) Relationships Between Federal Agencies and Regional Councils It is possible that better accountability for the existence and the reliability of data pro- vided by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Regional Councils could be achieved if the NMFS member on the councils were the head of the regional fisheries research center rather than, or in addition to, the Regional Director. (See pages 63 to 69.) Conflicts can probably be expected in the future between the Regional Councils and the NMFS laboratories over the division of research funds because of some local fisher- men's mistrust of national NMFS opera- tions and council desires to break out of the traditional NMFS research patterns. Con- flicts may evolve over who does specific research tasks. Such conflicts may delay col- lection of much-needed information or cause duplication of research effort; 15 however, there is no framework — other than informal negotiations between NMFS and the councils — for resolving such con- flicts. (See pages 63 to 69.) NMFS Management Guidelines Needed No decisions have been made within NMFS as to who will be responsible for research, data collecting, and development of analytical methods. There is a division of opinions among NMFS staff as to whether recommendations on data and methods should be made by NMFS to the councils or by the councils to NMFS. (See pages 69 to 73.) The preliminary management plans pre- pared by NMFS were not coordinated in content or format. Guidelines for presenta- tion of management plans were not pro- mulgated. This failure to standardize opera- tions with NMFS before the initial plans were written may have complicated the councils' job of preparing succeeding plans by failing to give them a model after which to pattern their work. It may also perpetu- ate regional differences within NMFS and complicate the national review process. (See pages 69 to 73.) Management Information Needed Much must be learned about the effec- tiveness of management techniques and presentation of plans. However, the most pressing need for improvement is in the area of developing and considering economic, social, and biological data to be used to modify the catch figures presented in the preliminary plans. (See pages 69 to 74.) Recommendation for Management Planning (See pages 73 to 74.) Problem: There is no deadline for prepara- tion of domestic fishery-management plans and no priority listing of domestic fisheries for which management plans should be pre- pared. Recommendation: NMFS should prepare a priority listing of domestic fisheries for which management plans are needed, delineating the needs and citing available data. 16 Information Needed To Implement Public Law 94-265 New Evaluation of Fisheries Stock Informa- tion Needed The new Regional Councils could make a substantial improvement in the old system of making estimates of fishery yields and advice about health of stocks available only to international governing bodies. The councils could interpret scientific data on stocks, publish it widely, and provide an opportunity for continual access to infor- mation and debate of the issues by in- terested parties. Input by and involvement of users and other public parties is crucial to the success of fishery management. (See pages 11 to 79.) Status of Stock Information Present assessments of heavily utilized stocks are quite accurate. However, projec- tions of sustainable yields in the future are subject to large uncertainties due to effects of interspecies relationships, environmental change, fishing effort, and other unknown natural variations. (See pages 11 to 79.) Presently no stock has adequate quantita- tive data on all items necessary to develop estimates of maximum potential yields that can be harvested without reducing the parent stock. (See page 78.) Stock Assessment Needs Since estimates about the condition of a stock are basically judgmental anyway, it may be far more cost-effective to agree upon a few key indicators of the health and size of the stock rather than to attempt to assess all possible indicators. (See pages 79 to 81.) Because of pressures to expand existing stock assessment methodologies to provide data for near-term decisions, pressure to treat fishery information as a precise science, and the lack of validity for existing methods of research, a program should be undertaken to improve the stock assess- ment data which will be used and establish future research priorities. (See pages 79 to 81.) Foreign Investment Information Mandatory disclosure of the actual extent of foreign investment in U.S. fish process- ing and wholesale operations would be necessary in order to determine if foreign investment results in uncontrolled foreign fishing or if it has an adverse effect on the competitive position of U.S. firms. However, such disclosure is not presently required. (See pages 81 to 85.) Economic Information Needs Economics and statistics staffs are being added to Regional Fisheries Research Cen- ters, but these staffs are not likely to have the time or direction to address national problems. These staffs cannot be considered a substitute for a central economics research and planning capability in NMFS. (See pages 86 to 88.) Information Needed on Fisheries Management Social Effects of The Regional Councils will need to know the major social effects of the decisions made under the new law in order to make sensible alterations in fisheries regulations as conditions continue to change. (See pages 88 to 92.) 17 Future Developments in the Fishing Industry Recommendation for Improved Manage- ment Information (See pages 81 to 86.) Problem: Most of the regional economic studies which have been done and the economic and social data generated by NMFS would be of limited use to the Regional Coun- cils in their management work because it is outdated or not maintained in a format ap- plicable to fisheries managers. Recommendation: The National Marine Fish- eries Service consulting with the Regional Councils could evaluate the economic and social-data needs and the suggestions for im- provement which are outlined in this report and develop a comprehensive management information system. 18 Information Needed To Evaluate Oppor- tunities In order to make decisions on how to im- prove an existing fishery or develop a new fishery by enhancement techniques, new in- formation is necessary. This includes an in- tensive and integrated examination of all facets of a fishery: resource assessment, harvest and processing technologies and costs; market potentials; and institutional factors including artificial barriers to trade. None of this information presently exists within the Federal agencies. (See pages 96 to 99.) Sufficient data about various segments of the fishing industry are not now available for determining what, if any, actions should be taken by the Government to encourage growth in the fishing industry. (See pages 99 to 104.) Underutilized Species Not Defined In addition to the possible prices which presently underutilized species might bring, stock assessments and projections of yield from the species are needed in order to determine if the stocks can sustain a market. (See pages 98 to 99.) Recommendations for Addressing New Op- portunities (See pages 95 to 104.) Recommendation: Data collected by the General Accounting Office, the Eastland Resolution group, the Office of Technology Assessment, and NMFS should be synthesized and analyzed by a committee of the Regional Councils which could identify missing infor- mation, fill the gaps itself or contract for research, and make recommendations for con- gressional action or administrative changes which would be helpful in revitalizing the fishing industry. Recommendation: The Federal fishery infor- mation structure that exists in Sea Grant and NMFS should be expanded and improved to reach a larger segment of the industry with a variety of information from many sources. 3. Enforcement 3. Enforcement Background Brief History of Fisheries Law Enforcement Management of the new 200-mile U.S. fish- ery zone will, of necessity, have enforcement of regulations as an integral part if it is to ac- complish restoration and conservation of fish stocks and provide the domestic fishing in- dustry with the potential and incentive to grow, as mandated by the Fishery Conserva- tion and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265). Management plans to be drawn-up under provisions of the Act will lay the groundwork for the types of regulations which will be re- quired and which must be enforced. However, fish resources are already scarce enough and the demand for fish products high enough that it is logical to conclude that foreign na- tions can justify the risk of violating these regulations and the United States can justify the effort and expense of enforcing them. In fact, the U.S. Coast Guard, the agency pri- marily charged with the enforcement task, has concluded in a report on its preparations for increased fisheries duties that "the state of the fish stocks today is too critical to allow for any lapse in enforcement. "20 A discussion of enforcement problems and opportunities is offered first in this report for two reasons: 1) Clear and timely indication of U.S. 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 the problems and opportunities of managing the 200-mile fishing zone and with the need for much additional information as Federal agen- cies and Regional Councils seek to refine and improve management techniques. The United States began to exercise control over its coastal fisheries soon after it became a country. Until the passage of the Bartlett Act, in the middle 1960's, however, enforcement was essentially confined to the "territorial sea", the area within 3-nautical miles offshore. The early control activities were generally mild. It wasn't until the late 1800's and early 1900's, that strong legislation was passed to resolve fishery and marine mammal problems in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. In the early 1900's, foreign fishing vessels were seized and brought to American ports, and fines were successfully levied against the crews and vessels. The Bartlett Act has been the primary fish- eries law. Foreign fishing is not only prohibited within the territorial sea, but also is excluded within a contiguous 9-mile fish- eries zone beyond the 3-mile territorial sea. In addition, foreign fishermen cannot retain creatures of the Continental Shelf (shellfish and Crustacea). Violations of the Bartlett Act could 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 States and other countries have agreed to manage fishery resources, outside the 12-mile zone. ICNAF (International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries) is an example of one important treaty. Here, the 18 member governments prepare the regulations, which for the most part are concerned with quota 21 allocations. Inspectors may stop, board, and examine member fishing vessels for violations of the regulations, but prosecution and punishment (if any) are carried out by the "flag state", the home country of the particu- lar fishing vessel. The United States was a member of ICNAF for more than 25 years. However, it withdrew from the convention after Congress passed the Fishery Management and Conservation Act of 1976, unilaterally assuming jurisdiction over most of the east coast waters in which American fishermen work. The growth in breadth and strength of en- forcement of fisheries laws can be traced to two primary interrelated occurrences: • intense foreign fishing off our coasts, and • depletion of many fish species due to overfishing. In 1975, there were 17 foreign nations fish- ing off our coasts. 21 In June 1975, almost 1,000 foreign fishing vessels were sighted; the year's monthly average was more than 500.^2 The foreign vessels caught about three-quarters of the 3 million metric tons of fish caught in the 200-mile zone that year. From 1964 through September of 1976, nearly 100 foreign fishing vessels were cited for violation of U.S. fishing laws. The most frequent offenders have been Japan, Canada, Cuba, and the U.S.S.R. Fishermen from these nations account for more than 70 percent of the violations of U.S. law. In addition, approx- imately 100 treaty violations are documented each year. 23 Trawl nets on shrimp boats dry in the sun. Shrimp is one of the largest commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. 22 Requirements of the Law Violations of U.S. law can be classified as: • geographical intrusion, that is entrance into forbidden areas, such as territorial waters or closed areas; and • catch and illegal retention of creatures from the continental shelf, such as lobsters and crabs. Treaty violations take the form of: . improper fishing gear, which is prohibited in certain areas by regulation; • illegal retainment of bycatch, that is, catching and keeping prohibited species; . overfishing of quotas; and • violating administrative regulations, such as improper keeping of log books or not reporting required scientific data. In the past, fisheries enforcement respon- sibility has been vested primarily in the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has provided the ships and aircraft and much of the man- power to staff the vehicles, the sensing equip- ment and the command and control function of operations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which is primarily concerned with gathering management and scientific data, assisted in enforcement. NMFS provided per- sonnel with expertise on fishing gear, fishing techniques, and fish identification and catch rates. There was close cooperation between the two groups, with personnel from both agencies frequently onboard the same vessels. The State Department has also played an important role in fisheries law enforcement. The State Department negotiated the various treaties and international agreements, and in the past, any foreign fishing vessel was seized only after coordination with the Secretary of State. A close liaison between the State Department and the Coast Guard was needed since any interference with foreign shipping, warranted or not, could certainly affect U.S. relations with the foreign country. 91-072 O - 77 - 3 The purpose and policies set out in Public Law 94-265 have important effects on enforce- ment. The law vests the responsibility for en- forcement in the Secretary of Commerce (NMFS) and in the Secretary of Transporta- tion (Coast Guard). Authorization is given to arrest violators, to seize vessels and cargo, and to 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 the fishery conservation zone except: a. under agreements or treaties (new and renegotiated), and b. with a permit. 2. In every international agreement: a. The foreign country agrees to abide by all U.S. regulations. b. The foreign country allows a U.S. officer to: (1) board the vessel, (2) make arrests and seizures, and (3) examine the permit. c. The permit must be prominently dis- played. d. Appropriate position-fixing and iden- tification equipment, such as transpon- ders, if required by the Coast Guard, are to be installed and maintained on each vessel. e. U.S. observers will be allowed to board any vessel, the cost to be reimbursed to the United States. f. Foreign agents are to be sited in the United States to deal with any legal process. g. The foreign nation acts in behalf of its individual vessels. 23 Present Plans for Near-Term Enforcement 24 3. An allocation of fishing level (fish quotas) will be made to specific foreign countries. 4. If a foreign vessel, with a permit, violates the regulations: a. The permit of that vessel could be revoked. b. The permit could be suspended. c. Additional conditions could be im- posed on the foreign nation and on any of its permits. 5. Civil penalties for violations could be as much as $25,000 per violation, where ev- ery day may be considered as an addi- tional violation. 6. Criminal penalties for violations could be as much as $100,000 and 10 years in prison. 7. Any vessel, its fishing gear and cargo, could be forfeited to the United States. Since the passage of the Fishery Manage- ment and Conservation Act of 1976, some concern has been voiced by Members of Con- gress, members of the Regional Councils, and others, that foreign investments in U.S. fishing operations and joint ventures between foreign and domestic fishing and processing com- panies may provide a means of circumventing controls on foreign fishing interests within the 200-mile zone. Such investments may guarantee foreign firms the almost unlimited access to fish stocks which is intended for domestic fishermen and allow them to operate outside certain regulations — such as gear restrictions — which may be in effect only for foreign fishermen. While such investments may pose problems in enforcing the intent of the Act, they are not, strictly speaking, an en- forcement problem to be dealt with by the Coast Guard and NMFS operational divisions. The problems and benefits of foreign in- vestments are discussed as management con- cerns in other sections of this report. Enforcement of regulations in the new 200- mile fishery zone is complicated by the size of the area and the fact that fishing is to be reg- ulated not prohibited. The area encompassed by the 200-mile-wide band surrounding the United States and its possessions adds up to almost 2V4-million square miles of ocean. Ac- cording to Coast Guard estimates, major fish- eries cover approximately one-fourth of that area. These prime fishing grounds will require concentrated enforcement efforts during cer- tain seasons. In addition, at least some level of enforcement may be required in all parts of the zone at some time during the year. A dense mixture of marine traffic, including merchant vessels, warships, tankers, recrea- tional craft, and both domestic and foreign fishing vessels, is found within the 200-mile zone. From this mix of vessels, foreign fishing craft must be located and identified by nation. Further, in order to enforce any regulation in any fishing area at any given time, fishing vessels must be classified as fishing according to the provisions of their permits and existing regulations or in violation of these controls; violators must be apprehended; and some prosecutory action must be taken. This detection, identification, and classifica- tion of foreign fishing activity must go on under any sea conditions that permit fishing itself. Experienced fishermen have indicated that this means enforcement activities may be necessary through at least sea state 7 (28- to 40-knot winds and 22- to 40-foot waves). In addition, for each enforcement step, different vehicles and equipment are useful. For example, an aircraft flying at 200 knots, at 15,000 feet in clear weather will cover a greater area, using sight and radar, and detect more fishing vessels than will a cutter at sea doing 15 knots. On the other hand, the aircraft cannot put a boarding party on fishing vessels, while a cutter can accomplish this mission. It is not now possible to project explicitly what enforcement will be necessary to detect and deter violations because the Regional Councils, which are charged with creating the regulations for fishery management, have not yet formalized final plans which will include the regulations which are to be enforced. Regulations which have been drawn-up by the National Marine Fisheries Service for im- plementation as of March 1, 1977, are merely interim rules which will be supplanted once the councils formulate regulations specific to U.S. Coast Guard Photo Under the new law. Coast Guard enforcement officers may board foreign fishing vessels to inspect the catch and fishing gear 25 their fisheries. The interim regulations are not too different from those contained in the in- ternational agreements which have, in the past, been the only means of controlling fish- ing activity. The major immediate changes will be that the United States has taken on the responsibility for enforcement, will board and inspect foreign vessels for compliance with U.S. regulations, and will prosecute offenders itself instead of leaving that task to flag states. But as experience with the fishery zone grows, new types of regulations and enforcement techniques will be needed and used. Nevertheless, certain basic types of viola- tions can be anticipated, such as illegal fishing by foreign vessels which do not have permits; overfishing of quotas allowed for each species; violation of permit stipulations such as gear-, area-, or time-restrictions; and failure to com- ply with data-reporting requirements. The specific regulations to be enforced and violations expected will affect the type of en- forcement strategies and equipment to be used. Figure 4 is a matrix of likely enforce- ment needs and techniques. Figure 4 Summary of Fisheries Regulations, Where Proposed, Effectiveness of Selected Surveillance Techniques (Regulations Are Taken From Preliminary Management Plans, Techniques From USCG Plan, OTA Working Paper and Others) Effectiveness in Detecting Violations Typical Fishery Regulations— (to date) Selected Fishery Applications Electronic Surveillance Ship Patrols and Insp. by Boardings Aircraft Patrols Observers Total Allowable Catch (per country) All Foreign Fisheries Low Moderate Low High Time and Area Allocation (per vessel) Wash/Ore/Calif Trawl Fishery Moderate Low High N/A Season and Area Restrictions Most Foreign Fisheries Moderate Low Moderate N/A No Fishing for Certain Species West Coast and Alaska Trawl Fisheries N/A Low N/A Moderate No Retention of Certain Species Crab Fisheries N/A Low Low High Specified Allovi/able Gear Only Pots for Crabs Specified Trawls— East and West Coast N/A Low Low High Minimum Mesh Size and Other Gear Restrictions Wash/Ore/Calif Trawl Fishery N/A Low Low High Reports of Catch and Bycatch by Speceies All Foreign Fisheries N/A Low Low High Exclusion Areas Most Foreign Fisheries Moderate Low High N/A NOTE: The techniques above are judged on capabilities of existing technology and present plans for numbers of ships and aircraft. Source: OTA 26 Level of Enforcement Just as important in determining what en- forcement capabilities will be necessary is determination of the desired level of enforce- ment. In other words, should enforcement agencies mobilize to catch 50 percent of the violators, 75 percent, or 100 percent — in which case the costs could prove to be astronomical. Without a quantified level of enforcement, the allocation of enforcement resources becomes a matter of intuition rather than one of reasoned judgment. Currently, the Coast Guard simulation model used for costing purposes indicates that the agency assumes it can catch or deter ap- proximately 95 percent of the 2,150 expected annual violators within the budget appropria- tion level requested. 24 That percentage, however, does not appear to have been set as an enforcement goal based on any policy deci- sion as to what level of enforcement is desira- ble. In addition, the percentage shown may be much too high, depending on what types of violations (over quota, use of prohibited gear, fishing in closed areas) are being counted. A middle-ground approach is probably required and a specific definition of that approach would be desirable. This should be followed by regular assessment of changing enforce- ment needs as well as the actual level of en- forcement compared to the desired level. Determination of the level of enforcement could also be enhanced by asking Regional Councils to make a projection of desired en- forcement actions in their areas, possible com- pliance inducements for fisheries in their areas, and potential domestic-enforcement plans. A major shortcoming of the Coast Guard's analysis of the appropriate level of enforce- ment is the lack of an adequate method for assessing the benefits that can be expected from various enforcement strategies. Since significant resources may be required to oper- ate an effective enforcement system, the Coast Guard's current inability to systematically estimate the expected value of enforcement is a serious flaw. However, since the determina- tion of appropriate enforcement strategies is only one part of the broader process of fish- eries management, what is probably needed is a more general analytical system which could provide quantitative estimates of the impacts of alternative management techniques, includ- ing— but not limited to — the enforcement strategies, on the catch and profits of commer- cial fishermen, the quantities and prices of fish available to the domestic consumer, the state of recreational fishing, and other measures of the benefits of management. One such general analytical system is cur- rently being developed for NOAA by the Center for Technology Assessment and Resource Policy at Stanford University. This system is based on a generalized computer systems model which can integrate the best available scientific information about any 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 cost nearly $100 million per year, benefits should be clearly identified and quantified to the ex- tent useful. Some of the benefits may include: . A future increase in stocks and yields due to tighter controls to prevent overfishing. . Less pressure on stocks caught as bycatch due to better controls on gear and areas fished. . Less conflict among fishermen for certain grounds and reduced gear conflict. 27 . Assurance of proper allocation of quotas among foreign and U.S. fishermen. An enforcement component is not presently planned for the Stanford model. Such a com- ponent, which would translate various en- forcement strategies into impacts on foreign fishing activities, should be developed by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard could then use its enforcement model in conjunction with the Stanford model, or any similar one adopted by NOAA, in order to determine the costs and benefits of various levels or enforcement or specific enforcement strategies. The primary objective of the Coast Guard simulation should be to evaluate the effective- ness and the cost of a mix of vehicles, sensors, and personnel as they enforce the regulations applicable to the 200-mile fishery zone. Among other factors, the model should in- clude: • existing capabilities and possible future systems of sensors, vehicles, and person- nel; • short- and long-range enforcement needs; • possible multipurpose use of systems and equipment 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 of penalties, such as fines and seizures; . likely regulations of all types; . explicit yardsticks of effectiveness, such as percent of captured violators, amount of protection given to stocks, value of fines collected, value of regulation on foreign relations, compatability with other Coast Guard duties, etc.; . behavior patterns of foreign and domestic fishermen in reaction to regula- tions; and . monetary cost of programs. A model which does a more adequate job of making cost-benefit estimates than the exist- ing Coast Guard model will be exceedingly difficult to prepare since the efficiency of en- forcement involves intangible as well as tangi- ble costs and results. For example, how does the value of protecting and restoring a depleted stock compare with the value of im- proved international relations which may result in some specific sought-after agreement in another field? However, the model could present possible scenarios, impacts, and trade- offs which may result from various levels of enforcement or differing amounts of expend- itures. Although the analytical models to be used by NOAA and the Coast Guard in fisheries management and enforcement are an impor- tant tool, there is considerable feeling among members of the Regional Councils and other interested parties that modeling techniques have already outstripped available data. The results of the OTA study also indicate that ex- isting models have already identified large areas where there is insufficient information. Therefore, immediate emphasis should be on a program for long-term collection of consist- ent basic information. Models and modeling techniques can be improved while this basic data is being gathered. 28 Existing Capabilities The existing capabilities for enforcing Public Law 94-265 include three primary groups, within the executive branch, which would or could be involved in the future: 1. The Coast Guard has the primary respon- sibility for enforcement and exercises almost complete jurisdiction over ac- tivities in the foreign fisheries. 2. The National Marine Fisheries Service shares the enforcement function with the Coast Guard by providing personnel with scientific and biological expertise to aid in planning and carrying out enforce- ment strategies in the domestic fisheries. 3. The Department of Defense normally will have no enforcement function at all, ex- cept in the unlikely event that foreign warships should appear within the 200- mile zone to contest U.S. regulations. In that case, U.S. military forces would be called upon under the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense. The memorandum and con- tingency plan for such a situation has been worked out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest levels of the Coast Guard and is classified information. The Department of State, which has been involved in enforcement of fishery agree- ments in the past because of their interna- tional nature, has been given a limited role under the new law. The Department of State's primary function is to negotiate the Governing International Fisheries Agreement, by which, foreign na- tions agree to accept the U.S. jurisdiction in the 200-mile zone. The State Department is also to exercise an advisory role, keeping the Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Regional Councils informed on foreign policy implications of fishery management. Under the new law, as in the past, the State Department is consulted by the Coast Guard before any foreign fishing vessel is seized for violation of U.S. regulations. There are un- doubtedly legitimate instances when the foreign policy or diplomatic implications of some action should take precedence over the fishery implications. However, the Coast Guard routinely allows the State Depart- ment's desire to avoid unpleasant diplomatic incidents to influence enforcement actions. There appears to be no formal mechanism to assure that State Department decisions to in- tervene in a fishery action are made at an ap- propriate policy level and that the Coast Guard exercises its statutory responsiblitity to make final enforcement decisions, with advice from the State Department being only one of many factors to be considered. There is ob- vious need for a clear and simple procedure which quickly leads to a decision — and review of that decision by the Chief Executive when necessary — on whether or not to seize a foreign vessel which is violating U.S. law or regulations. The following discussion of the work of these agencies in regard to enforcement is not intended as a specific description of their planned operations. Rather, it is an overview and a critique of likely enforcement. In its routine enforcement role, the Coast Guard provides personnel, vehicles, and sens- ing equipment. Its enforcement capability during 1975 came from its fleet of 39 aircraft, 39 ships, 94 helicopters, and various support facilities. These facilities were not dedicated 29 solely to fishery enforcement, but were used also for other Coast Guard duties such as in- vestigating oil spills, sea search and rescue, and general law enforcement. Approximately 2,500 days of ship time and 6,000 hours of aircraft time were devoted to enforcing fishery laws, regulations, and treaties during 1975, about one-half million square miles were patrolled, at a cost of $46 million for the year. The Coast Guard spent about 5 percent of its total annual operational budget on fisheries enforcement. 25 The Coast Guard's original plan for en- forcement under the new law called for in- creasing ship time by 951 days to provide 2,616 patrol days inside active fishing areas and 823 patrol days in other areas; increasing aircraft time by 7,553 hours to provide 8,446 hours of patrol in active fishing areas and 3,068 hours of patrol in other areas. 26 ( V Xavy Pholo Trawlers operating out of New England ports work in the ground fisheries of Georges Bank. 30 According to the Coast Guard plan, this, theoretically, would reduce the number of violations per year from the expected 2,150 to about 110, based on the assumption that detection and identification constitute en- forcement (see figure 5). However, there is some question about the wisdom of this assumption since simple detection of a viola- tion by an aircraft or other means does not guarantee that the violation will cease and that the violator will be penalized. The Coast Guard plan would necessitate the addition of 10 fixed- wing aircraft, 5 helicop- ters, and 6 high-endurance cutters. Procure- ment and operation of these new craft was estimated at $275.4 million through fiscal year 1978. After appropriation of the fiscal year 1977 budget, this strategy was reassessed and it was determined that budget constraints dic- tated that initial enforcement focus on the ac- tive fishing areas only. For maximum effect in that area with appropriated funds, the Coast Guard revised procurement plans to include purchase of four C-130s and reactivation of four C-131s; reactivation of its last five spare, short-range shipboard helicopters, and tem- porary overscheduling of the crews of five others; and reactivation of one cutter — all of which could be in operation close to the March 1, 1977, effective date of the law. The package, with necessary support facilities, was estimated to cost $64.3 million. 27 Most of the projected new vehicles are scheduled for use where the new U.S. jurisdic- tion now takes in more extensive fishing grounds, that is, in the Pacific Council area and off the Alaskan coast. Since these areas contain about 16 species of fish which have been overexploited in the past, the allocation of more vehicles to enforce regulations there will also aid in the conservation and recovery of these stocks. (See figures 6 through 10.) Figure 5 Expected Number of Undetected Violations by IVIonth Under "No Effort", FY 75 Level, and Planned Enforcement 600- 500- S5 o > 0) n E 3 Z "O 0) 400- 300- B 200-1 o a 100' Total 21 50 Total 1030 Total 110 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC D No EMoft Level oi Enforcement I FY 75 Level ol Enlorcemenl EMorl I Planned Entorcemenl I Lt'vel ol Etlort Source: U.S. Department of Transportation. Coast Guard 31 New England Figure 6 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols 1 700 Miles 1 2 Fit Hrs Mar— Nov Georges Bank %« 60 Miles 32 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard Mid Atlantic Figure 7 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols New York, Chesapeake Entrance 190 Mi 1.25 Hr Jan— Feb 760 Miles 5 Hrs Jan— May 800 Miles 5.5 Hrs Mar— May 0 h 60 Miles Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard 33 Gulf of Mexico Figure 8 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols Corpus Christi '>/' 180 ' ' — I I i_ Miles Source: U.S. Department of Transportation. Coast Guard 34 Figure 9 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols 1070 Miles 7.5 Fit Hr Apr— Nov 60 _i I I I Miles Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard 35 Alaska Figure 10 Planned Coast Guard Aircraft Patrols •Salmon Area Outside 200 Mi May— Jul Salmon \ •■•%' ri 2050 Ml - 1 8 Hrs 2120 Ml 14 Hrs ■4870 Ml 33 Hrs * 'Salmon Area Outside 200 Mi 2280 Ml 15 Hrs *To Include, add 740 MI-5 Hrs **To include, add 2020 Mi-14 Hrs ' • 'To include, add 720 Mi-5 Hrs 0 300 I I Miles 36 Source: US Department of Transportation, Coast Guard On the other hand, there are also many species in danger in the east coast and gulf fisheries. Three new aircraft have been assigned to the New England area and one to the Gulf of Mexico, but it seems reasonable that additional vehicles may be desirable on the east coast in the future even though fish- ery areas there are concentrated and not greatly increased by the move to the 200-mile jurisdiction. As outlined by the Coast Guard, the planned enforcement strategy of increasing present capabilities is a reasonable first step. It is flexible in that enforcement resources will be added over a period of time and at a moderate first cost. As experience is gained, additional resources can be curtailed or ac- celerated if original assumptions do not prove out. The Coast Guard enforcement strategy is, however, limited to preventing violations by foreign fishermen. Presently, there is no plan- ning within the Coast Guard to deal with possible at-sea violations of the domestic fish- ery regulations. Only two domestic manage- ment plans have been drawn-up so far, but other plans will be a major order-of-business facing the Regional Councils in the future. In the past, enforcement in the domestic fishery has been carried out by NMFS from shore, where officials observe offloading, weigh and inspect fish, and identify bycatch. NMFS will continue its enforcement of domestic fisheries from shore under the new law. If this dockside effort were to be com- bined with a program of boarding domestic vessels for inspections, it would probably be sufficient 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 needed for enforcement in domestic fisheries, the Coast Guard could use the same types of equipment and techniques planned for foreign fisheries, but would need additional facilities in order to cover the different areas used by domestic fishermen and the many additional fishing vessels of a greater variety of sizes and types. Available information indicates that about 7,000 domestic vessels may spend most of their fishing time in the 3- to 200-mile zone. 28 Although the domestic vessels catch far less than the foreign vessels, domestic fisheries en- forcement— ^in terms of fishing units to be dealt with — is on a larger scale than foreign enforcement. The cost of any deterrence gained by domestic enforcement will also be higher than for foreign enforcement. The Coast Guard has rightly given priority status to planning for enforcement in foreign fisheries. However, this OTA assessment indi- cates that at-sea enforcement will also be necessary in domestic fisheries in the near future and planning for such a job should be started as soon as possible. This will be a par- ticularly sensitive enforcement job because fishermen, a politically powerful group, have traditionally enjoyed a great deal of freedom in how they conduct their activities. 37 Other Possibilities for Near-Term Enforcement The OTA study of enforcement strategies seems to indicate that several fairly simple techniques which could be activated almost immediately have not been given favorable consideration by the Coast Guard or the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service. Among these are: 1) the establishment of an efficient report- ing system which would allow domestic fishermen to aid in observing foreign fishing vessels, 2) extensive use of observers onboard foreign fishing vessels, and 3) formulation of specific guidelines to be followed in granting annual permits and renewing the Governing Interna- tional Fisheries Agreements. The lesser of these strategies is the reporting system, which could be simply a well-defined and published procedure, which domestic fishermen could follow in notifying the Coast Guard by radio with information on the loca- tion of foreign vessels or on suspected viola- tions of fisheries regulations. The Coast Guard is not now planning a reporting system because of concern that it will increase the number of bogus complaints of violations and tax the already limited man- power and facilities of Coast Guard in the area. The Coast Guard argues that if fishermen suspect serious violations, they will — and already do — report these to the nearest Coast Guard facility. Extensive use of a reporting system may not be likely because many domestic fishermen maintain radio silence in order to protect the location of their fishing areas. Still, it is likely that the lack of formal procedures for report- ing may, in the future, cause the same kind of gap in coverage that was demonstrated when fishermen testified to congressional commit- tees that some recent oil spills might have been prevented if fisherman had some system for reporting on the location of foreign tankers which are sited outside of established traffic lanes. 29 Another minor improvement in enforce- ment could probably be gained by formulat- ing a detailed list of specific criteria which will be taken into account in renewal of the Governing International Fisheries Agree- ments (GIFAs) with foreign governments and in annually granting fishery permits to the vessels. The National Marine and Fisheries Service is now drafting civil procedure regulations which outline the sanctions, such as permit revocation, suspension, or modification, which may be used against violators or 38 Much of the fishing activity is still conducted by hand, such as the job of emptying large nets. against those countries which have not paid fines and assessments. However, these pro- cedures are not expected to include specific numbers or types of violations which would mandate nonrenewal of GIFAs or nonissuance of permits. The Coast Guard has indicated that record- ing violations on the permits of individual fishing vessels may constitute one of the most potent regulatory tools available. 30 A system which works much like the points system used in revocation of drivers licenses and set- ting insurance rates is probably worth in- vestigating in connection with fisheries per- mits. Such a system could be used initially in foreign fisheries, but would be equally useful in the domestic fisheries should some form of limited entry be adopted. Under the law, GIFAs are negotiated by the State Department. However, the State Depart- ment has been given no regulatory functions. Therefore, the law may have to be amended in order to charge the State Department with preparing such guidelines for its negotiations or these guidelines could be prepared by NMFS along with guidelines to be considered in granting permits. Without these specific guidelines as to what violations constitute grounds for nonissuance of permits or GIFAs, it is likely that uneven and inefficient use of this potential tool will result. It appears that the second strategy, the 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 vessels granted permits to fish in U.S. waters. These observers will be NMFS personnel who will have no enforcement duties. They will be assigned randomly to vessels of foreign na- tions which in the past have been suspected of giving NMFS incomplete or inaccurate reports on their fishing activity. The present plan is to place about 20 observ- ers on vessels in the Georges Bank area of the Northeast fisheries and slightly fewer in the Northwest fisheries, primarily Alaska. The National Marine and Fisheries Service has estimated the annual cost of the program at approximately $750,000. The cost per ship, with an observer onboard, may be as high as $15,00031 for a cruise of several weeks. Under the terms of Public Law 94-265, which re- quires that foreign fishing vessels pay reasonable fees to compensate the United States for expenses incurred in the course of fishery conservation, management, research, administration, and enforcement, costs for ob- servers will be billed to the individual ship carrying the observers. 32 The cost will probably make little difference to vessels from countries which subsidize their fishermen. However, such a charge may not be taken lightly by fishermen who are in- dependent operators. Since the vessels to carry observers will be chosen randomly within any particular country, levying the charge against the individual vessels may strain relations be- tween foreign fishermen and the observer who must live onboard their vessel for ex- tended lengths of time and make it much more difficult for the observer to gather accurate data. In the interests of easing this relation- ship, OTA suggests that charges for observers be spread evenly among all the ships in the fishing fleet of a particular nation. The law re- quires that the fee schedule which sets out charges to foreign fishermen be determined by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Secretary of State. 33 Therefore, a revised billing procedure for observer costs could be recommended to Commerce by State based on its negotiations with foreign nations. 39 NMFS has used some observers for the past 2 years, primarily on Japanese vessels, and has termed the experience very successful as a tool for collecting information. From the NMFS viewpoint, the observers are ideal for gathering scientific and manage- ment data. The observers could visually ex- amine the rate of fish catch, effectiveness of fishing gear, and types and sizes of fish caught. This is information which will be vital to NMFS and the Regional Councils for use in the formulation of management plans for the foreign fisheries. Yet, none of these jobs can be adequately carried out by surveillance vessels or any of the remote-sensing devices which will be discussed later in this section. For these reasons, much more extensive use should be made of observers, in a dual role: 1) to collect data needed for management of the fisheries and 2) to observe operations for enforcement functions. Observers could be utilized by the Coast Guard as part of its enforcement network. Among other enforcement-related duties, the observers could: • verify proper use of specific fishing gear; • check on bycatch or fish caught inciden- tal to the species sought (In some fish- eries more than half of a typical landing is not used and is dumped overboard.); • communicate actual practices and fishing information quickly to a control center; and • note violations, notify the Coast Guard, and even personally collect fines. t^atioml OctatiK and Atmoxphmc AdmmtslTatton Photo Observers on board fishing vessels may be in the best position to inspect catch for illegally retained species 40 The Coast Guard has stressed the need for easily enforceable regulations as an important factor in successful enforcement. Aiming toward that goal, the Coast Guard favors a NMFS proposal to reduce most regulations to limitations on the amount of effort expended fishing or the number of days spent in a cer- tain area. Such limitations are next to meaningless, however, because there is no de- pendable equation for measuring catch rates based on vessel time in an area. Past data used in such calculations haven't been verified. In addition, new technology and improvements in fishing techniques make any equation sub- ject to constant change. Shipboard observers would be in the best position to provide analysis of the relationships between vessel time, fishing effort, and catch rate. Foreign fishermen will realize that from their view the observer is primarily a police- man. The potential penalties for violations noted by the observer could be high, but the value of an illegal catch may be even higher. Therefore, foreign fishermen may attempt to bribe, harm, or deceive the observers, frustrat- ing their scientific and enforcement functions. Present thinking at the Coast Guard is that such drawbacks exceed the enforcement value of onboard observers although the observers would be very useful for collecting scientific and management data for NMFS. 34 OTA research suggests otherwise: a near- blanket program of mandatory shipboard ob- servers may be the simplest way to obtain the detailed information about fishing activities and response to fisheries regulations which will be necessary in developing a dependable, cost-effective enforcement program. In addition, the Federal Government's failure to implement an extensive observer program will remove from the Regional Councils the option of charging a fee for il- legal bycatch. Some council members feel that such a fee, based on actual bycatch figures provided by observers, would be more suc- cessful than gear restrictions in reducing the actual amount of bycatch because it would force fishermen to find their own means of not catching fish which cut into their profit. 35 The observer program is an area in which there are a wide range of opinions among the many parties interested in enforcement of fisheries regulations. However, the limited use of observers to date provides no basis for resolving these differences. A pilot project would offer actual experience on which to evaluate the cost and usefulness of observers in a combined enforcement-information gathering role. 41 Recommended Pilot Project The Office of Technology Assessment's analysis suggests that much could be learned from a pilot project in which a foreign fishery is nearly blanketed with shipboard observers who have both management and enforcement duties. The New England region would be most suitable for such a pilot project for the follow- ing reasons: • The fishing grounds are concentrated and foreign fishing practices are well known. • Many of the foreign vessels fish in groups which could simplify the ar- rangement of vessels with observers and control vessels without observers. • The stocks in that region are generally depleted and information for use in restoring stocks is badly needed. • Questions about bycatch are most sig- nificant in the area. • There are important problems with gear restrictions and gear conflicts in the area. About 150 foreign vessels, on the average, have traditionally fished within the 200-mile zone off New England. At this writing, the number of permit applications which had been received suggested that this number will probably go down because of the 1977 catch allocations. Therefore, it appears that a total of about 100 shipboard observers would be suitable for the pilot project. These observers should be selected on the basis of experience in fishing practice and knowledge of fishery matters. If they are given enforcement duties. they should be Coast Guard personnel, in- stead of NMFS personnel. However, they should receive some training from NMFS in observing, collecting, and reporting informa- tion of value. Some familiarity with the nation on whose vessel the observer serves would also be helpful. Based on NMFS estimates for their limited- observer program, the cost of a 100-man pilot program would be roughly $2 million plus funds for an accurate evaluation of the pilot. 3* Under the law, this cost is passed on to the foreign vessels. However, other fees and charges are also levied, under the law, to reim- burse the United States for management and enforcement activities in the 200-mile zone. Since the observer program would presuma- bly make some other expenditures covered by these levies unnecessary, the gross tonnage- fee or tax on ex -vessel value of the catch could be reduced accordingly. 42 Possibilities for Long- Range Enforcement It is likely that the proposed near-term en- forcement capabilities described earlier will not be adequate for long-range demands. Fac- tors like the following may contribute to the need for more sophisticated enforcement tools: • Individual Regional Fishery Management Councils are likely to develop some unique regulations which demand more knowledge of vessel locations; • Developments in technology may result in more efficient and effective equipment, for instance, land-based electronics systems could supplant some aircraft flights; • There may be pressures for increased foreign fishing off our shores, such that the value of illegal fish could exceed the cost of being apprehended; • Scientific data might reveal a greater danger to fishery resources than is pres- ently realized or danger to resources in new areas not now covered; • The costs of traditional enforcement may grow to a level that could not be easily justified in terms of resources conserved. Such factors as these lead to the conclusion that plans should be made for further im- provements in enforcement capabilities by use of remote-sensing devices and other advanced technology. It is probably in the national interest to ac- tively plan and pursue interagency use of some of these new technologies, especially those in which there already has been signifi- cant investment in development. However, it is unlikely that military agencies which now have such advanced technology will volunteer or be receptive to suggestions that they share their capabilities for use in enforcing fishery regulations. In addition to the fact that such equipment is dedicated to military application and report- edly already heavily used, it would be neces- sary to develop a fast and efficient clearinghouse for processing and distributing information from the sensors before joint use of sensing equipment would be possible. The military has already developed specialized systems for correlating information from many sensors; however, these systems are crowded and translation of fisheries data would receive low-priority treatment. It may be desirable to pursue the develop- ment of new facilities which could receive data from many sources, including such groups as the military. Bureau of Customs, NMFS, Coast Guard, and State and Federal law enforcement networks. This facility could correlate data, protecting classified or priv- ileged information if necessary, and display all maritime activity, including that of fishing vessels37 (see figure 11). Such a data correlation and display center for coverage of the complete fishing zone would be costly, but it could also provide in- formation on oil tankers, commercial cargo carriers, surveillance for search and rescue missions, and other similar activities. The Office of Technology Assessment's Working Paper No. 5, which discusses such a facility, estimates the initial set-up cost at $1.5 million for a correlation facility to receive the infor- mation. Computer time would cost at least $14,000 a month for operation of the facility. Expense to the Coast Guard for installation of hardware compatible with the correlation facility and operation of Coast Guard func- tions would be an additional cost which has not been determined. Recommended Pilot Project OTA proposes a pilot program utilizing one of the existing military systems for the collec- 43 Figure 11 Possible Flow of Surveillance Data Message Outputs • SATCOM • HF Routine • Amver • Fit. Weather • Port Data, VTS • USCG Ships, Aircraft Special • NOSIC (Naval Ocean Surveillance Information Center) • HF/DF (High Frequency/Direction Finding) • Dept. of Motor Vehicles Computer • U.S. Customs Computer • U.S. Treasury Dept. Computer • Federal/State Law Enforcement Networks 44 Source; Lockheed Corp. 1 New Technologies tion and transfer of available surveillance data for one specific region. Some precedent for such a project already exists at the Naval Ocean Surveillance Information Center where the Coast Guard has recently detailed one officer to work on data which are of interest to the Coast Guard and have not, in the past, been processed by Navy personnel. 38 The Office of Technology Assessment has not investigated the feasibility of using a specific system in any region, but it appears that the Navy's west coast network could be a likely pilot region. Any pilot project should begin with an indepth investigation of the Navy's existing system and its ability to pro- vide information needed for fisheries enforce- ment. Some funding would be necessary to add personnel who would coordinate the transfer of fisheries -related data from the Navy to the Coast Guard district in charge of fisheries en- forcement in that zone. After a period of operation, the pilot project should be evaluated with special attention to determining the completeness of coverage provided, the cost, the timeliness and useful- ness of data provided, and a comparison of this method with other methods of sur- veillance. On one hand, there may be difficulties in working with and protecting classified infor- mation and there may be a danger that this ex- tra task might not receive adequate attention in a facility oriented to an existing military mission. However, such an information-shar- ing program could ultimately cut costs sub- stantially by reducing duplication of effort and facilities. It could also provide cooperative experience which might lead to sharing of other services and resources needed for en- forcement and the opportunity to evaluate new technology which may be of use in fish- eries enforcement. Use of new technology, particularly remote-sensing devices, may make it possible to improve enforcement of fisheries regula- tions in the future by better coverage, better performance, and a reduction of the need for expanding conventional ship and aircraft patrols. Although it may be possible for several agencies (such as the Coast Guard, the military, and NASA) to share the cost of new remote-sensing devices, these systems are ex- tremely expensive and their use should be thoroughly evaluated before any one system is adopted. Any analysis of benefits and costs of remote-sensing systems should not ignore the argument that national security could be compromised by making some of these systems available for other than military mis- sions. Most of the security risks and financial costs of remote-sensing systems could be con- sidered now; however, a clear analysis of the benefits or improvements that could result from the use of such new technology is not possible until overall strategies of enforce- ment and specific regulations are defined. When these strategies and regulations have been drawn up, it will be desirable to prepare a long-range plan; for example, a 5- to 10-year plan that would include specific analysis of the introduction of new technologies and techniques into enforcement plans. The Coast Guard is presently in the process of formulating a research and development program for future enforcement of fisheries laws. 39 Such a program could make good use of an improved version of the existing com- puter model or a new model such as the one suggested in an earlier section for joint prepa- ration by NOAA and the Coast Guard. The research program is expected to include plans for studying hardware and procedures for im- proving monitoring and surveillance, com- munications, data integration and analysis, and general operations. 45 46 At present, the research and development program is directed toward bringing new en- forcement technology into use in 10 years or more. It could be possible, however, to ac- celerate the applied development of new tech- nology for which most of the research has already been completed by others so that it could meet some Coast Guard needs in about 5 years. Because the budget for fisheries enforce- ment is only a small part of the overall Coast Guard budget (about $50 million out of $1.2 billion), the agency has determined that research funds in support of such enforcement can best be spent for technology transfer and for additions to related research contracts in other agencies. 40 The Coast Guard is also following develop- ments in the Department of Defense where much of the work on technology which may be applicable to long-term fisheries enforce- ment is classified. If conservation and management of the 200- mile fisheries zone is judged to have value to the United States beyond the present mone- tary value of fisheries-related products and employment, support for increased research at the Coast Guard level may be warranted. Further research should include determina- tion of the best methods of utilizing classified systems for other than defense purposes. It appears that a pilot project for coopera- tion and joint research could bring together the Coast Guard, DOD, and NASA to develop new systems and find efficient ways of using technology in a multimission context. Such a pilot project could include joint preparation of long-range plans for determining the most ap- propriate research and development strategy for new technologies, identifying the needs of all potential users of such technology, and analyzing the costs and benefits of developing and utilizing new technology, especially remote-sensing devices. Remote-Sensing Devices Since it appears that remote sensing will be an important enforcement tool as fisheries management develops, OTA commissioned a study of the technology of such systems. The following is a brief summary of the OTA study of remote-sensing devices and findings relative to the remote-sensing techniques which were analyzed for potential usefulness in fisheries enforcement. Figure 12 compares the various techniques for usefulness and cost. Of the seven devices studied, microwave radar appears to have the best potential for use in fisheries enforcement. High-frequency, over-the-horizon radar was also judged to have good potential, but is not as highly developed for commercial application as microwave radar. Other remote-sensing systems in this group appear to have only limited fisheries application at this time. Because of the sensitive nature of much of the remote-sensing technology, OTA has also prepared a separate classified document on these systems. By definition, remote sensing includes any method of obtaining information about an ob- ject from a distance without any physical con- nection to the object. It must be remembered that 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 in remote sensing have analyzed potential tech- niques for use in fishery enforcement and have determined that some of these tech- niques can be applied to fishery enforcement without resorting to the kind of high-priority, high-cost research and development used in defense and space exploration programs. Based on past experience and based on Navy and Coast Guard ocean surveillance functions, it is likely that a combination of sensors may be required to maintain an ade- quate picture of activity. When properly cor- related and analyzed, information from visual, radio, and radar sensors can provide a picture that is much more complete and of greater validity than could be provided by any one or a few sensor systems. Ultimately, the problems of patrolling a 200-mile fishing zone may require the acquisition, correlation, and analysis of multisensor data. The Department of Defense is the principal developer and user of most of the remote- sensing technology which may be applicable to the fisheries enforcement problem. To a lesser extent, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Avia- tion Administration are also developers and users of new sensing technology. The Coast Guard is now working with these other agen- cies to determine what technologies would be suitable and how they could be utilized in fisheries enforcement. Transponders A transponder is an active beacon which can be used in conjunction with radar or other electronic transmission system to enhance the detection and location of foreign fishing vessels. The transponder transmits energy on the same frequency as the radar signal, but at a level several times higher than that which would result from unaided reflection of the signal. Some transponders can be hooked into Loran-C receivers. Loran-C is a navigational aid by which the location of a vessel is automatically pinpointed by triangulation. using continuous signals from two shorebased stations at known locations. After the location is identified by Loran-C, the information is passed to the transponder which retransmits it, along with the vessel's identification, to a control station. These systems have good future potential for use in fisheries enforce- ment as an extension of patrols by cutters and aircraft. 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 of transponders is limited primarily by cost con- siderations. However, the state-of-the-art in transponders is advancing rapidly, due largely to advances in digital storage and processing technology, so that improved per- formance at lower cost is possible in the future. From a fisheries enforcement stand- point, the major drawback of most transpon- ders is that cooperation on the part of the vessel fitted with the transponder is required. A transponder that simply enhances detection or supplies a preprogramed identification and location signal can operate independently on any input from the target, but to supply addi- tional information such as fishing status or catch data the vessel must provide the infor- mation to be transmitted. Guaranteeing that such input would be provided or that input would be accurate could prove to be a serious problem. In addition, since such transponders could only be placed aboard vessels which had permits to fish, they would do nothing in identifying vessels which had illegally entered an area without permit status. It has been suggested that in lieu of requir- ing transponders on foreign fishing vessels, such devices could be supplied to domestic fishing craft to emit a signal that would im- mediately identify them as ships with which the enforcement agency need not be con- cerned. 47 Figure 12 Summary of Support Enf( Technology the Potent >rcement o Overall Potential at of Remote-Sensing Technology To f the 200-nmi Fishing Zone Detection of Design Target Unaided Beacon-Assisted Microwave Radar Excellent Detection to 200 nmi from Aircraft; Some Sea Clutter Limitations; Position Accuracy<5 nmi Detection to>200 nmi from Aircraft; No Sea Clutter Limitations; Position Accuracy Accuracy < 2 nmi HF Over-the- Horizon Radar Good Classified Microwave Radiometry Limited Detection to~10 kft; all weather Except in Extremely Heavy Rain; Position Accuracy, Relative to Platform, 1 to 1 0 ft Beacon Detection to Line of Sight Optics and Electro-optices Limited Line of Sight Limited; Subject to Cloud and Fog Obscuration (Day Visual/ Night LWIR ) Data Subject to Excessive Clutter and Ambiguity Due to Cloud and Sea State; Beacon Assist Gives Only Marginal Improvement Electromagnetic Intercept Limited Method Inherently Uses Target Transmissions as Beacon Detection Limited Only by Propagation and Interference Conditions. Bearing Accuracy ~1°; Position Accuracy by Triangulation Limited by Hearing Accuracy and GDOP to Errors>a Few Miles Magnetic Negligible Extremely Short Range Not Applicable Acoustic Limited Classified Source: Stanford Research Institute 48 The Coast Guard has a research program underway to develop prototype transponder equipment. The Loran-C system is one of several alternatives being considered.*' The Coast Guard is also following related hard- ware-development projects within other agencies, such as the Navy, and has added some of its needs to research contracts already underway in other agencies. ''2 As the lead agency in developing trans- ponder technology for use in fisheries enforcement, the Coast Guard is seeking to determine the specific contributions that can be made by existing equipment and to develop small, tamper-proof packaging for transpon- ders to be placed on foreign vessels. Estimates are that a minimum of 2-years work will be necessary before a suitable -W^.i M»v.,V^ t^'.Y J^ /f KV . '^..-W I Figure 12 (continued) Summary of the Potential of Remote-Sensing Technology To Support Enforcement of the 200 nmi Fishing Zone Classification Capability Rough Cost Estimates ($ thousands) Fistiing Vessel? Foreign pishing Vessel? Fishing? Permit? Catch? Initial Yearly Operating Beacon Required Coded Beacon Required Cooperative Transponder Required 250-500 Per Aircraft* Principally Aircraft Operating Costs (1,000-1,600 per A/C) Beacon Required Coded Beacon Required Cooperative Transponder Requirec' 48,000 for Complete Coverage* 1 ,800 for Complete Coverage Beacon Required Coded Beacon Required No Capability No Capability No Capability 100-200 Per Aircraft* 10% of Aircraft Operating Costs Good: Requires low- to Medium- Altitude Approacti Fair: Requires Very Low- Altitude Approach Good, with Direct Tele- Photo Inspection Cooperative Transponder Required Fair, if Catch Visible on Deck 10-500 Per Aircraft 1 0% of Aircraft Operating Costs Limited, Requires Target Cooperation Limited: Requires Target Cooperation Cooperative Transmission Required 125 Per Station 110 Per Station No Capability No Capability No Capability No Capability No Capability N/A N/A Beacon Required Coded Beacon Required Cooperative Transmission Required Classified Classified •NOTE: Beacons or transponders on each fishing vessel would be in addition to the above and cost $500 to $2,500 per vessel. Source: OTA system can be put onboard foreign vessels and that as much as 7 years may be required before an ideal system with the best long-term application is devised. ^3 Recommended Pilot Program. — The Office of Technology Assessment suggests early imple- mentation of a pilot program utilizing trans- ponders in two specific regions — the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska and Georges Bank off the New England coast. Since each of these areas is a traditional fishing ground, but with very different prevailing conditions, the usefulness of transponders could be evaluated for a broad range of applications by this pilot program. The pilot programs would require the design and manufacture of Loran-C trans- ponder equipment specifically for this pur- 49 pose. The Loran-C network is now planned or in operation in the regions proposed. A Hcensing arrangement and installation tech- nique for fitting transponders on each foreign fishing vessel entitled to fish in the region would need to be devised. Control stations and receivers on patrol ships or aircraft would need to be installed. It is estimated that the transponder which would go onboard each foreign vessel would cost less than $2,500. Once the system were installed, operational costs would be roughly equivalent to the operational cost of the aircraft carrying each control station, $1 million to $1.6 million annually. Funds for evaluating the pilot project would be in 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 shore base in New England. Each vessel entering the 200-mile zone at Georges Bank for fishing would be required to activate its transponder which would automatically transmit iden- tification and location to the shore base. The shore base would keep plots of all foreign fishing activity on the banks and give this to patrol craft. Regular patrols of the region would use this information to check on any fishing activity that wasn't reported by this system. At the end of one season, an evalua- tion of the usefulness of this system could be made. In the Bering Sea region a similar network of transponders could be required aboard foreign fishing vessels. In this region it may be desirable to combine the transponder network with microwave radar systems already used aboard Coast Guard patrol aircraft and receiv- ing stations. In this way a specific region could be covered by regular overflight, all vessels operating in the region located by radar, each vessel interrogated to determine whether an approved transponder is aboard stating ID and location, and any vessels without trans- ponders investigated. 44 There are several ad- vantages to a system thus described, especially in Alaska where long distances and large areas can best be covered by aircraft and where fre- quent cloud cover makes visual observation difficult or impossible. After a season of operations with such a system a comparative evaluation of its usefulness would determine whether it could be beneficial to expand use or coverage. Microwave Radar^s Microwave radar has been used for ocean surveillance by aircraft and ships for almost 40 years. The technology is highly developed and the design principles are so well known that it is possible to predict with high confi- dence the performance of any given design chosen for use. Microwave radar has better potential for large area coverage than any other system now in use. Microwave radar operates by transmitting pulses of energy from a directional antenna. The pulses are reflected by any material object encountered. The reflected energy is subse- quently received and analyzed to determine the position and characteristics of the reflect- ing objects. The direction of the objects can be determined by tracking the reflected signals and the distance is determined by measuring the time delay from pulse transmission to reception of the reflected signal. The basic information for fisheries enforce- ment which can be supplied by microwave radar is: . the presence or absence of a vessel in a given area; 50 . the position of a detected ship at a given point in time; • course and speed of a vessel when a series of position updates are available; and . estimates of gross shape and size. However, microwave radar by itself has almost no potential to classify vessels by type, nationalitiy, or operation. Some classification may be possible by continuous tracking to establish movement patterns, but microwave radar's primary contribution to classification is in guiding patrol ships or aircraft to a posi- tion where identification can be made by visual means. Detection of fishing vessels by radar is enhanced, and identification and classification made possible, by adding trans- ponders onboard permitted foreign fishing vessels. Any modern commercial or military ship- board radar can easily detect fishing boats at a distance of up to 12- to 18-nautical miles (nmi). Existing ground-based, surface-search radars, such as the sea surveillance radars developed for the Pacific Missile Test Center by the Navy Electronics Laboratory Center, can detect fishing vessels at a distance of up to 40 nmi from the land base. These systems are already in use by the Coast Guard which has some of the best available equipment. The opportunities for improving the use of microwave radar lay in the use of more ad- vanced radar systems from aircraft or satellites 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 with radar could patrol the west coast out to and beyond the 200-mile fishing zone once every 4 hours (see figure 13). For satellite sur- veillance, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has estimated that Figure 13 Useful Surveillance Coverage by a State-of-the-Art Microwave Radar on a 70-kft Altitude Aircraft Coast Line Source: Stanford Research Institute twice daily imaging of the entire U.S. fishery zone could be provided by eight satellites. Microwave radar technology operated from satellites is being developed by the Depart- ment of Defense and NASA and may be available within 10 years. The system has the potential 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 Radar** Use of over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) techniques would allow detection of fishing boats at much greater distances and would allow coverage of much larger areas than those covered by microwave radar. This is because remote sensing using signals in the microwave and other very high fre- quency ranges is constrained by the essen- tially line-of-sight nature of the signal. For all practical purposes, this means that the sensors must be elevated in order to operate over sig- nificant distances. The use of over-the-horizon radar reduces this constraint by making use of signals in the high frequency range in which energy waves are refracted by the atmosphere or ionosphere to follow the curvature of the earth. High frequency energy has been used for communications since the earliest days of radio. The technology for generation, transmission, and reception of high frequency energy is well developed and the effects of the atmosphere and ionosphere on the signals are well understood. However, some aspects of using high frequency signals are not so well understood. Among these are the reflection characteristics of material objects at high fre- quency. Means of concentrating and coding high frequency transmissions to enhance radar operation and the processing of radar returns in order to extract more information about the object detected also are still being developed. OTHR has been developed primarily for military use and several experimental systems, capable of performing a number of useful functions, have been built by the Naval Research Laboratory, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other groups. Two types of OTHR might be useful in fish- eries enforcement, a skywave mode and a groundwave mode: Skywave OTHR takes advantage of the refractive property of the ionosphere, which causes the radar to curve back to earth at dis- tances ranging from 500 to 2,000 nmi (see figure 14). Thus wide area coverage is possible from a single site. For instance, a single skywave OTHR located in Utah could provide surveillance coverage over the entire Pacific Coast (see figure 15). Groundwave OTHR, in which radio energy travels along the curved earth surface, pro- vides much more limited coverage, but may be useful in specific regions. Groundwave OTHR has an operational radius of a few hundred miles. Thus, while ships out to and beyond the 200-mile zone could be detected from a shore station, many stations would be required to cover the entire coast. Both systems can provide continuous sur- veillance of very large areas so that the general location of all fishing boats of at least a certain minimum size can be monitored on a full-time basis. If transponders are installed on the boats, detection can be enhanced and other useful information can be obtained. Because of their capability to cover greater distances and larger areas, OTHR techniques have good potential for use in fisheries en- forcement. However, due to both the classified 52 Figure 14 Over-the-Horizon Radar F-Layer Surface of the Earth Minimum Range to Shoreline Transmitter and Receiver Location Source: Stanford Research Institute nature of most of the military work in the field and the high cost of OTHR, use of this system will be contingent upon close cooperation be- tween the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard. Microwave Radiometry'*^ Microwave radiometers operating alone offer 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 would locate, identify, and classify ships in almost any weather, day or night and provide other data on sea state, sea ice, and rainfall rates as well. A radiometer is merely a sensitive detector which receives and measures the brightness temperature of microwave energy naturally emitted and reflected by surfaces. Detection of a ship is possible because the microwave energy thus reflected by a ship is different than that of the surrounding ocean. A wooden ship appears radiometrically "warmer" and a steel ship "cooler" than the ocean. It is an en- tirely passive system, as opposed to active techniques which measure the reflection of signals which have been transmitted by radar. One of the advantages of the passive system is that it allows surveillance without radiation, therefore, the target does not know it is being observed. Microwave radiometers have been used routinely in satellites to measure whether con- 53 Figure 15 Over-the-Horizon Radar Coverage From Hypothetical Stations A2,0° 2000 nm» •Ci .? ^ ' "^ 1000 nmi/ A^*~t ^ ^>( 7 20° J \ /'Snn nmi' / ^ A^? 32, ^ / 40° / X/ \J\J\J MINI / ' — \^^ X \( A 1^/ / — ./V—J— ^ ^^^^ \ 140° P^jl.^/500 nmiS T 500 nmi //'^ \ y 1000 nmi V/"^ / ^^^ v/ ^^^ /_ ^\sr^1 000 nmi V \ /'r(~v^^iir'^ __/_^ =>-^ \\^s/ / / 60° \\^ / I J^J^j^f£°»^^<^ \ ^^^\ / ^\ \ j 2 ^y^^^^^^'^i^ \ / \ ^ ^ \ — "xr^ 120° / 100° 1 C^^^ ^4-¥ - 54 Source; Stanford Research Institute ditions and airborne radiometers have been successful in mapping weather fronts and sea states. Radiometric measurement of oil spills have been made with limited success and radiometers have been frequently suggested for use in missile terminal guidance systems. Although there do not appear to be any operational systems at present that are specifically designed for detection of ships, such systems have been studied and pro- totypes have been tested. The existing tech- nology is more than adequate for the detection of fishing vessels. However, constraints on maximum fre- quency and the detectability of relatively small ships severely restrict the height from which a radiometer can effectively operate. Satellites could not be used for radiometer detection of fishing vessels, and aircraft would be limited at altitudes of about 6,000 feet. At that altitude fishing vessels could be located to within 2,000 feet in range and 2 degrees in bearing (see figure 16). Optical and Electro-Optical Techniques*^ With existing technology a variety of opti- cal and electro-optical sensors can be built which could perform many useful functions in enforcement of the 200-mile fishery zone. This category of sensors includes the tradi- tional visual, aided visual, and photographic techniques — ranging from the human eye to electronically augmented viewing systems and film cameras — and the more sophisti- cated, recently developed methods of electro- optics such as low-light-level television and infrared or thermal mapping systems. These systems are likely to play supporting or aux- iliary, rather than primary roles, in enforce- ment. Figure 16 Airborne Scanning Microwave Radiometer 6200 ft Source; Stanford Research Institute 91-072 O - 77 - 5 55 Optical detection and surveillance systems can be operated from satellites, aircraft, or ships. The combination of timeliness of coverage and operational economics makes aircraft seem the most useful surveillance craft for the near future, with some data being derived from existing or projected satellites, and with final follow-up performed by sur- face vessel. One of the major problems of optical sen- sors is the processing and handling of raw- data output. Photographic film requires chemical development, usually at the end of a reconnaissance mission (that is, when the aircraft lands or ejected film capsules have been retrieved from satellites). In some cases, film from aircraft can be rapid processed in flight to allow for examination or data ( ■ .S" C'oa\t Ciutni Photo Coast Guard surveillance aircraft can be used for visual observation of ttie fistiing grounds, facilitating detection and identification of foreign vessels 56 transmission within minutes, for immediate interpretation of close-up photography. But images from long-range, high-altitude satellites need more extensive and detailed ex- amination, often requiring several hours or even days by expert photo-interpreters before useful, specific data are developed. Most of the electro-optical systems can provide realtime outputs capable of immediate display and ex- amination in the form of electrical signals readily amenable to interpretation or transmission to a shore-based facility. Optical and electro-optical techniques vary widely and the choice of specific systems would depend on the enforcement strategies chosen. Electromagnetic Intercept Techniques*' Because all ocean-going vessels are already equipped with radio equipment and most with navigational radar, it is possible to detect and classify foreign fishing vessels by inter- cepting and analyzing their radio or radar emissions. Two techniques have potential in fisheries enforcement activities: the use of direction finding equipment to determine the position of detected vessels and the use of information from the intercepted transmissions to identify and classify the vessel. The technology for both direction-finding and communications interception and analysis is highly developed and numerous systems have been developed for both mili- tary and civilian use. These systems can be operated from shore bases, ships, aircraft, or satellites. At high frequencies intercept is not limited to, but does work best, within line-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 per hour. In the past, direction-finding equipment was used primarily for location of aircraft and ships in distress. Currently, however, it is in use largely for monitoring and surveillance. The Federal Communications Commission maintains a network to locate illegal radio transmitters and sources of radio interference; the Department of Defense operates several networks for surveillance and intelligence data collection. It is possible that some signal intercept in- formation from DOD files can be made availa- ble to the Coast Guard for fishery enforce- ment. However, most of the DOD operations are mission-oriented and are flown in areas of military interest, therefore it is unlikely much time is spent tracking fishing fleets. The feasibility of assigning military aircraft for fishery patrols would be expensive and would have to be worked out with DOD. The Coast Guard could supply personnel to sort out fishery information collected by DOD or an entire direction-finding station could be dedicated to Coast Guard fisheries work. Because of the security implications of much of the data handled by DOD facilities, such coordination may prove difficult. Magnetic TechniquesS" Magnetic anomaly detector systems have been built and used for the detection of sub- marines and there is no reason why they would not be equally successful in detecting fishing vessels. The systems operate by detect- ing local changes in the direction and strength of the earth's magnetic field caused by any ob- ject, such as a steel-hulled vessel, with mag- 57 netic properties. However, because detection is possible only at a much shorter range than with radar or visual systems and because no classification of vessels is possible, magnetic techniques presently have little potential for use in fisheries enforcement. Acoustic Techniquessi Detection and classification of fishing vessels by use of acoustic techniques is possi- ble because the technology for the generation, transmission, and reception of acoustic energy is well established and the factors that in- fluence acoustics in the ocean and atmosphere are well known. The use of acoustic techniques for the detec- tion of fishing vessels can be extrapolated from the Navy's experience in submarine detection. However, new equipment and new methods of use would have to be developed. Since most of the existing acoustic systems are highly classified it is not possible to describe them, except to say the equipment is very complex and costly to operate. Much develop- ment would be needed to determine the usefulness of these systems for fisheries law enforcement. VIA Photo Oceanographic vessels, such as the Albatross II of Woods Hole, will be used in some fisheries research 58 4. Management of New US. Fisheries Zone 4. Management of New \ Fisheries Zone Background The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265) is potentially the most significant institutional change in the history of U.S. fisheries management. The law extends the limits of U.S. jurisdiction out to 200 miles and incorporates some advanced ideas about ways to manage marine fisheries in the United States. Implementation of this law will require a level of understanding about the infrastructure of the fishing indus- try that has never before been attempted by the U.S. Government. Eventually it will re- quire a thorough description of the entire cy- cle from spawning fish to fish on the dinner table. In the past, each section of the fishing industry — i.e., fishing, processing, retailing, etc. — was concerned only with its own aspects of the cycle. There has been little correlation of information and no indepth analysis of the in- terdependence and the interrelatedness of the various segments of the industry. A better un- derstanding of the fishing industry as a whole will be necessary in order to implement the management theories put forth in the new law. Management, according to the law, means the use of "rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures (A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery resource and the marine environment; and (B) which are designed to assure that: (i) a supply of food and other products may be taken and that recreational benefits may be obtained, on a con- tinuing basis; (ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fishery resources and the marine environment are avoided; and (iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available with respect to future uses of these resources. "52 Public Law 94-265 implies that proper management of U.S. fisheries will result in conservation of fish stocks, which means a reduction in overfishing of some species, in- creased fishing of underutilized species, and enhancement of stocks which are currently overutilized or depleted. International pressures now exist to take the last available ton of some popular species from the ocean each year. For example, in its latest report to Congress under the terms of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctu- aries Act of 1972, NOAA concludes that about 10 to 15 major finfish and shellfish stocks have been overfished, primarily by foreign fleets; other stocks are in danger of being overfished, and numerous others are "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 that many people believe have been neglected in the past — and that seem to be of great impor- tance in effectively managing fishery resources in the future. The major elements of fishery management which were examined by OTA are: • development of and use of the concept of optimum yield; • establishment and operation of fishery management councils; • preparation of preliminary management plans for foreign fisheries; • preparation of final management plans for domestic fisheries; and • evaluation of management effectiveness. This section describes the status of these management elements, discusses some of the planning which is needed for future manage- ment, and describes specific information which will be needed for adequate manage- ment. The information needs were determined by special studies commissioned by OTA. These studies are referenced throughout this report as working papers and are being published separately. 61 optimum Sustainable Yield One of the most important management principles set out in the law is that 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 to the Nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities; and (B) which is determined as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factors. 54 Implicit in optimum yield is the idea that the concepts and data from all the fields indi- cated in the Act should be integrated and not treated as separate entities. Management plans based on the finest concept will do little good if their implementation results in dangerous depletion of the fish stocks or massive social disruption with attendant political agitation. Unfortunately, integration of biological, economic, and social information poses major problems. In the past, it was considered adequate to analytically determine the total allowable catch that each species could sustain without damage to the parent stock. That figure was known as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). However, most fishery experts would now agree that MSY cannot be determined for any species because there are too many unknown biological factors which influence the size and health of fish stocks. This situa- tion is further complicated by the traditional common-property nature of fish resources and incomplete knowledge of the entire marine ecological system. In addition, social and economic factors are of considerable importance in a free society and do, in fact, have a major effect on actual utilization of each species. The concept of op- timum as opposed to maximum (or "best" as opposed to "most") is to take these social and economic factors into consideration. Like an MSY figure, a precise optimum- yield figure for each fishery is not attainable at this time. However, a process can be sought for considering all factors and reaching a com- promise set of guidelines to follow for good management. Such optimum yield concepts should be adaptable to changes in resource priorities, knowledge about the resource, information about its use, and the trade-offs that result from management. Optimum yield is the core of each management plan which will probably include such other items as: quantities and types of fish to be harvested; methods and techniques to be used; and measurements and evaluations to be conducted. No specific process for seeking optimum yield for a fishery has been established yet. The yield figures used by the National Marine Fisheries Service in drawing up preliminary management plans are estimates based on ex- isting data, which is mostly biological in nature. However, NMFS and the Regional Councils are wrestling with the problem of how to pursue optimum yield. A workshop of council members and Federal officials is being planned for purposes of devising a method of seeking the optimum yield for each fishery. New concepts need to be developed and much new information must be gathered in order to obtain an integrated view of the fisheries of the United States and to determine the op- timum yield of a fishery. In the meantime, it is clear that at least the following factors should be considered: 62 Regional Fishery Management Councils • biologically based estimates or predic- tions of the maximum yield which can be expected from each stock without future depletion of that stock; 55 • quality of the predictions or the range within which they are likely to be accu- rate so that safety margins can be built into catch figures; 56 • such relevant ecological factors as water quality, destruction of breeding grounds, disasters such as oil spills or severe weather; and • economic and social factors of individual fisheries which will be relevant in deter- mining the effect of management options on such interested parties as commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, food proc- essors, marketing groups, fish-food con- sumers, and the general public. 57 In reality, the exact meaning of optimum yield and the best method of determining it will be determined by the Regional Councils through their decisions in the coming years. In the absence of an analytical method, 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 are unreliable, further judgments may be used. Even with an analytical method and reliable data, there will be uncertainty and techniques for dealing with that uncertainty will be necessary. Public Law 94-265 establishes eight Regional Councils which will set standards, develop plans, and prepare regulations for the management of fisheries in each region. The regions and their jurisdiction are shown in figure 17. Each council includes members from industry and other parties of interest in the region as well as representatives of State fisheries offices, the Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a Coast Guard representative, and a representative of the Department of State. The Secretary of Commerce, who appoints the voting members of the councils from lists of potential members submitted by the Governors of the States in each region, has been asked to seek an amend- ment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act which would require that environmental interests be represented on the councils. Similar consideration should proba- bly be given to consumers. Figure 18 lists the councils and their memberships on the effec- tive date of Public Law 94-265. The Regional Councils have broad authority to recommend fishery management plans to the Secretary of Commerce for ap- proval and implementation. The management plans which the councils will be formulating must, under the law, take into consideration domestic fishing, foreign fishing, and recrea- tional fishing. Once it is determined what por- tion of the allowable catch can be harvested by U.S. vessels, the remainder is to be allocated as foreign catch. The general responsibilities of the councils are clear (see figure 19), but their relationship to the future operation of already established Federal agencies is not so clear. The Federal agency with the major responsibility in 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 the councils, mostly in the form of biological stock 63 Figure 17 Regional Council Jurisdictions and National Marine Fisheries Service Regions Juneau North • Pacific Council belongs to both North Pacific and Pacific New England Council Western Pacific Council Mid-Atlantic Council South Atlantic Council Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Caribbean Council Source: OTA 64 Figure 18 Appointed Voting IVIembers of Regional Councils' New England f Mid-Atlantic South Atlantic Spence Apollonio Executive Director John Burt New Bedford Fishermen's Union Jacob J. Dykstra Point Judith Fishermen's Cooperative Association Henry Lyman The Saltwater Sportsmen John C. Bryson Executive Director John H. Burger, Jr. Burger Construction Co. L. Eugene Cronin Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies William M. Feinberg Attorney Ernest D. Premetz Executive Director Norman B. Angel North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc Gertrude W. Bernhard Wayne E. Swingle Executive Director George A. Brumfield Zapata-Haynie Corporation Thomas H. Clark Sun Circle Resort Theodore B. Ford, III Louisiana State University Edward J. MacLeon Lipman Marine Products Thomas A. Norris Old Colony Trawling Corp. Virgil J. Norton University of Rhode Island Nancy K Goell Group for America's South Fork, Inc. Elliot J Goldman Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission William J. Hargis, Jr. Virginia Institute of Marine Science David H. Hart Marine Fisheries Consultant Allen F. Branch J. Roy Duggan King Shrimp Company, Inc. Edgar C. Glenn, Jr. John M. Green Miller-Vidor Land Company Thomas P. Ricci Block Island Bluefish Invitational Tournament Charles B. Stinson Stinson Canning Co. Richard F. Wadleigh Allen W. Haynie Zapata-Haynie Corp. John L. McHugh Marine Sciences Research Center William R. Pell, III Pell's Fish Market Allan J Ristori Garcia Corporation Ricks E. Savage Commercial Fishermen George B. Gross Red Lobster Inns of America Benjamin T. Hardesty Shakespeare Company Bruce A Lentz Department of Administration Nicholas Mavar, Jr. Mavar Shrimp and Oyster Co., Ltd. Robert P. Jones John A. Mehos Southeastern Fisheries Assoc , Inc. Liberty Fish and Oyster Company C. Walton Kraver Seafood Haven Inc. Robert G Mauermann Texas Shrimp Association Billy J. Putnam Edward W. Swindell Wallace Menhaden Products, Inc. 65 Figure 18 (Continued) Appointed Voting IVIembers of Regional Councils' Caribbean Pacific North Pacific Western Pacific Omar Munoz-Roure Executive Director Antfiony Chioromitaro St. Croix Fishermen's Cooperative Lorry Nakatxu Executive Director James A. Crutchfield University of Washington George J. Easley Douglas B. Eaton Henry F. Eaton Koniag, Inc. Harold E Lokli This failure to standardize operations within NMFS before the initial plans were written may have com- plicated the councils' job of preparing suc- ceeding plans by failing to give them a model after which to pattern their work. It may also perpetuate regional differences within NMFS and complicate the national review process. As the councils consider the preliminary plans and attempt to develop the management process, much must be learned about the effectiveness of management techniques and presentation of plans. The most pressing need for improvement, however, is in the area of developing and considering economic, social, and biological data to be used to modify the catch figures presented in the preliminary plans. Figure 22 1977 Northeast Stock Assessment and U.S. and Foreign Quotas (In IVIetric Tons) Resources and Production Areas Optimum Stock Possible Under Stnct Mgmt Max Yield From Opt Stock 1977 Total Adult Stock (est 1 1977 US Allowable Catcti Iprop ) 1977 Foreign Allowable Catcn (prop ) 1977 TAC As Proposed US •• 01 Total Catch % Dilterence Ot U S Quola To 1 976 Quota 1976 US ICNAF Quota 1976 Foreign ICNAF Quota 1976 1 ICNAF ' TAC--' Atlantic Herring ICNAF Oiv 5Z SA6 Div 5Y 500,000 110,000 125,000 30,000 204,000 58,000 16,000 6,000 16,000 1,000 33.000 7,000 54 5% 86 7% *34% 0% 12,400 6,000 47 600 1,000 60,000 7,000 LongFinned Squid (Loligo Pealei) ICNAF Div SASe 75,000 44,000 75,000 25000 19 000 44,000 56 8% *37 5% 8,500 21,600 30,000 ' StiortFinned Squid (lllex illecebrosus) ICNAF Di» SA5-6 1110,0001 135,0001 1110,000) 12,500 22,500 35,000 35 7''o + 10 7% 7 500 36,500 44,000 Red Hake lUroptiycis ctiuss) ICNAF Div 5ZW-SA6 Div 52e 96,000 47,000 40,000 20,000 35,000 (60,000) 7,000 1,500 21,000 14,500 28,000 16,000 25 0°. 9 0°. -12 5% » 62% 6,000 1 000 10,000 26,000 16 000 26,000 Silver Hake IMerluccius bilinearisl ICNAF Div SZw SA6 Div 6Ze 245,000 420,000 36,000 55,000 245,000 420,000 12,500 16.000 37,600 56,000 50,000 70,000 25 0% 21 4% ♦ 4 1% + 4 4''o 9 000 8,500 34,000 41,600 43,000 50,000 Atlantic Mackerel IScomber scombrus) U S designated zone in ICNAF Div 5 and 6 1,250,000 (313.0001 374,000 5.000 50,000 56,000 9 \% + 7 3% 4,700 249,300 264,000 Ottier Finllsh' (IncI 50 60 speciesi ICNAF Div 5 and 6 1550,000) (150,0001 (550,0001 78, 000- 72,000- • 150,000 52 0% .6 7% 68,000 82,000 150,000 Totals (3,402,0001 1847,0001 (2,131.000) 180,500 307.500 448,000 36 9S ♦ 17 6% 131,600 548,400 680,000 •Includes 10.000 MT Quota of River Herring (or U S Fishery * *No River Herring (Alewite or Blueback) May Be Harvested by Foreign Vessels ' "TAC (total allowable catch) 'Includes Angler, Cusk. Ocean Pout, Sculpins, Soup, Searobins, Tilefish. White Hake. WoUtishes. Bluefish. Buttertish, Alewite, Argentine, Croaker. Black Sea Bass. Dogfish, American Shad, Skates. Spot. Squeateagu. Striped Bass *( ) Denotes Questionable Data NOTE Quotas for 1977 are proposed only Management plans developed by NMFS setting quotas are preliminary until such time as the regional councils are able to establish their own plans Northeast fisheries not listed {including ocean perch, cod. haddock and yellowlail flounder) will be 100% US, and no foreign fisheries (except incidentally) will be allowed Source: National Fisherman 72 Final Management Plans for Domestic Fisheries As the councils become operational, they will assume their principal responsibility of developing management plans for domestic fisheries. There is no deadline for issuing specific plans. However, serious problems with heavily fished species have been recog- nized in two areas and emergency domestic management plans have been prepared to take effect simultaneously with the preliminary management plans for foreign fisheries. These plans were prepared by NMFS and there is some concern that they will not be well received by domestic fishermen because of the lack of local input to the regulations. This possibility could have been avoided — and can be avoided in the future if additional emergency plans are deemed necessary before the councils are working fully — if NMFS were to detail or loan personnel to the councils for preparation of the plans. Such an arrangement would put the councils in charge of the prepa- ration and ensure the input of industry and other interested segments of the public. Although there are well-known ad- ministrative problems and costs in detailing personnel, such a system should be investi- gated because of its potential for making professional staff members available to the councils on an as-needed basis without the necessity of building up bureaucracies within the councils themselves. Two draft domestic management plans were prepared by NMFS. One of the New England fishery for haddock, cod, and yellowtail flounder and one for the Pacific fishery for salmon. For New England, some judgmental in- creases and decreases were made in maximum sustainable yield figures supplied by the NMFS lab and an attempt was made to set an optimum yield which reflects economic and social factors. The draft plan determines that there is to be no foreign catch and allocates the domestic catch between commercial and recreational fishermen. The plan also recom- mends that the stock be protected by some fishing regulations such as ones on mesh size, minimum catch size, and tying the allowable catch to the number of crew members per boat. In the Pacific, the domestic catch is allocated among commercial, recreational, and native American fishermen and regulations are set, including fishing season, area closures, and bag and size limits. Beyond these two emergency plans, there is no priority list of domestic fisheries for which management plans should be prepared. Since NMFS now has the most information on U.S. fisheries and the status of stocks in general, and since NMFS has the power to prepare domestic management plans if the councils do not do so, it would be helpful if NMFS would compile a listing of fisheries where manage- ment plans are needed. Such a listing should be a priority ranking and should delineate the needs for management plans in each case. Such a list would help focus the councils' early work and would be helpful in projecting their information needs. .\uiwtii2l Oceittai utttl Alin8 The budget is projected to double in the next 5 years, but this may not be sufficient. The time and budget needs to provide addi- tional information are enormous. Yet, while such information may well become necessary in the future, the immediate short-term needs for assessment data are for use in designing restoration strategies. Restoration does not demand the same level of accuracy in assess- ment data that is required for long-term management. In the meantime, increased ac- curacy of assessment data carries with it cost implications that may be enormous; therefore, it may be far more cost-effective to choose key indicators upon which to make decisions with all parties participating in those decisions aware that, in the end, yield judgments will remain judgments. It would be desirable to establish clear research priorities for future stock assessment efforts and to define the level of assessment accuracy required for specific management decisions. In addition, clear relationships need to be established between fisheries stock assessment and the needs of other Federal agencies which are responsible for programs which require environmental baseline data. For example, the Department of the Interior requires such information in regions that may be leased for oil and gas development. If prop- erly structured, much of the fisheries assess- ment work could also be utilized for such pur- poses and much of the duplication which now occurs could be avoided. There are two basic problems which arise in the consideration of how to proceed with stock assessments: 69 1. Because of the threatened status of many marine 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. 2. Fisheries managers have been pressured to treat stock assessment information with the same precision as other resource managers treat their data. However, while forest managers, for instance can count the board feet of available timber, fish populations cannot be counted with such accuracy. Therefore, the new pressures to determine sustainable yields may require more precision than stock assessments have delivered in the past or can be expected to deliver in the future. These problems should be considered along with two other facts i^o 1. Assessment history has demonstrated that existing methods have not been properly validated, primarily due to in- adequate data, even concerning those species of traditional value to domestic fishermen. 2. The status of stocks — and, in fact, the pri- mary motivation for extension of jurisdiction — requires a reduction of fish- ing pressure to the extent possible so that the marine biomass can recover. 79 When these four items are considered together, it appears logical that a program should be undertaken to improve the stock assessment data which will be used. Such a program could include the following steps: 7. Test the validity of existing assessment methods during a chosen restoration period During this period, fishing pressure on some stocks should be reduced drastically. Estimates of yields should be on the low side; then if they are incorrect, the major conse- quences are that stocks will recover more rapidly while some economic opportunity is delayed. During this restoration period, time-series of data could be developed through accurate catch and effort figures gained via the use of observers on foreign fishing vessels and a strict enforcement system. In addition, automatic plankton sorting and fish-aging techniques could be developed along with design and development of hydroacoustics, expanded survey cruises for several well- known stocks, and use of improved research vessels for survey dependability. The accuracy of existing assessment methods could also be evaluated under this program to determine the degree of utility the information gained has for management deci- sions. 2. While assessing existing methodology, establish research priorities for the future During the restoration period, the level of accuracy required for assessments under different management goals could be established. For each chosen goal (for 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 the determined level of precision could be out- lined. Then, for each level of precision and those indicators that achieve that precision the following items could be determined: • the probable cost; . the time necessary to provide useful results; and . the relationship of each variable to assessment accuracy under the existing system. 3. Design a program strategy As the existing accuracy of assessment is determined, and as differing management goals have been chosen with regard to re- quired level of accuracy, costs, time needs, and level of increased utility with regard to exist- ing methods, the following program strategy could be established: • a listing of information needs, their utility, and their cost; . the precision of information necessary to achieve various management goals; and • choices for a cost-effective and useful assessment research program. 80 Economic Information There has been some work in the field of fisheries economics during the past 25 years to begin a body of data and theory concerning the appHcation of economics to fisheries management problems, and the impact of economists on Public Law 94-265 is clear. However, additional economic information is necessary under the new law for several purposes: • to determine the optimum yield; • to project the domestic catch and capacity to catch; . to promote efficiency in the harvest sec- tor of the fishing industry; • to understand and manage the impact of foreign fishing and imports of fish to U.S. markets; . to determine the greatest overall benefit to recreational fishing; and • to define fisheries on economically rele- vant terms. ^i The following is a discussion of what infor- mation is important in each of these areas: 1) Optimum Yield. — The information base of the Regional Councils must be adequate to permit determination of the optimum yield. The biological data which exists or can be generated by existing procedures are not suffi- cient alone. Economic and social data are re- quired under the law. Economic data neces- sary to help in determining the optimum yield would include cost and returns, price projec- tions and regional employment considera- tions for a range of management options. Whenever management plans will cause variations in the quantities of fish which will reach markets, price- and market-structure analyses will be necessary for the people whose incomes will be affected. Expenditure and employment data will also be required on sectors of the economy, such as processing, transportation, and sales outlets which have strong links with the fishing industry and will feel induced or secondary impacts of fisheries management. 2) Domestic Catch Projections. — How much of the optimum yield will be harvested by U.S. fishermen depends, to a large extent, on new investments which are influenced by the economic returns of fishermen. Domestic catch, therefore, cannot be reliably projected without a knowledge of the cost and revenue relationships of the U.S. fleets. In addition to the normal free-market forces which affect cost and revenue, there are various domestic and foreign policies which are important. Among these are vessel-construction 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 goals of the various management schemes which may be implemented. Consideration of effi- ciency requires a formal integration of biologi- cal and economic concepts and an adequate data base to express concepts in quantitative terms. The economic data required include cost and earnings information by vessel and gear type, demand relationships and potential nonfishing employment and earnings oppor- tunities for fishermen. 4) Impact of Foreign Fishing and Imports. — Economic information on foreign fleets is of particular 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 a foreign nation and exported to U.S. markets with obvious impUcations for domestic prices, employment, and incomes. A more subtle import market effect may also take place. A foreign nation may have in- ventories of fish products produced partly from fish caught in U.S. waters and partly in waters outside U.S. jurisdiction. Foreign sup- pliers could fill U.S. import demands with products made from fish caught outside U.S. jurisdiction and satisfy their own demands or other world markets with fish caught from U.S. waters. Under these circumstances the foreign nation could claim, correctly, that the fish captured in U.S. waters are not entering U.S. markets. However, the end effect in U.S. markets is the same as if fish caught in U.S. waters had been directly exported to U.S. markets. In terms of U.S. exports, domestic exporters must be able to deliver products at prices com- petitive with foreign producers. One of the factors affecting competitive status is the level of subsidies received by foreign fleets and/or processors. Thus, to assess the international trade aspects of U.S. fisheries, information on the economics of foreign fleets operating in U.S. waters may be necessary. This is a complex area because costs and returns of foreign fleets may include hidden impacts of government intervention, widespread subsidization, and various social welfare policies. Public Law 94-265 specifies that foreign fleets fishing in waters under U.S. jurisdiction must supply certain information. For economic analysis, that data should include direct information on major inputs and costs of foreign fleets, in a form which permits iso- lation of operating costs in transit to waters under U.S. jurisdiction from the operating costs while in U.S. waters. It should also in- clude information on capital construction costs 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 measuring technical efficiency of the fleets by analysis of variances in catch per unit of effort. There is a further need for information on activities of foreign fishing interests which has arisen since the Fishery Conservation and Management Act was passed. The need is for accurate, up-to-date information in three areas: a) foreign investments in U.S. owned fishing vessels; b) foreign investment in proc- essing plants and wholesale operations; and c) the impact of these investments. a) Foreign investment in U.S. oivned fishing vessels: By law,72 the U.S. Maritime Ad- ministration must approve the transfer of ma- jority ownership of U.S. documented fishing vessels to foreign ownership. Under a policy published in the Federal Register in 1973,^3 NMFS agreed to review all fishing vessel transfer applications, giving due considera- tion to all social and economic factors in- volved on an individual basis, to determine if such 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 the transfers is very limited. Through January 1977, more than 1,200 U.S. fishing vessels, ranging from 5 to 500 ^ross tons, have been transferred to foreign owners or foreign flags. 74 Once the vessels carry foreign flags they are subject to the same regulations and quotas which apply to foreign-built vessels. 82 However, these ships can be returned to the U.S. flag fleet by an equally simple procedure, and records should be monitored to determine if this is happening in order to give foreign in- vestors access to U.S. fisheries. There are also foreign investments of less than majority ownership which may in- fluence the economics and activities of fishing vessels. But there are no data at all on these in- vestments, although such investments may ultimately increase the number of U.S. vessels competing for scarce stocks. A larger number of vessels may cause the resource to be spread among more fishermen and make operation inefficient. b) Foreign investments in processing plants and wholesale operations: The last look at foreign in- vestments in this category was a very limited report which resulted from a special survey of foreign direct investment in the United States, conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce in 1974.75 The report, prepared by the Economic and Marketing Research Division of NMFS in April 1976, showed that 47 U.S. commercial fish processing and wholesale firms were at least partially owned by foreign interests which held 10 percent or more of the voting stock. The total value of the foreign invest- ment in U.S. firms was (in 1974) $129 million. More than half of the firms involved had received foreign investments since 1970 and during 1974 investments rose 30 percent, ac- cording to the report. More than half the total value of foreign direct investment in fishing firms at that time was from the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Other countries investing were Den- mark, Iceland, Norway, Kuwait, and Mexico. The firms in which these countries invested operate 107 facilities, located mostly in Alaska and the State of Washington, but also spread along the east coast. In its report, NMFS acknowledged that a major reason for foreign investment is proba- bly the desire to gain a more certain access to additional supplies of fishery products beyond what the countries can harvest off their own coasts. As the United States and other coastal nations moved to extend their jurisdiction over fisheries out to 200 miles, in- vestments in firms which could export prod- ucts appeared to be one way of keeping some access to fishing areas which might be closed to foreign vessels. Instead of being frozen out by the U.S. 200-mile fishery jurisdiction, foreign nations with investments in U.S. firms share in benefits and protections of the law. Presently, there is no mandatory disclosure of the actual extent of foreign investment in U.S. fish processing and wholesale operations. Such disclosure would be necessary in order to determine if foreign investment has in- creased along lines that would support the NMFS theory that such investments could be used as a hedge against low-catch allocations for foreign fishermen. In addition, there are no data on the point of origin of fish products imported to this country. Such data, which could identify if fish had been caught in U.S. waters, could be collected by the Bureau of Customs and would help in assessing the impact of foreign fishing activities. c) The impact of foreign investments: Concern has been expressed by the public and some Members of Congress that foreign invest- ments may allow some countries to circum- vent some provisions of Public Law 94-265 or 83 that foreign interests may directly or in- directly exert a political influence on policies for fisheries management and regulation. ^^ Concerns about foreign investments in fish- ing vessels and processing or wholesale operations are that any of the following may result: • Less processing of fish may be done locally, leaving part of the work to be done in a foreign country by low-cost labor, thus reducing the value of the local industry. . It may be possible for a vertically inte- grated company to operate a fish process- ing plant in the United States on a breakeven basis and take profits abroad thus escaping Federal and State taxes in the United States. . The firms may be able to operate at lower cost or pay higher prices for fish, thus making competition difficult for firms wholly owned by U.S. interests. • Large-scale export of products from U.S. plants owned by foreign investors may be a way of avoiding catch quotas and permit fees for foreign fishing vessels. . Increased demand for fish from foreign- owned firms which want to export prod- ucts may cause increased pressure on stocks 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 also happen:''7 . Higher prices may be paid to fishermen for their catch. . More money may be available for plant expansion and product diversification. . Risk of production may be reduced by firm commitments from foreign markets for fish products. . Good markets may be found for products not currently saleable in the United States. . The fish trade deficit could be reduced which would be beneficial to the U.S. balance of payments. As a result of passage of the Fishery Conser- vation and Management Act, NMFS is again pondering the meaning and impact of foreign investments in the fishing industry, but no specific studies have been undertaken yet to determine if these investments will have favorable or unfavorable impact on the over- all U.S. fishery and fishing industry. In order to adequately address this problem, a wide range of economic information will be needed, including investment and export data plus all those factors already mentioned as necessary for assessing the impact of foreign fishing and imports. 5) Recreational Fishing. — Although the law is vague on details, it is clear that recreational opportunities in U.S. fisheries are to be con- sidered by the managers. There is a substantial body of literature on recreational benefits, in- cluding recreational fishing benefits, but there are gaps in the data and in measurement tech- niques needed for devising a comprehensive economic data base for recreational fisheries. 6) Definition of Fisheries. — The resources most immediately affected by the law may be classified by species or type of gear and vessel used to harvest them. Classification by species is most relevant for biological data collection and research; however, that definition is not generally relevant to economic considerations. This is because multiple species fisheries are 84 involved, and frequently the same vessel can be employed in fishing for several species. In many cases, the same vessel catches several species simultaneously. Classification by type of vessel and gear seems to be indicated for economic purposes, but there is no accurate inventory of vessels by size, gear, and fishing effort. Status of Current Ittformation Presently the responsiblity for collecting economic information relative to U.S. fisheries is left almost entirely to the Federal Govern- ment through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). There are no comprehensive regional data collection programs to augment the Federal information base. Few of the regional studies which have been made are based on primary data; most piece the Federal data together with an assortment of ad hoc studies done in the region. The information in regional studies is often not current by the time they are published and the retrievability and validity of the raw data decay quickly because continuity is lacking and the institutional context of the studies is not favorable to maintaining a continuing data base. Most of the regional studies which have been done would be of limited use to the Regional Councils in their fisheries manage- ment work. Two divisions of the NMFS have been pri- marily responsible for the collection of economic information. These are the Statistics and Market News Division (SMND), which is specifically charged with the collection of data and preparation of periodic statistical reports, and the Economics and Marketing Research Division (EMRD), which was oriented toward economic research and analysis of SMND and other data. However, NMFS recently phased out EMRD. In view of the new economic informa- tion requirements of Public Law 94-265, this decision raises serious questions about the sources of data and analysis for carrying out provisions of the law. In the past, the two divisions of NMFS col- lected information, either directly or from State agencies, on landings by species, value, area of capture, depth, fishing effort, and days absent from port for each vessel trip in the New England offshore fisheries and the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. This information is stored on computer tape or market report sheets and is available at the Northeast Fish- eries Center at Woods Hole, Mass., and at the Washington, D.C., office of SMND. Among the other data series collected by NMFS are: 78 retail price data for major fish products in New York, wholesale price data for selected fish products, ex -vessel price data, production and cold-storage holdings for many fish products, import-export data for various fish prod- ucts, a limited amount of foreign statistics, supply, utilization, and stocks of selected fish products, commercial landings by State, regional summaries of landings, processing and foreign trade bulletins, historical statistics, economic analysis and indicators, market news, and recreational fishing statistics. 85 These are generally accessible to the Regional Councils, but are of limited utility because the format is geared toward researchers rather than fisheries managers. Some, but not all, of these series are available in published form. The published data are more easily available to the Regional Coun- cils, but are also likely to be of limited value because of the time lag between collection and publication. There is another problem in gathering and using economic information which must be thoroughly considered before the law can be effectively implemented. That is the require- ment that "any statistics submitted to the Secretary (of Commerce) by any person in compliance with any requirement (of P.L. 94-265) shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except when required under court order. "79 Jhe law specifically directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations to preserve confidentiality. As long as the data made available are in such a form that individuals cannot be iden- tified, there is probably no problem. However, the use of disaggregated data requires careful planning. Plans for using such data while still protecting its confidentiality were not in- cluded in the Interim Regulations^o formu- lated by NMFS for use as the councils and Federal agencies prepared for the March 1, 1977 implementation of the Act. Presumably sections on confidentiality will be published shortly because without clarification of how disaggregated data will be handled and pro- tected. Federal employees may be reluctant to supply such data to researchers. Methods of Improving Information Base The existing NMFS data base is deficient in several areas if it is to be used to carry out the intents of Public Law 94-265 cited at the beginning of this section. The areas in which additional or more accurate economic infor- mation are needed most urgently are vessel inventories; costs and earnings data; vessel construction costs; demand analysis data; vessel size, employment opportunities, skills of the labor force; and recreational fishing benefits. A continuing annual data base is probably not required in all these areas. However, con- tinuing information is required for vessel in- ventories, costs and earnings, vessel construc- tion costs, and some components of demand analysis. These data are needed for monitor- ing and management decisions, which are repetitive and continuous. Data in the remain- ing areas are needed for working out various isolated 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 be adequate for such purposes. It is estimated that a program to develop this data over the next decade would cost from $2 million to $4 million per year (see figure 23). This range is a substantial increase over the combined budget of the EMRD and SMND of NMFS, but less than 40 percent of the budget for stock assessments. This reflects the low-funding priority which has been ac- corded economic research in the past. It is assumed that the agency responsible for collecting this data would be NMFS acting as lead agency and contracting with other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This may also be an area in 86 Figure 23 Summary of Projected Program Costs for Economic Data Collection Task 1 . Vessel Inventories Initiation Date Immediate Schedule Annual Cost* $250,000 2. Cost and Earnings Immediate Annual $1,000,000 3. Vessel Construction Immediate Annual $50,000 4. Household Survey FY 1978 5-year Intervals $150,000/5 Years + $50,000/Year 5. Employment Skills Immediate 5-year Intervals $25,000/Year to 1980 $400,000/Year in 1980 $1 50, 000/Year after 1980 6. Fisheries Development Immediate Annual $500, 000/Year 7. Marine Recreation Summary by Year Year Immediate Periodic $200, 000/Year First 2 Years $1 ,000, 000/Year for Years 3-5 $400, 000/Year for Years 6 + 1 8 r Thousand $/Year 2,225 Estimates in 1975 dollars Source: OTA 2,075 2,875 2,875 3,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,750 2,750 91-072 O - 77 - 7 87 Social Information which the Regional Councils would wish to contract outside the Federal Government for studies. Since only approximately eight-tenths of 1 percent of the NMFS personnel are classified as economists, NMFS has indicated plans to add economics and statistics staffs to each of the four regional Fisheries Research Centers. This would to some extent alleviate the shortage which exists. There are caveats, however. The plan to create these staffs has not been implemented. Concurrent with this, the economic analysis capabilities of NMFS have almost disappeared with the demise of the EMRD. Furthermore, several economists in the central office have left NMFS. Even if the additions are made, it is ques- tionable whether these regional staffs will have the time or direction to address economic issues from the national perspective which will be necessary in reviewing manage- ment plans. Therefore, although such regional economics staffs are desirable, they are not a substitute for a central economic research and planning capability. To date, among social scientists only the economists have begun to build up a body of data and theory which is applicable to fish- eries management. Other kinds of social scien- tists on the whole have not addressed fisheries problems in the United States. Social data on fishermen and the communities in which they live are almost conspicuously absent from the literature except for a small body of informa- tion on sociocultural systems of modern fish- ing communities in the United States and other industrialized nations. These data have been developed by anthropologists. Anthro- pologists have been attracted to fishing largely because of a growing interest in maritime communities and because traditional, rural fishing communities can be studied with the same sets of conceptual tools which anthropologists have developed for studying small, traditional societies in other parts of the world. 81 Anthropologists who are now interested, prepared, and trained to deal with the social, cultural, and historical dimension of fisheries management could form the core of researchers who gather data on fishing cultures that will be required by fisheries managers. Historians might also be used for social data collection while other researchers with experience or interest in fisheries management are moving into this new field. Extended jurisdiction and fisheries manage- ment will undoubtedly affect everything from fishing technology, crew size, catches, income levels, and employment levels, to migration rates, relative population of communities, and social problems such as the level of alcohol- ism, delinquency, and crime. Regional Coun- cils will need to know the effect of decisions made under Public Law 94-265 in order to make sensible alterations in fisheries regula- tions as conditions continue to change. 88 In order to develop a starting point in this field where little substantive work has been done, OTA commissioned a study of existing research and needs. This study, which is in- cluded in Working Paper No. 2, represents one view of the type of research which needs to be done in order to improve the social in- formation base on fisheries. The OTA Work- ing Paper suggests that three kinds of social data probably will be required by fisheries managers to determine an optimum yield that takes sociocultural factors into account, as mandated by the law: 82 . baseline information on fishing com- munities in the United States; • information on social and cultural factors influencing the acceptance of fisheries management proposals; and . information on factors influencing the type and rate of technological change which can be expected in the fishing in- dustry in the future. 1) Baseline Information on Fishing Com- munities.— Baseline data is essentially a picture of the total way of life of fishermen and the communities in which they live. The data will be necessary to the Regional Councils when they are faced with conflicting pressures to make regulations and alter the law in the face of changing conditions. In the absence of ac- curate baseline data, managers and politicians will have to rely on the recollections of in- terested parties. Under those conditions it will be difficult to assess exactly what effects specific regulations have had in the past. Two kinds of baseline data need to be col- lected by different kinds of research tech- niques. First, there is a need for quantitative demographic, social, and economic data on a large sample of fishermen and fishing ports. This data could be obtained by: a) administering a questionnaire to a repre- sentative sample of household heads of families in the fishing business to obtain data 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; species caught; 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 in the United States to obtain information on transportation facilities; fish process- ing capabilities; size of community and size of fishing population; alternate employment opportunities; fisherman's organizations; fishing grounds and stocks; fishery statistics; fleet charac- teristics; marketing patterns; and facilities necessary for a fishing industry (e.g., hardware stores, repair facilities, docks, etc.). Second, qualitative information needs to be obtained on the entire culture and social struc- ture of "typical" fishing communities in key areas of the coastal United States. Information on the status and roles of people in fishing crews and cooperatives, the organization of groups in the communities, the values and goals of people in those communities, the kinds of problems people face, and patterns of cooperation and conflict are of special impor- tance. The result of collecting such informa- tion would be a set of standard monographs on fishing communities similar to those which anthropologists and sociologists have done in the past. Of course, these monographs would not attempt to cover every aspect of the life and culture of the total community, but rather they would focus on the people and families directly involved in fishing. 89 2) Information on Acceptance of Fisheries Management Plans. — In the past, many efforts to manage marine fisheries to benefit stocks of fish and the consumer have failed, primarily because the proposals have been massively opposed by the fishing industry. When people oppose proposals that involve planned social change, there are usually two reasons: a) the change is not economically profitable for them, or b) the change is not congruent with existing social institutions.83 If fisheries management plans under Public Law 94-265 are to succeed, they must gain enough acceptance in the fishing industry that they will not invite massive opposition. To gain that acceptance, it will be necessary to understand the costs and benefits of manage- ment and who is affected by each. In most cases, imposition of new fisheries regulations is likely to represent a loss of in- come to fishermen. This means that the costs of management (in terms of decreased catches) will be borne by the men currently in the fishery. The benefits will be gained by future generations of fishermen. Even if the benefits of management were to occur relatively quickly, the men currently in the fishery would bear the costs, but they would have to share the benefits with others who are lured into the industry by improved condi- tions. Solid information will be needed on the way management plans will affect the costs and receipts of fishermen, distribution of in- come, and the traditional political, social, and institutional patterns which will be disturbed by changes. This phenomenon of present fishermen bearing the cost of regulation while future fishermen gain the benefits is another 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 foreign investment or subsidy provides a cushion. In addition, the extra vessels made possible by foreign investments and subsidies will make it necessary to spread domestic allocations over a larger number of vessels. ^^ This may have social as well as economic impacts on the U.S. fishing community. 3) Information on Technological Change. — Under the law, catch limitations may be established for all species of fish. Foreign fleets will be allocated that part of the catch which the American fleet is incapable of harvesting. If the American fleet expands, in time foreign fishing efforts will decrease, perhaps cease en- tirely in some fisheries. The boats that will do best under catch limitations will be modern boats that can catch fish quickly, before the allocation is used up. The larger, better equipped boats, and larger catches will require larger piers, better maintenance facilities, larger processing plants, and better transportation facilities. But the U.S. fishing industry will not revive or ex- pand if there are no markets for fish, if capital for new boats and technology is not available, if piers, transportation facilities, and other kinds of infrastructure are not present. The people of coastal areas will have little control over some of these factors, but it is reasonable to assume that the impact of ex- tended jurisdiction and fisheries management 90 will depend, in large part, on the degree to which the people of coastal areas can take ad- vantage of the opportunities which arise. Fishermen can respond to the new economic opportunities presented by extended jurisdic- tion by adopting new boats and sophisticated fishing equipment or by using existing equip- ment coupled with new fishing and marketing strategies. If large numbers of people are will- ing and able to change existing practices or to invest in new boats and processing equipment embodying new technology, then the effects throughout the social and economic structure L S .\a,y Photo Many innovations may be necessary in the care of equipment and catch if thie domestic fistiing industry is to expand of the coastal communities will be enormous. If fishermen cannot or will not respond, offshore fishing may be gradually taken over by large corporations. A central problem then is to understand the ability of the people of the coastal areas to adopt innovation, particularly sophisticated fishing equipment. The effects of changes on the rest of the social system cannot be assessed until this is understood. In order to assess this ability, fishery managers must have the answers to several basic questions. a) What assets must men have to suc- cessfully adopt new fishing technology? To answer this question, it is necessary to have data on ability to amass capital, ability to save, lending institutions, certain kinds of kin- ship ties, skills that influence the maintenance and output of fishing boats and determine success in commercial fishing, crew organiza- tion, social ties, and the norms which regulate entry into fisheries. b) How many men in a particular area have the requirements for a successful large- scale fishing operation? Some insight into the answer to this ques- tion could be gained by studying the strategies which men currently engaged in large-scale fishing have used in getting assets necessary for adoption of better fishing technology. c) How many of the men who have the re- quirements for a successful large opera- tion, or can easily acquire them, are in- terested and motivated to invest in modern equipment? In order to study patterns of adoption of new innovations, data should be gathered from both large and small operators about the characteristics of men who were "early 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 or not; and biographic and motivational infor- mation on men who control the requirements for adoption of new technology. Status of Current Information Almost none of the information is available to complete the kinds of studies suggested here. There are only a few monographs on modern fishing communities and a few books on ancillary topics such as organization of fishing crews and marketing. Of course, the National Marine Fisheries Service compiles information on landings and fish prices. The National Marine Fisheries Service, however, collects little data about the fishing fleet and no information about fishing effort or any other kind of data on social and political in- stitutions or economic performance. The Bureau of the Census has compiled general data on fishing as an occupation and on com- munities where fishing is done. The Census' data are very superficial and are aggregated in ways that give a picture of units no smaller than towns. Existing studies do not give socio- cultural data on the U.S. fishing industry as a whole. Methods of Improving Information Base The information needed for these studies overlaps a great deal. The first studies to be completed would be indepth studies of impor- tant fishing communities, since all the other 92 studies can to some degree draw on the infor- mation generated. It would be reasonable to expect, if 10 to 15 community studies were begun at the same time, a set of monographs could be completed in 2 to 3 years. The second study should be a survey of at- titudes towards management proposals and factors necessary for technical innovation. The questions to be included might very well de- pend on the part of the country being dealt with. The amount of time such a study would take depends greatly on the number of inter- views needed to obtain statistical reliability. It is estimated that as many as 6,000 interviews would be necessary in the entire coastal region of the United States, and it could take a year or more to collect and tabulate the data. Once this information was available, the re- maining studies on innovation and the accept- ability of management alternatives could begin. All of these would involve indepth in- terviews— perhaps at the same locations where the community studies were done. These studies would take another year of in- terviews and analysis. However, these two groups of studies could not be done by the same person in any given area, since the kinds of people who have the analytical tools to analyze costs and benefits of various manage- ment alternatives probably would not be able to concentrate on the very different issues connected with studying technical innovation and impact. A group of projects similar to those which are used as examples here could be completed in 4 to 5 years. However, these suggestions and others which may be offered should first be tested and refined by social scientists in order to devise an acceptable research plan. Such a plan should be implemented on both the regional and national level in order to develop data which will be useful to NMFS and the Regional Councils. 6. Future Developments in the Fishing Industry 6. Future Developments in 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. fishing industry, particularly through development of now underutilized stocks. Development of the fishing industry is a complicated subject about which little reliable information has been accumulated in the past. With the stimulus provided by the Act, however, new efforts are being made to deter- mine the needs of the industry and the role of the Federal Government in meeting those needs or aiding the industry in meeting them. Because several other studies^s were already underway dealing with the needs of the fishing industry, the OTA analysis of this subject was limited to a very general look at the industry. It was intended that once sur- veys mandated by the Eastland Resolution are completed, that information, together with data collected by the General Accounting Office and OTA, should be correlated and analyzed before further study of the industry is undertaken. In the meantime, there appears to be general agreement among the Eastland group, GAO, and OTA about the status of relation- ships between the Federal Government and the fishing industry: l)The capability and equipment exists for catching almost any kind of fish. Some of this capability is vested in foreign fishing fleets, but it could be adopted for domestic use if there were incentive to do so. What is needed most is a dependable resource and good markets for the catch. These two factors would cause increased interest in technology transfer and new equipment and would allow industry to generate capital for such investments. 2) The Federal Government does not have much dependable information about technology in the fishing industry. 3) Fishing technology is very uneven within the industry, ranging from very poor equipment which results in unsuccessful operations to modern, sophisticated equipment which results in highly suc- cessful operations — all in use in the same fishery. 4) Assessment of fishing equipment and the development of new equipment is difficult without "hands on" experience in the fishing industry. 5) Established fishermen and boat operators generally do not favor Government development of new fishing technology. 6) The industry generally prefers that the Government limit itself to technology transfer and information services rather than massive financial or research sup- port. The following discussion of future develop- ments in the fishing industry is based on OTA research on the west coast and in the New England ground fishery. It is divided into three areas which are key to improving the overall picture of domestic fishing: 1) stock enhancement (increasing the total amount of product available to the fishermen), 2) creation of new markets for fish which are not presently harvested by U.S. fishermen because they are not a saleable product, and 3) methods of revitalizing the fishing indus- try. Each of these areas is discussed in terms of what will be necessary in order to develop useful programs. 95 Stock Enhancement The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 could be a stimulus for com- prehensive stock enhancement programs which 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 ultimate restoration and a 100 percent increase in the catch of U.S. groundfish.86 Basically stock enhancement is the use of procedures which will increase the total amount of edible biomass by increasing the number of fish and/or the size of fish in the population. Stock enhancement is a complex subject, and in spite of erratic periods of intense in- terest by various private and governmental groups, detailed studies are not numerous. In general, certain fisheries, such as salmon, are better understood in terms of stock enhance- ment than others. Various reasons can be given for this lack of data, but one major fac- tor is the problem of control and recovery of stock by the government responsible for the enhancement activities. By extending fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles, the United States has taken control over the fisheries which would benefit from enhancement and has assured that U.S. citizens or permit holders could reap the 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. Pacific salmon, Alaska crab, Atlantic herring, and Pacific pollock. 87 Enhancement possibilities and the benefits to be gained are different for each. These species were selected somewhat arbitrarily in order to study enhancement possibilities as described in OTA Working Paper No. 4. The heavy fishing of these species in the past, with the depletion of stocks of some, and the existing well-developed markets for products of these species make them likely targets for enhancement. However, if a comprehensive program were to be undertaken in reality, careful analysis should go into the selection of the species for enhancement and the specific enhancement methods to be used with each species. The most commonly used methods of en- hancement are control of the harvest, recruit- ment, development of new stocks, habitat management, and aquaculture. The following is a brief description of how each of these methods is used: 1) Control of harvest: If the amount of biomass removed from the stock is prop- erly regulated, then the maximum sus- tainable yield can be achieved. However, a depleted stock, such as haddock, might increase in biomass by natural processes if the amount of fishing is decreased. The levels of harvest which allow this natural recovery are not always easily deter- mined and must be evaluated constantly. 2) Recruitmmt: 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 hatcheries under man-controlled conditions and then released into the natural environ- ment when they are large enough to sur- vive the predation and environmental hazards encountered by very young fish. Hatchery programs related to Pacific Coast salmon and many freshwater species, such as trout and bass, provide excellent examples of successful recruit- ment. Unfortunately, many marine species have not yet been reared under hatchery 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 desirable traits, may be developed and introduced into marine waters or into confined waters for aquaculture purposes. 4) Habitat management and environmental quality: Some species spend a portion of their life cycle in estuaries, rivers, or near shore environments. Poor water quality can have a detrimental effect on the size of the stock either through a marked in- crease in mortality or sublethal effects such as stunted growth. Programs of pollution abatement will assist in stock enhancement. In addition, some attempts at habitat manipulation may increase the availability of a suitable habitat for a species, such as artificial reefs or an 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) Aquaculture 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. Typically aquacultural techniques are used with organisms that are confined to a specific area for harvesting as opposed to nursery programs where organisms are usually released to natural bodies of water. Any of these enhancement techniques have implications for data gathering programs because specific information is necessary for carrying out the procedures, beginning with an understanding of the genetic and func- tional differences — ^the different stocks or populations — that exist within one species of fish. Most of the economic, social, and stock assessment information mentioned in the pre- vious section would also be necessary to design and implement enhancement programs which carry out the spirit of Public Law 94-265. Decisions for improving an existing fishery or developing a new fishery by enhancement techniques would require an intensive and integrated examination of all facets of a fish- ery: resource assessment, harvest and process- ing technologies and costs; market potentials; and institutional factors including artificial barriers to trade. But the absence of viable in- dustry for the fishery make it likely that special studies will be necessary to collect data and project economic effects. If the enhance- ment efforts were successful, these special studies could become the starting point for the continuous monitoring and periodic collec- tion of statistics which will be part of manage- ment and conservation programs in established fisheries. 97 New Markets for Fish Extended jurisdiction will undoubtedly open new markets for species now caught as well as markets for species not caught by U.S. fishermen at present. It is reasonable to assume that the response to these economic opportunities will be highly varied. Some of the factors influencing acceptance or rejection of these opportunities are similar to those affecting technical innovation. In addition, the responsiveness of fishermen to new markets depends on their ability and willingness to catch new species and to process them in ways that make them saleable. Two questions are paramount: 1) Under what conditions will fishermen exploit new species and markets? 2) How many fishermen will exploit a set of species under a given set of conditions? Studying the conditions under which fishermen will exploit new species is simplified by the fact that fishermen now often exploit many different species over the course of the year. At present, it appears that price is one of the primary factors influencing the decision of fishermen to catch various species. That is, they choose the species which will give them the highest revenues relative to costs. If this is generally true, then a change in the economic climate, especially changes in ex-vessel prices, would be one of the key fac- tors influencing the responsiveness of fisher- men to exploit new species. In addition to the prices which might be paid for new species, stock assessments and projections of yields from new species are needed in order to deter- mine if the stocks can sustain a market. In addition, some social information may be needed to determine the preferences fisher- men will have for entering some markets and avoiding others. Their unwillingness to accept certain innovations may limit their ability to enter some markets. This may be true in spite of changes in prices. 98 In order to study the social, cultural, and economic factors influencing the decision of fishermen to enter certain markets at present, two kinds of studies are needed: 1) Data needs to be gathered comparing fishing practices of boats which exploit a wide range of species over the annual cy- cle with practices of those that do not. Emphasis should be placed on such fac- tors as the prices paid for fish, the catch of various species, the locations where fish are caught, etc. Interviews should be obtained with fishermen concerning their decision to enter a given market (i.e., exploit a given species requiring cer- tain handling and processing pro- cedures), and the social and cultural fac- tors inhibiting them from entering others. 2) A set of questionnaires might be ad- ministered to a carefully selected sample of fishermen to obtain data on their preferences concerning entry and exit from particular fisheries. 3) Information needs to be gathered to iden- tify factors which affect the price paid for fish at the docks, the stability or flex- ibility of that price, and how the price affects the fisherman's willingness to direct his efforts toward certain species. This information should be supple- mented by identification of ways in which 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 knowledge of the factors affecting entry and exit into different markets would allow managers to draw up management plans influencing ex- vessel prices paid (e.g., taxes and subsidy) and to manipulate the relative fishing pressure on various species. Revitalization of Fishing Industry Presently, the fishing industry may be un- able to take advantage of opportunities which could be offered by stock enhancement or new markets because many sectors of the industry are experiencing economic difficulty and are unable to attract capital and labor. Yet, no coherent program has been developed to assist the industry or fishermen. As noted in the previous section of this report, economic information about the fish- ing industry is not available in the quality or quantity which is necessary to evaluate problems in any segment of the industry. The status of investment in new harvesting tech- nology and systems, however, has been used as a measure of economic well-being. Many studies of the New England fishing industry conclude that technology is old and ineffi- cient. It is clear that investment in new ships and harvesting technology in New England fisheries was at a low point until passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was assured. The Act stimulated new confidence in the future of the fishing in- dustry and at least 20 new boats were ordered for fishing fleets in New Bedford, Mass., and Point Judith, R.I. However, there is concern among some Regional Council members^s that investment in U.S. fishing vessels may continue to lag, in part due to the industry's lack of success in getting import duties levied or increased on fish products from countries which subsidize their fishing industry. Members of the fishing industry have long contended that the flow of subsidized prod- ucts into the United States adversely affects the competitive position of the U.S. fishing in- dustry (see figure 24). Imports from Canada are of particular concern because the United States and Canada share access to many fish stocks. The Canadian Federal and Provincial Governments have traditionally provided grants, bounties, and other forms of direct and indirect subsidies to their groundfish industry and the cumulative effect of these grants and subsidies has been calculated to reach 35 cents (Canadian) a pound for some types of fish products. In 1975, 150 million pounds of ma- jor groundfish species which may have benefited from such subsidies were exported from the Atlantic fishery in Canada to the United States. 89 By law,90 the Bureau of Customs may levy a duty on imported products which are pro- duced with the support of a foreign govern- ment subsidy or increase an existing duty if there is proof the import is injuring a U.S. in- dustry. Such duties could help protect both the U.S. fishery resources and U.S. invest- ments in fishing vessels. They could also, of course, raise the price of foreign fish products to U.S. consumers and possibly encourage retaliation by foreign governments against some U.S. products. Under existing practices,^! the Tariff Affairs section of the Treasury Department considers duties on fish imports on a case-by-case basis as some segment of the U.S. fishing industry requests that a particular duty be levied or in- creased. Treasury does not routinely monitor duties on fish imports in order to determine their effects; does not initiate action to coun- terbalance any unfavorable effects; and does not develop the case when a U.S. industry re- quests some change in a particular duty situa- tion. Therefore, the full burden of proving that changes are needed in duties on imported fish products falls on individual fishermen or firms which initiate action. This is an extremely difficult task. There are no established criteria for demonstrating that subsidized imports injure U.S. producers, but the fishermen must generally prove that par- 99 100 Figure 24 ^__^.^.^__™_^.^^^„ Nature and Effect or uanaaian uovernmeni Subsidies at Each Level of Canadian Groundfish Industry Subsidies Federal Grant tor Performance Improvement Shipyards Subsidies Grants, Loans, Loan Guarantees by Federal and Provincial Governments Vessel Construction, Moderniza- tion, Conversion, Repair. Purctiase o- Subsidies Bait, Insurance, Fuel Harvesting -6- Subsidies Federal and Provincial Payments to Vessel Owners Per Pound of First Quality Fish Landed Fish Handling <> Subsidies Federal and Provincial Matching Grants lor Landing, Haulout, Etc. Facilities Landing Facilities o- Subsidies Grants. Loans, Guarantees by Federal and Provincial Governments for Plants and Infrastructure Processing Plant Construction, Modernization and Expansion o- Subsidies Paid Per Pound, Fresh and Frozen Fillets and Blocks Fish Processing Source: Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rfiode Island Effect Makes Shipyard Services Available at Lovver Price Effect Substantially Reduces Required Investment in Fishing Vessels: Raises Proportion of New. Efficient Vessels Effect Reduces Current Operating Outlays Effect Increase Supply and Lowers Price of First Quality Landed Groundfish Effect Reduce Required Outlays by by Fishing Vessels Effect Substantially Reduces Required Investment in Processing Plants, Raises Proportion of New. Efticient Plants Effect Reduce Margin Necessary to Break Even on Processing. Increases Supply of Fresh Fillets, Frozen Fillets and Blocks ticular subsidized imports have caused declin- ing production in the United States, unemployment, or decreased markets for U.S. products. Therefore, large corporations with experienced tariff attorneys are frequently successful in winning their cases, and small industries and fishing groups which generally develop their own cases are less successful or are discouraged from making a request. To date, in spite of the urging of fishermen, no overall review of duties on subsidized fish imports has been made in order to determine how the U.S. fishing industry in general is affected. Such a review would allow investors to assess the competition from foreign prod- ucts accurately before putting money into vessels or other fishing operations. Some Regional Council members feel that encourag- ing U.S. interests to invest in the fishing in- dustry is unrealistic and counterproductive until such basic assessments can be made. In addition, there has been a general decline in some fisheries which has been evident in terms of technology and investment, employ- ment and income, productivity and profit. To provide some insight into conditions of technology in the fishing industry, OTA infor- mally surveyed fishermen on the west coast about their gear and sources of technical in- formation. The survey consisted of a short questionnaire which was included with other materials distributed by the Eastland Resolu- tion Fisheries Survey group at their west coast meetings. About 100 fishermen from a variety of fisheries responded to the questions. The survey showed that nearly all crabbers, aquaculturists, and charter -boat operators considered their gear the best available for their operation; a majority of the troUers and seiners were equally confident about the Figure 25 Fishermen's Opinions of Their Gear Type of Fishermen % Considering Gear Satisfactory Aquaculturists 100 Charter Boats 100 Tuna 100 Crabbers 90 Seiners 85 Trollers 70 Swordfish 66 Recreational 60 Groundfish/Bottomfish 50 Gillnetters 33 Trawlers 10 Source: OTA quality of their gear; and half or slightly more of the tuna, bottom, swordfish, and recrea- tional fishermen were satisfied. Gillnetters and trawlers reported very low levels of satisfaction, indicating that improvement in their gear is badly needed. Figure 25 illustrates responses to the question of whether gear was satisfactory. Several specific types of needed improvements were cited: . better nets for groundfish; • better gillnets; 101 • development of a multipurpose, small scale mid-water trawl; and . more efficient equipment to freeze, han- dle, and store fish onboard fishing vessels. Although more than one-third of the fisher- men responding expressed an interest in modernizing equipment and using electronics onboard their vessels, many fishermen emphasized that the job could better be done by private industry than Government. However, Government assistance was strongly advocated for work in several areas of more public concern, such as: . habitat improvement; • location of fish; . identifying migration patterns of fish; • improving dissemination of weather and water-surface temperature data to fisher- men; • finding solutions to localized pollution problems; . stressing the need for conservation; and • improvement of stock assessment infor- mation. OTA also asked the Pacific fishermen how they presently receive technical information and how useful that information is to them. The major source of information was the Sea Grant program through an information system similar to the Agricultural Extension Service. Other sources of information were in- dividual State programs or State universities and fishermen's publications. Information from these sources reached about two-thirds of those surveyed, but only slightly more than half of the respondents considered the infor- mation useful (see figure 26). ^z7ym^—!T7?sr;w:'5iTss Figure 26 Fishermen's Sources of Information 1 Source %of Fishermen Using Source % Considering it Useful Other Fishermen 15.1 85.7 Fishermen's Publications 17.2 56.3 Sea Grant 26.9 56.0 State or State University 19.4 50.0 National Marine Fisheries Service 16.1 40.0 Industry 5.3 40.0 Source: OTA The National Marine Fisheries Service and some industry sources also provide informa- tion, but only 40 percent of the respondents found it useful. A small group of fishermen got their infor- mation only from other fishermen, but such information had the highest reliability rating of any of the sources of information men- tioned. Since the Federal Government through NMFS and Sea Grant already has some struc- ture for disseminating information to fisher- men, it appears likely that this structure could be expanded and improved to reach a larger segment of the fishing population. It should provide more information from a variety of sources, including trusted segments of the fishing industry itself. Such an information 102 system could make use of a clearinghouse concept that gathers and distributes data and perhaps daily NOAA radio reports with weather forecasts, water temperature, weekly reports of fish landings, announcements of current research programs, results of research, and information on grants and financial assistance available to fishermen. Such infor- mation could be provided with relatively little effort and expense. Other information which would 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 reports on stock assessment, marketing, distribution, and handling of fish. The equipment and information needs of the industry will inevitably be debated by the Regional Councils in the course of formulat- ing regulations for the domestic fishery. Gear particularly will come under scrutiny as the councils consider gear restrictions as a means of regulating catch. Such restrictions will limit the efficiency of existing gear and are sure to be challenged by the fishermen. The result may be an increased need for innovations in gear or it may be that councils will be forced to find alternate ways of regulating catch. (For example, a system of fees for illegal by^atch, instead of restrictions on mesh size, may be used, leaving fishermen free to find their own ways of modifying gear or fishing practices so that illegal fish are not taken.) Since the councils will be deeply involved in this area, they should be charged with studying the needs of the fishing industry in their areas and proposing appropriate actions to the Federal Government. In this way, such proposals are likely to more accurately reflect the thinking of the industry and be compatible with industry desires and fishery manage- ment plans. The councils, through NMFS, should also be charged with sharing with other regions what knowledge they have gained about industry practices and problems, proposed Government actions, and successful or unsuccessful management techniques. Revitalization of the U.S. fishing industry is the subject of a recent report by the General Accounting Office^^ and a study by the East- land Fisheries Survey which will be completed soon. Programs for assisting the industry or removing constraints are being proposed by both groups. But sufficient data about various segments of the fishing industry are not now available for evaluating what revitalization proposals are justified. At least the following questions should be addressed for each indus- try segment so that Government agencies, fisheries managers, and private industry can determine what programs are needed and what actions are best suited to each group: 1) What is the status of the fish product in- volved, including history and trends of catch, value, prices, market demand, and distribution? What competition with im- ports exists? 2) What is the status of the technology used for harvesting, its efficiency, its pro- ductivity, the effect on the resource, and the cost of production? 3) What is the status of the labor force and earnings in the fishery? 4) What is the normal and possible area of coverage of the fishery? What mobility and flexibility is available to expand or change? 91-072 O - 77 - 8 103 5) What is the status of the resource? Is there foreign competition for the same resource or another species in the same ecosystem? Can the resource be enhanced or the yield increased? Are there other underutilized resources available for the same industry? 6) What is the economic condition of the in- dustry? What future changes are likely with assistance programs and would they provide short-term or long-term solu- tions? These questions could be tested on specific industry segments and with specific revitalization proposals in order to develop a comprehensive program which addresses na- tional needs most completely. That job could be undertaken by a commit- tee of representatives from each of the Regional Councils. The council committee could synthesize information on industry needs which has been collected by the East- land Survey, the General Accounting Office, OTA, and NMFS. The council committee could then identify important information which is still missing, gather that information itself or through contracts, and recommend a specific course of action for Congress to follow if it desires to take legislative action which could encourage growth in the fishing indus- try. The council committee could also recom- mend specific changes which could be made administratively by NMFS, NOAA, or other agencies currently responsible for programs which include financial aid, research or infor- mation pertinent to the fishing industry. 104 7 Glossary 7 Glossary acoustic — relating to, containing, producing, arising from, actuated by or carrying sound. aquaculture — cultivation of natural fauna resources of water. biomass — the dry weight of living matter, in- cluding stored food, present in a species population and expressed in terms of a given area or volume of the habitat. catch effort — the ratio of amount of fish caught to some measure of fishing effort such as the number of days a typical vessel is fishing. demersal fish — living at or near the bottom of the sea. electro-optics — the study of the influence of an electrical field on optical phenomena, as in the electro- optical Keer effect and the Stark effect. Also known as optoelectronics. ex-vessel — price received by fisherman for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic plants and animals landed at the dock. finfish — classes cyclostomata, elasmo- branchin and pieces of the phylum ver- tebrata; excludes other marine organisms. fish meal — a protein rich, dried-food product produced from inedible portions of fishes by dry or wet rendering. Also known as fish protein concentrate. fish oil — oil obtained from fish such as menhaden, herring, sardine, and pilchard; used as a drying oil in paint and as a raw material for detergents, resins, and margarine. gear — implements developed for the capture of all aquatic animals. gill net — a wall of webbing suspended ver- tically in the water by means of weights (lead) on the bottom line and corks on the top line. The webbing may be made of cot- ton, linen, or synthetic material. The mesh is selected according to the fish which will be captured. grouiidfish — broadly, fish that are caught on or near the sea floor. Bottomfishes, rockfishes, and flatfishes, cod, haddock, pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch. hydroacoustics — study of the propagation of sound waves in water, especially in the oceans, and of phenomena produced by these sound waves. Also known as under- water acoustics. landings — commercial quantities of fish, shellfish and other aquatic plants and animals brought ashore and sold. Landings may be in terms of round (live) weight or dressed weight. Landings of crustaceans are generally on a live-weight basis except for shrimp which may be on a heads-off basis. Loran-C — a low frequency radio navigation system by which hyperbolic lines of posi- tion are determined by measuring the difference in the times of reception of syn- chronized pulse signals from two fixed transmitters; as compared to Loran-A, time difference measurements are increased in accuracy through utilizing phase com- parison techniques in addition to relatively coarse matches of pulse envelopes of received signals within the Loran-C receiver. magnetic — having properties of a magnet; ex- hibiting magnetism; phenomena involving magnetic fields and their effects upon materials. maximum sustainable yield — the balance be- tween the capacity of the resource to renew itself and the harvest that man can take. 107 mesh size — a size of screen or of particles passed by it in terms of the number of open- ings per Hnear inch. Also known as mesh. microwave radiometry — a receiver for detect- ing microwave thermal radiation and simi- lar weak wide band signals that resemble noise 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 in which the transmitted and reflected beams are bounced off the ionosphere layers to achieve ranges far beyond the line of sight. pelagic fish — organisms living in the open sea, including both plankton and nekton. population — a group of organisms occupying a specific geographic area. recruitment — young fish that just become available (vulnerable) to the fishing gear. In long-lived species only a portion of a year class may be recruited each year until finally all are vulnerable. remote sensing — sensing by a power supply, of voltage directly at the load, so that varia- tions in the load lead drop do not affect load regulation. seine net — a net used to catch fish by encircle- ment usually by closure of the two ends and the bottom. seining — surrounding a shoal of fish with a long net, suitably buoyed and gradually drawn closer until the fish can be readily removed. stock — a population of a species which oc- cupies a specific geographical location, especially at the time of reproduction. stock assessment — the study of individual populations of fish in order to determine the size and composition of the population as well as estimates of possible yields. stock enhancement — procedures whereby the total amount of edible product (biomass) is increased by increasing the number of animals and/or size of animals in the population. trolling — method of angling whereby an ar- tificial line or natural bait is drawn behind a moving boat at any depth from the surface to the bottom and at varying speeds accord- ing to the species of fish being sought. Ac- complished in all types of craft. trophic level — any of the feeding levels through which the passage of energy through an ecosystem proceeds, examples are photosynthetic plants, herbivorous animals, and micro organisms of decay. utilization — use of all fishery products both edible and inedible. Estimated 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 species with fluctuatory spawning success the progeny of the successful spawning of one year class may dominate the population at successive ages for several years. 108 S. Footnotes I 8. Footnotes 1. ./'Resources of the Oceans," Bulletin of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 1, N. 3 (May - June 1976) p. 20. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1975, Current Fishery Statistics No. 6900 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, March 1976) p. 73. 3. Comptroller General of the United States, The U.S. Fishing Industry — Present Condi- tion and Future of Marine Fisheries, Report to the Congress, Vol. 1 Pubn. No. CED-76-130 (Dec. 23, 1976) p. 7. 4. Op. cit., "Resources of the Oceans," p. 20. 5. Op. cit.. The U.S. Fishing Industry — Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, p. 11. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Op. cit.. Fisheries of the United States, 1975, p. 31. 9. Op. cit.. The U.S. Fishing Industry — Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries. 10. Office of Technology Assessment, "Fish- eries Technology Assessment: An In- terim Status Report" (Washington, D.C., January 1976, Xeroxed) p. 10. 11. U.S. Department of Commerce, A Morme Fisheries Program for the Nation (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 1976) p. 7. 12. Op. cit., "Fisheries Technology Assess- ment: An Interim Status Report," p. 5. 13. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-265, 16 USC 1801 (1976), Sec. 2 (a) Findings (2). 14. Ibid., Sec. 2 (c) Policy. 15. Op. cit.. Fisheries of the United States, 1975, p. 82. 16. Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation, p. 3. 17. U.S. 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. 18. Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation, p. 1. 19. Op. cit.. The U.S. Fishing Industry — Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, p. 22. 20. Op. cit., "Study of Coast Guard Enforce- ment of 200-Mile Fishery Conservation Zone (PL 94-265)," p. II-8. 21. Ibid., p. A-1. 22. Ibid., p. B-1. 23. Ibid., Appendix C. 24. Ibid.,p.m-4. 25. Interview, Ocean Operations Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., January 17, 1977. 26. Op. cit., "Study of Coast Guard Enforce- ment of 200-Mile Fishery Conservation Zone (PL 94-265)," p. V-2. 27. William T. Coleman, Jr., U.S. Department of Transportation, to Congressman John J. McFall, Washington, D.C., January 19, 1977, Enforcement of 200-Mile Fishery Conservation Zone. 111 28. Sig Jaeger, North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association, to Peter Johnson, Washington, D.C., May 21, 1976, Com- mentary on Draft Copy of USCG Plan for Disposition of Enforcement Resources and Estimated Effectiveness Under PL 94-265. 29. Commerce Committee hearing, January 24, 1977. 30. Op. cit.. Interview, Ocean Operations Division. 31. Ibid. 32. Interview, Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, National Marine Fish- eries Service, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1977 (By Telephone). 33. National Marine Fisheries Service, Draft Fee Schedule, "Fishing by Foreign Vessels in Waters Under the Jurisdiction of the United States of America," Federal Register Al, N. 248, December 23, 1976, p. 55925. 34. Op. cit.. Interview, Ocean Operations Division. 35. Interview, New England Regional Fish- ery Council, Washington, D.C., February 2, 1977. 36. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rules and Regulations, "Part 601 — Regional Fish- ery Managment Councils," Federal Register 41, N. 180, September 15, 1976, p. 39436. 37. Working Paper No. 5 38. Op. cit.. Interview, Ocean Operations Division. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, "R & D Plan for the 200- Mile FCZ", Washington, D.C., January 7, 1977. Draft (Xeroxed). 42. Op. cit.. Interview, Ocean Operations Division. 43. Ibid. 44. Working Paper No. 5. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Op. cit.. Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act of 1976, Sec. 3 (2). 53. Op. cit., Tlte U.S. Fishing Industry — Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries. 54. Op. cit.. Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act of 1976, Sec. 3 (18). 55. Working Paper No. 4. 56. Ibid. 57. Working Papers No. 1 and 2. 58. Interview, Office of Policy Development and Long Range Planning, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C., February 1, 1977. 59. Op. cit.. Interview, Office of Program Planning and Evaluation. 60. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, National Marine Fisheries Service, Council Memorandum, Vol. 1, January 1977, p. 2. 112 61. Op. cit., "Part 601 — Regional Fishery Management Councils." 62. Ibid. 63. Working Paper No. 3. 64. Ibid. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. Working Paper No. 4. Working Paper No. 3. Op. cit.. Interview, Office of Policy Development and Long Range Planning. , "NOAA Program Marine Fish Management, Vol. Qanuary 1977) p. 1. Working Paper No. 3. Ibid. Levels," 3, N. 1 71. Working Paper No. 1. 72. Shipping Act of 1916, Sects. 9 and 37. 73. State of Alaska, Division of Economic En- terprise, Japanese Investment in Alaska (Alaska: Department of Economic Development, August 1974) p. 13. 74. U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, Applications for Sale of Foreign Fishing Vessels, FY 1971 thru January 1977. 75. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, National Marine Fisheries Service, Economic and Marketing Research Divi- sion, "Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S. Commercial Fisheries Industry," Washington, D.C., April 9, 1976. 76. Op. cit., Japanese Investment in Alaska. 77. Ibid. 78. Working Paper No. 1. 79. Op. cit.. Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act of 1976, Sec. 303 (d). 80. Op. cit., "Part 601 — Regional Fishery Management Councils". 81. Working Paper No. 2. 82. Ibid. 83. Ibid. 84. Op. cit.. Interview, New England Regional Fishery Council. 85. Op. cit.. The U.S. Fishing Industri/— Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries and The Eastland Resolution Fisheries Survey Report to be published in 1977. 86. Op. cit., A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation. 87. Working Paper No. 4. 88. Op. cit.. Interview, New England Regional Fishery Council. 89. Environment Canada, "Canadian Ex- ports by Commodity, 1975." 90. The Tariff Act of 1930, Section 30 (a) (1) as amended by Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974. 91. Interview, Tariff Affairs Division, U.S. Department of Treasury, Washington, D.C., April 7, 1977 (By Telephone). 92. Op. cit.. The U.S. Fishing Industry— Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries. 113 /" 114 \-ii\oivil 0> tairiy 'ind AlmnsphfrK .\ilinamlnilwfi I'hoto Only about 1 0 percent of the operators of thie west coast trawlers, such as this shrimp boat, consider their gear satisfactory for the job 9. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 9. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 Public Law 94-265 94th Congress, H, R, 200 April 13, 1976 an act To provide for the irmservalion and management of the fisheries, and for other purposes. He it miictrd hy the Sciidie and House of Representatives of the United States of A ineriea in Coiiqeess assemhled. That this Act, with Fishery the following; falile of coiitciits, mav lie cited as the "Fishery Con- Conservation seivat ion ami Management Act of 1!)7(!". ='"<^ Manage- '^ ment Act TABLE OF CONTE.VTS of 1^76. 16 use 1801 Sec. '1. Findings, jiurposes, ami policy. note. Sec. 3. Definitions. TITLE I— FISHERY M.\N.\«!E.MKNT AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES Sec. 101. Fishery conservation zone. Sec. 102. Exclusive fishery management authority. Sec. 103. Highly migratory si>ecies. Sec. 104. Effective date. TITLE II— FOKEIliN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS Sec. 201. Foreign fishing. Sec. 202. International fishery agreements. Sec. 203. c^ongressional oversight of governing international fi.shery agreements. Sec. 204. Permits for foreign fishing. Sec. 205. Import prohihiticms, TITLE III— NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Sec. .301. .National standards for fishery conservation and management. Sec 302. Regional fishery management councils. Sec. .303. Contents of fishery management plans. Sec. 304. Action by the Secretary. Sec. .30.">. Implementaticm of fishery management plans. Sec. 306. State jurisdictiim. Sec. 307. Prohihiled acts. Sec. 308. Civil penalties. Sec. 309. Criminal offenses. Sec. 310. Civil forfeitures. Sec 311. Enforcement. Sec. 312. Effective date of certain provisions. TITLE IV— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec. 401. Effect of law of the .sea treaty. Sec. 402. Repeals. Sec. 4a3. Fishermen's Protective Act amendments. Sec. 404. Marine Mammal Protection Act amendment. Sec. 40.5. Atlantic Tunas Convention Act amendment. Sec. 406. Authorization of appropriations. SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND POLICY (a) Findings. — Tlie Congress finils ami declares the following: 16 USC 1801. (1) The fish off the coa.sts of the United States, the highly migratory species of the high seas, the species which dwell on or in the Continental Shelf appertaining to the ITnited States, and the anadiwnous species which spawn in ITnited States rivers or estuaries, constitute vahiiible and renewable natural resources. .^-71,, 1. 90 STAT. 331 117 3 <; ■" cC-n .2' 2 K a ip 3 S § .5 o c c 3 O = - .5 'S.i: t- ■^ Sow 8 i fcl S 3 tc CMC C ^ cfi • — S3.= £ t. C 1 c-s" " E ti. ons to inistn social 0 £ S 2 Q. K ■" ? 03 ■--So ^ .-S 3 = tr,= = O S.2- = CC ■J h 2 '^ 2 .5 2 3-B'S g«C_ "> o ^ ® _ ;= '" **" .S2 '^ '^ 'o ':3 '3 -""rf , ^.2 5 5 £ ^i-rto;"^ «* ^ 'C*'22c - of-^-Sii H N rt _^ S: j=— „ •5 '^ -e Sii c as 2 fcr2'0 0„T3 r^ o C st^ ■5 * g S: 2^ — 2 — c tc> 2 c-;- 2^5 1/ y; "" o t'.S = = -=.S:£-?=t: ■3 >)=< . 01 c S o 5^ t. -1^ - ^ ^ — ^ g .2^ 0 c "S 0 ■a c £; Ic- 0/ is; pron capabili , and en Oj 0- Z c s '■ 7. ~'. c ^ c- x ^• ■•=r-s ^ "-^ o if tic G ^ K =- - -.*■". ^ -t «« r- to -^ QJ «*- if 2 C I "^ ?! V c .:^ a. o =f S w '^ "m "ti '■ o °' ^ r' t_ c /^ • "= i~. c i 2 =.2 1'r - ^ c *^ C OJ^ 5 o rt o 5 t- 2 3 c ■r C«in C S!"-" 8 o = _ _ o c ^^--S " '^ o ^ i «^ 9; - ^-..i .-^ ii ; ■ O B O - ' C C X C B.i '- , a. • " -~ ? M — • Cot C c — >- o ■ ~ 2 - c r- T' ? ^- "2 C ? p - 5) ? J- r- - S 11 ^ C :£ o u P S —■3 Ft- ^ ^ B tn ^ G* 2 ^ » B=^:S «) M , jC a; c^ ^- c "■■ "- C a o '^ c . 2 ■5 S^ £ ^c^^ t. ,-._ Uc C o c c K = s i ^ ~ C <•- ^ c> c a C C a_ — a, c,-r — ^ t: " — . — ^ a, '^ — _ f. -—^citS ■— a,*-*- ■ a- i, — — '^l ~ '— 0- X " i- (^ O Sac CO 'j: c o «; <_ o f J i i fe 2-sgc.S 82-2^ =' o £ C^ >. 5- =! 5 u ' in I ■t — o 3 a c B -t: c^ c >, ' c.;. « 3 g^'c^ £ ^ t, ^ Cfi " •- X a; — « ?; 2-0 ^■5^^ = S g £^ o-g 3 s a ' "^ S c = P s^'S a oj M,2 — i=:-Ti -«= c a' -= - i ?- 5r.2-^ s " 3 a;" - — t^ o - o :: 0- .^ a ■* «™, c a a) X - P — •a , — en a 0) „ Q X o Q a o-c J'C: ^2 S, = t. CJ= !" a) _ ^ S ^C S.S S •= Wis S; ^ o " ::H^2^r-g S^ :c r • *- . B -u ~ r" Kr, T! -, cfi X r^ ^ a^ c ^ c j= »; S a.= 5; 2 = ^;S t.-t^^ ^£^ T3 x 5:j=r;-u.^ a; S SpS g.2 =» o 2 ca'--xH^*^-_cCbi^t- o:**- — aoec S"'-'''~C — c "^ic *- -c o _ i c-5 li^ 3 5 "3 C Cl« " '/T c ^ = 2'- - wi 5 l'i.2 s £ S ■?■! " 3- C M ^ -fee ? SJ-aj-p^i; c > tfi c u ., ?: c ° i'-=.2-S S = ^ £ 5" o c52"^ , 2 B^ ^ c ^ 3 . • -^ *- c3 > CT' t- * c c o T'S 11-- s II 3J % ,^ tj •- O »^ rt 2 = S^"o>', ■a t.-=^g 2 a> tu -^ n fc- « ' aj B C : t,— a; . „ „ ^ 2 ~'*" • ^ n opft 2 ■ ?; i; it . a B . •=~ B -a = r s- '^HiS = = -S !" — s-5 ?• - M . a B.= - " S2 c--«-J 2= =~i. o 5 - Oi 3 < t- _ xii cc o S 2 a/ ^ c -^ii: ^■^ c-2 ;..;: _ ^ gy= 3 a fx^ — b2c=-='-?_ • c-^*--<:C 2 C a. ti = P t. a = C N >■. ffl "^ 2 ^ >»^ 2: o -u o c e - 2 .S'agcISi"^ o^ tt — - a. a a- >■ C -4- a^ M-S a) =^> ;crj 3^— " — O 3 a Ma ""►S — " "a a; W a; ■-C § c M ^ ^ ^ '" I £ - aj7r i ^ ^- ^™ jz: a a; 5 a <; k X c CI* S-t; c — ^ fc X c - -^ -S a ^ i o 5 -^ 1 = is o) 3 O ■, -H a; X £ c:£ « c r ° & « t o K c S a^ «^ 2 r a B 3 o . S o «♦- X ,2 "H. X ■ — .-t; .3 = 11 = t- " B C o ■— "S 2-c c r I „•_= a X f^-^* c 5 •= . a, j: a. 3 . , ~ \^^ X X O X = , 0/ a. — X 3 - X K .2 ^T3S O lO c '-' 3 , a; C " £^ 5- tn ^ E: — ^ ?* - C ■ — > I- c S - 2 *- it: c o - . X c c 2 > a~ s c o _c a* a 5 oJ= c C- 3 X - = 2§:- 2;:s-9c cc c.« 050c ■*- X ■*- a < a- i ra J J3 a, < H t ^ o II - r— _i; tfl [- 11 ?: t- C a- S ■? !1S --t;_C S C K cr. o I 3 ^ = 2 ""■ c5 ^ "~ :i r- =5 2 ? C s i . w tt'-E =c < •" S c M :S .5 ■s ^ ° o to O ~ c s-g: C3 CO rt CJ tn C-- ,, I l^i i| 5 2^KC- a> y; cfi cfl cfi 5^ Q^ S :: ^ t. -i ^ o .i.i.ilill^wlll'^Si = i- -- T 11 iP^^i^i^ssiss- S s = = y y i'^a -'^ ^ -r ^ = i. .= ^ ^ ^ vi ;5 1^ "= X "= "« "^ .° 5 ^ MS ■3:.2. y"' ^ • Z o c 7ll1i 5S -'^ >, to i? . 'f. "Z z- ''2 = 5'' t£ o 5 - - ei "55 ■*^ rt 8 ^l'° « £ — .S o .t: 03 2 ■S •" i o '5 0-5 •" C ^ u A CR Cfe t. , s « c-c "■ o _ CO ? >- c :li^ tf.2 rt «>C = 'c = I* c - v c> ^ "■ ; Wc- o CO S : 5 ts t. r.S £-0 = — „ = y-v _= c Si /; ~= c4 > - S M - "55 £~ _ -- *- o - ^ — '^ t- < 3 a. 91-072 O - 77 ■ 119 < U sD < (M ^ ■^ Oi O u ? ^ 01 g J Xl Q 3 a, Z 2 2 >i S Sm IS £'-c "35 -^ c e c be a,o '? o'z a ^ fc^ =" 1 5"^ I. 3 = a: X cr f- b c 2 5.1 ■- . g S— "^ 2 » - ^^"^ ir. *■'. K ^ t^ ^ '^ ^ -^ :^ --'. .~ 2= 2 o c 5 eg c'-c S en *f- o >.^ ° (D V, rC c ^ (- "^iJ c O 13 « c 3 1 " h 1 H •S.I i- "ti O. C t f.g = s fc S a. £1- X <^ ^ S a o •- 3 C oj =* o a.! -J^ . ^ — " S ^ ;; -^ — c. ?: o, - - ^ cj 4j X r* ^ C ^
  • >o-.^ ■PC 1- :z ^ ^o 5-5 O Q OJ Zl u-l-2 5 -J^ t^ O t^ fe C *j CJ - c «> 1 5 o ^_ IM I m J — c OS U ^Tj' S « 0) 5 :: :: =*o u 2 z - = = S r -w !» C 3 t o o *- o ^2 4* ' h- "'-•:=■=*■ -r ?J 0; j:: .--£?; cs S-13 i J3 (Z; K ^—.2 o — ji 5 OJ ^ ^ — .- Cd ol .5 ^ O ei u C Co I "5 CM ■;= Ti = 1 Si O ^ ^^^«:^*^_= ,~~ o -£ «x £ a; _ *- "" c; 1^ ■" — • t tu i-,~ ; w (fi « ^ c ^ ^ : o j= o c ? -. — i CT; := ; M! «"-'*- lii = o i ^ l-H ■M -it ^1 3 4; >1 H O Eh <; E-i flj t-. !-; U c ^ Q - (u ^^ = 2 2-= ^H §:=:=■? — "13 u od 0^' f= C 0; t, o S «s ^ O N C en i L^ C o a. H 2 '^ O *; — ?-^Tj U S5 O N /T. o H > u to Z . o o . >• Si u s bi' ic: _ t» o ±; "■£ C-f .5' 2 W So 03 5 a ^ OJ 8J N = ?^ m 3 "o a ■— J= ' = « 5 c 3 "^l en i£ o I ^r.r O C-.O;' CJ u i^ = 1 55 i=2 c 2 0; ■— as = 0-. z : ate - s H t = 3 ?'<' = il.ii w t. o «;•;;;;] > 5P -^ - en as = -_= T3 — _i: , - i E ■: =:= So •'^ i .2 s — -z~ ■J £ — w ■= 5-< X - i.".y-= = r r-= - ti c 0 3 ^ S b£ u'g ;= i c p sl'^-? X ^ -C;n >^'' ^ " *J ti " c tfi cfi i t- = — "■ O — si - *«— r c - - i ^ r. i^'i eJ - - c r £ c 0} u ■■r «: .-.■ -3 r c o H •< C i = 1 s — T^ *< 3 cj 7: 3 en et — ■ -^ . Ed T ^~ c E — ; = v u 1; i-r i w _= " ^ — fi. en ■^- t. o > « 7: X "^ - . • - c X c *» i-^i-r;^ =.r o H ~ M 3 CO = o _ 3 .^ o O jH ^ tt O i to "k 3 to u « 3 S D (J 3 I 0, < i §i!- .1 S_ 8 t|| 5 C C " ■ . - ^ a- r, I o "IS S c ^ -^ tfi c C- ' - O -.^ S c 2^ ^ WC-l 03*- c o « i "" 2 ^ --- ^ O ; C rt ^ J C O; *J c § ^ t. o j: o -=■»- -r -a ■ v: < oj o etc _■ C 3 C & .2 £ y £ 03 — S a " .5 c cs -^.° S t- *J o c « = 03.5_f 03 o O '^ ^ 0/ ;>-<^ t> hH 2;~ i teg S.S^ C „ 1 a; -= C -" o -*- c^ 3 C tc-5 tii; ~tc 0, -— 5^2 03 OS C fjllf etc £« ■^ S -2^ '^ 4* t/J 5 O 5 " U tc_H c >.5 gcc o _ Qj rt *-" u O fc- u o ■ii >-' c: u 0^ Oi VJ J3 (- cc ^ CI. ^ t- o « oe ^ c c ■* ^ _g c 03 -g ''^' 1 b: U • - -g o =« "5 J £ ■s'i t^ c c 03 ^ 2:5 c c. — c a- -' 03T- S W -a c o .£"5 c « -5 to , ^ 0 w a c 03 <1 t.pq :o £ £ £.£■£■ - c — ,•; C 03 t" o bi c 03 = OS- CO s — c^^ ° :K£- o &2 •p C; i :! 5 1 ■ £ =3 t- S'tC , CO H- » te"5 a, 3 c t- ^^ cs fe I- c c i CO.S = ■ £ « £ <^^ ££.2S^-5S ir c OS P «f-< 2-S-H.i: ° CO To tj ^ tc tn *- 0^ »tt ^ c cm >. c J to _ n.y£ 2: o 0; c; 03 ^ _= g C^ *- — ^^ i. P C ,J= ^ CO ^ -*-i — 03 •5 2 g Oi CO ^ ■- c £-. t- a CO az-^tc c & J: *- c ^1: ^ (1^ u « 2 To ^ c a £; tc ■-:: cs ■5 X S- c - a" C cS O ^ £ ^ iS'> P O c«- = « S.S l'-5 £ • t i^ ^ '7^ X*- ?,::: j:^ 03 01 c-l H'-5 "S C I 0-- o 1 Sio-S '/■ - «^ !« S i ,?^ c3 -o'-S = -73 P = = -£ >.-'= b to tr. * - -a to ■' c c >, fc-ctc>_^>S Socd^.ic'rto ^■=.£-- O iTtt C J ^■C'^' ,£ 5i u en - CO - tc CO CO H < H W5 r- < c T3 5 13 0) .•S ,0 £ii ^ cd Sum ffi c E:^ CO C> -^ -C 2 b£ C :3 C *i .-00 '^ to e '^ OJ CO .5 -a 5 5 — ^ " tu co^ ^ S-S S Si^ t" - CO e^ " c ■♦" ■*- e oj 3 _- ^ c ' e -TJ >: u « i == o ^ S 2~ ' O t- S OJ *j o o «- • " ^ "^ 9^ B OJ o -^ -:: o3 to g.C = OS P QJ cd t^ 01 4 t,- cS •" - CJ S"" to = S^ • to ^ ■3 C-S c- iS >>a *- os.t: .5 "^, c tj ;i S->:^2 C fct OJ cs °i O "d O (D be ^ o a; c3 M b o C^ o ?»-»^ *- a; '3 ||2 = 0^2 *J flj .-I C N c OS "^-^ ^ S.'rJ c8 "Is |S ; a a-- a . ^ to tO <:j ifei i e I -— ' rt O O ;8|=|-_ X f g fct-^ c X- 5 -^ P ^ - to Jiwrt^'^^O^^ "^ a ■^I^N Ma o_2 |_^.£ =,-§ I o >>■ - i^^'-^-a'oO^i CC3 S.^-£Sf CO ■S t" o^-C " =-c £^.p ?:.co-s; o £■ - - -. 'D ^ . ■ •| e-c £ S 3 £ 2 3 a CO a- c *^ ^ e ~ >■.' s »* > 0; -I o a t- 0, c^ o 1- --S c- Ji^-'Z % c E e E T! C C ^-C S CO C tcL- ' P >. o - ^ a *- — -c I.Sr i >. ■- — c ;; fc 2 5 2 — ^ s ^ C-- CO aj=tc ^.= - s c = °= .2 tJui °^~' t: = to tx ^ '■"^ c C 3 4; a> Z „ . -c S". ."^ 3 t:J i. " -C f cs J, ^--= fZ X OS -"C — Cu =5 ; 7^ c --*- « n, — (^ ■*:? x ' .- 2 £ • CO I. £"f C- ~ ^ a. C 2 QJ ,"Sg-£a^* = i', = c,'r:-ri'-"-T: c e a a ? — - ^ S> -' "^ CO a; a tl.S tt c o C -3 c — _C; _ to o-.r 1;.-. >,^-^.= = >._= _ ^ „ '^ ' — *- ^1-- cyv c a -73 = . a c CO >., J- a ~ ""— E .ft^-£ ? £ =5 St^ "t ^. e - ; otc-fe ^3 e; ; & tij c O . ,-«.= *j t^tc a 3--^ C-- a — . ^ ?^ ^ c^ 5 ^1 SE"? 5ScS e:. O' ^ z: Ci :, < 0 "XT ^ J X rt 5 c "cfi ■8 1^ 0 to" ^ li 0 In =5 X 4^ = 0 .-5 i- 2 a o -r ^- " •CT. c."C -30 a 0- 3 ==-^.2— c a a ' "5 a ^: ;^ a a :5 ~ ^ 2 w c a_ a; k •^ c J £ 3 • ?;.5f 5 a £ i — o F c ai o S = 1.11- S a i — j: — o <*- o 3; CO 3 P 3 bX & a-B c o C ~ o -= ^ T *- o fc^ -.2 57-2::: CO ' ■ o CO JJ 3 2Cf. K^ - *- ^' OJ o a'T CO 3 a, < _2 e3.~ — tn — ^ .:: (i* «s -^ '^ rr" 'ji — a. °i a- O) ■;:■«;!- o o -— i. O ■ — = l'2 3'^ - s a> " 3^ o o -^ c o c:: o bD cfi ^* ^^ - i-s O C OJ I "J O >5 O o a> h < H p tJ C a> o C a .2 M'X' « > 0- . — -5* If -a — - 1 c c |i c ^ o J I o - 3! "' 3! t: - CU o a < -i 2 ■r- ^ ■•-' tic 7.2 0/ i, -i: r. - — rj' ^ r ^ 5 i£ i So-'; — i If = j^ r = c U s ^L jl £ si i 5 ^, X 0^ c £ -r X -r aj:n 'j: o c; [fi O o 0^ c w o Si's 4- £ " X b£ tic Se ^ £ "1 i z =^ _i •+ X w ^ -^ i/: a; ^ C 4- 5^ a- X X ■-C ZL..5 t; a- -^ — — ^ r ; y. ^ a< i.( J c r _— o ic • - '- - c S'-^ * 5 i El [; =" i-i - ^ - c — 4 - — — ' -; ;ft .ti ^ <4- c'S^i^'^-S •■5 '^-^ i S i J 5^ 3- ; -5 2 ; ^ X w = S s ' 5 3K c:.:.2.55Cc^ o X 1 =; -fci C u- - tn C/ *^ 5 ■3, S z E ,S'5'2 ^ ^ i^ 3c^ ^ ^ ~ s^ - M- ^ 5; >. = -^i ^ -■ o c ■a; X -v- Ol — i. r c • 2— 02=-_- = Sx« =:: ■f I*-— =.fcfa.^-~ Si % o c c C.3 - S ti; o c c C3 .C CS'3 - c c = .-•2 ^1 Is u a < g O C §13 o -<5 o 'c 2-c _"*' S2- o >>*- c ■ C — r/1 r: - =; jj 2 =i■ M.S- ■-^ o o ^ o^ ■i3 C o ^ g £1 s o ~ 2 S c o >. . 2 o « >-• t. o^S. o "S'S- ^ ~.t 2 £ - •- 5, 1 _ M c-^- ^ o ^ s; >. - .3 E1Z_,- t = 2 f 2; . - 'i: tT > "t; o is o ' ' "^ tP X ^ „ ' C 5 o ii u ; o; o X — _ , *: ^ ^, X Q I X ai X ■"^ £-5 ^*? J- — o 1- c~ ~ o Oi .— > O — p^I "^ ;: 4; '^ ^' ^ 5? C — — — - ^ E o 2"^ - '■fl — O V. _c O X t" O '^ n~ 3~ 2 s a^ 'r ►!, "*- _ = — -3 c ■, - o x "x «♦- ■> ^ - ■/; .t:-:: 1< (i- X 4- > *" C > ^ ■— o "i = i -= X 5 g Si 4* c c 'X rt o aj -5 i 5 ='.i Ci.:d '^ - S i = — o .,t: Z .. !■ O S 3 S E Oi X ^ *- Sj *j - - r|| ° - 5 — ^. 5 = ^ *- « t^ ."^ fl C --C C s Ss X c *->>- ^ X ■^ ^ ^ '^ - : — X X — e ■ — X — ;. a. c ,=■ Z £ 2 K 5- - - Jr a^ ,_ ^ ^ o t:-.= s 5 ?C,i c^ C X x^ <: z X u 1 c — i 5 . . - C x-r = b: u > o « c f- a o 7. s: u > o ■*J » ^ w C C X ~ — ~ rT, a* '- ^ == = !ll ? = ■ - c; I -£_■- ^ CC :^ ;5-£ i, ^ *- X ■- > ""•—£ S cl- 0^ .t: ■ - ■ — S- ^ = X 4- n --; C fc •£ •*" ^ ■•- >. — oT — o ■£ o wi c a, :: X. f- t— = i Z *- -^ "C t. I ^--^ g.H J c-c f? F — "■• 'x U - X >. c ^ i— i c u - ■ r -r -5 K X. * = _ J ^ t = is o^ - *- *J tt — a; ■5^ ? S = fc =" 5: = 5; ^ •^ u C -— ^ C '-C ~ ^ . K— ? 0; £ 11 io| £ t/. - ,i: or. ■ K — G. * "" u 03 — —. '^^ m " :"" C < h-U in c sO o rM ■<*• i CT^ J3 3 00 en J 12 , L^ J3 3 0^ C 3 c ^ 2 IHmi o ■" <1J Hi 5 t. m > ■■■« j:: **-' ■§^° P tfi o a. O £ t, C-- -^ . u cj c ■-• a- ?< r ^ ''^ 0, 3 ^ i cfi aj t- 3 -g :5 „ to « — IS •*- i? tiz & ■/■•■ -^ C t -^ S 3 WO;'-' tn rr — < - O 3 = to O en C3 r- : — r ^r^ n^ . — (-^ ^ .= ^'s g 5 S ? K c 'C 12 en 3 -.= -— ."i ^ M- -■-^^= 2 .9 S ^~ < I S in m St— ■„ - '^ -• .,' c-* '- - o c c3 a* -r ';-r:=— Oi— 0 = 3 -.«■£— B*-^ 2 &'-"S C'< 2 4)jrrt.2 ? v ? = f S gM-S ^"2 g 5; = 8 ^£-^ t-t< B^Z 5 — > J— *- Q^ •- rT ■5:!l.s t;'Eb o 5-3S 2 ■ s .20 tJu 9-.£ o -3 0, 2 i; £ ~ 3 in *" ^ O en -= ^0'3 == cj= 3 2; ? H "" 2 41 a- ^ s ,™ - i^-^ C Cl. e« C c = L- ?= fn 2 Qi Z''^ ™ _ ^ Tf o ci 3 ^ ^ -■ ~ 1- ^ 3 S -5 .3 -f ^ i O 5^ 3 3Sm IM^ -^ a; o ^ -C •- r- - ^ « 3 f; c=-3 2,S O -^ -3 ^ . ™ • — *- ;3 ■ J: 3 «- "3 3 I 2 i'^ g ?- ■■= £ £c § £ g: ^■3 O en o-;:::-3„ CO.?- *- -^. ? o ^. C — *--*-- ^ *^ " p?* — ftf •- *^- ;_ 0/ - c en ■ ^5 »•:; £ 3r C c; C _C g • ' .r: c c -3 .-^ r^ ^ -^ t^ -^ .3 <- -^ o u s = C- 6. ^ C •= rt X _o .3! :*.c 3- K i - ct jr *- C ^ ^ - 5 — .3 c f. x S t- i- - = T- £ c: 3 ^ o c o 5_3 £ 5 " :;^-3 = =." ■ ^ ^ l^ ^ .^ ^ o; *;2 a..; - *^ & -^ *^ OJ '^ o'2"S -g ,^ :.£ i- 5 s ^2: ; 2 2 c g i^ c o 3 Cj c <-£ — G; 2j 3 . - . - _ 3 - £"« o a 3, ^, a, _£; O, < S nl 3 a. — ^ .2 - - -^ ^J - X 3 55 r 2"t:'^:= ■2>>2 *^ o _3 o z: t: ^ o -w - 02 H. o O 'Jl t. ., - - -3 tn «*^ ^ 1 — S-r o = ^ 5 ~ ^ v^ — '.n -_^ ^ _2 B-O 3 O B-- ■ ■g tn 2' 'en ^ " 3 3 2 o z . ^ o 3.„ 3 r, .^ 2 i " i^r"? - ^ r *^ tn .w -^ ■ ■ r. 3 i S: 2 3t; 1 --.s 2 T;J C! a/ « O £ &• c- ■" tt 2 "^ ?; > "en's 2 ■=-5 .. 3 - 2o^|£ %- = c£ -^ 9 O ^ ° ti 3 .^ .S 0.3 0/ ■si? <:, s- rt - K 3 S >-3 — Si ^ '£ - .3 " a) ' ^3 *- a. 3Tjr3 !r = o oi w aj ..; -3.3 C cs ^ i £■'=" 3 2.o~ I a^ ^".^ «^ e: 3 £ 2— : MI*"'' >. i: C a, . IJH cS-23 . 3 C C <=.£ S c 'E £ " ~ .S ^ », ai ^."3 2 - — ^ a- O 3 3 t. 2 3 3 > = t: £ 3C'-3 c .; 'J. -X. - _ j:- a- 3 - - 2 22- 5i 5 ^ '7^ Cj ^ ^ .2 = ? t ^ -3 — X 3 « c : " — a. ^ c I ' — a. 3 O SA ri^ S ^ = .-.-5.3 « C-. i-c3i; •-H a* .. ..--S « c '• a^ 'X - S S.3 r- = -i: ^ >r =^ — - en T P 3- . C *- __r a- 3 .::'i3 3: otc o £;_. -^ 2 £ jr- •£- i.2.^ £ ss ' O I '— -y. > - 2 — a; ^ • ■g C . •"^ rt c ?; S — ^ c c ..-^■^ Oj - - ^£ = c == — ^ ^' f- o c C O t, en rt '-r^^' -y)-Zz^ ^ rt i t i r cfi K o ^.5 c ^— ^ == '— C ■ — - — "Z '— a- ,t - - ^ /: w: f./. H C C , _ i f 1 3-^ '£ ■? 2 .3 - ■ — ^ "^ :: c ^ ^ Sr!:^ - C_ o — c c .' Cr ^ -t: r.i; a." -^^ ^*" ^1 _ n ^ S y- ^ c ■ CM ^ , — N . s c c r 3. < E- V I/) in 3 a, T3 e .=,=j - tS o •73 2 ° ■5 o Q P X ,. ~ '■£ ^ ■ aj ^ ■g -a 1.2 St =i — :^ r- C « o " . ~ y= _1 i i rt C — *- r- rf S; -*^ ■'" js I- o J= (U o; cn 0) *^ t- C *- ^•- c r & a. « J" t- ■X ^■g j; 2-5 O ■ — jS " -JZ en '^- cfi « *c 5- -■ "* ^ "^"^ c 5 £ ^--^ " C— rt c ^ =^' ; — ; X -7=— X t« — . — . 0^ ~ X ..-*- c - — *^ - S i ^ c — ^ C X ^. 1 -^ =-- o 5i ^ 5*- = - r ^- >* T^ ? ■ o t:' — M tl —Z > c >. = Ma: ■- ■:: ^ " G, C |3| & .i: . MS § t. > a. 2 ■S-- « ^ i- ^ i c.t: :i^ < "2 5 i.2 ^hc ~ ^ — ^ "in .-~ '^ '.'^ S S-J= o P ^ =^ C "J- - • - •- o g ^_= c c.:^ = = S X ^ z ;., ^ X H S :s X 5 1 o a S ^ c H ^. X 3 = :c q; .1: -t; 2 - - = MS c £ g- X -£ _i ^ .i - _ c - -^ C c! j^ X eT K C "^ ~ — r; c u. ^ • --^.c r^.- rt L^ K X =; — • = - c i = E c x t. - 1 '.^ '.n 2 ,o £ r- S g X 'x X 'C *- ^ X. - ■ — o -— =. ^ ^ c*) _. M S 3 2 = = < W r-t m ^ _ M w ^^ o M c *J ■ — ■^ a a a) •- w :r" -^ '^ — :n o. S c >. o _ « c aj a -2 c c c— o >% >> S = * r CO C F •♦^ - I s-s 2 si ^ ■- ti *j - E E M) 2 S? S 3 ^ E -e ~ X o" — o E '-c " "- o o-E 2 i 2 _' 2 £ - s ~ J-2'i,S-= 1 = S M 2 t J 3 Q. r _o c^r aj 1| i3-E w >-' a* - ;^ ^ U^ti- £ C E L- - a « P rt^ U CLi '^ oi >; c^T^ H " :j OX rt — — *- o en := — X ~- & 1 ^ 0 ii> CO O w --C u Si ■^ "^ ^ cj EZh ■^ L. ^ «_=;::**- t 0* '^j i- •; 5 o;--^. - ''< - X - ■/; «*-( ai (X V ~ >i-C s ithi ,te 0 Stat iri =3-- , g.o = — **- r* i ?- " x^ ^ - o ;: _^ — s a ~~ t .3 >--"S ■£ 1 '■'- "^ 5 r 5 = "H- 0 > -= - ? '->^ S - ^ I =i^ Jt j; 5; ^.— X "i-f 3 3* y. £ ■*- -C i^ "E -^ - « ^ £ =3 "^ H ^ aj _c' E -^ — -2 ^ ='?* 5 a " -r -3 i P t = ■5>2.:£ X o cn" V |i aj c ^3 s i2 .t: ^ -^ X "x c "^ ■" ^ ^ ^ X X zf *: ■^ ^ - 1^ i^^ X y c a f^ X ^ a> o •4-< ~ - — 2> -- S3 -5 -S '^ S -S == -S tij '3^ t^ 9 0 - X 0 g 2 = S ^ X . M__'S-^ c 5 S^J bl - £ ii U 5; E 1 rt |e t S^b'fc a « o X *- S ~ 0 > C **"■ n— = |fl-^i ■5 S" ^ = " _~ u c^ S'>--'^-:n- c -r i< X ■r s Fin X 1-? ll"f -rfii =:-^ =Si fgisl — *^ ^ i^o E S — " -r ^ i.i N i x~— S = - « " 5 I ?.2 C'o J['5 <; a ^ M = ^ > X o _ - a M)-S :^' - c ^ S fj 2 2 -■^, i xj;x a^ z J 2 2 ~ ir-.E M S ^ " r- X - - a -3 ■" = ^ _ 7 .ix 5 = I =i- M -■ ;£ £ y ^ i a h.j= c .- ^ " — c - ■- ^ jj: ^X ■g ■'^ E- - -a|^£? 13 = =-^ ■-'x^-■-X I j_ X — ■- . ■ "^ — — . «3 " X — l^ii^ " -= — ST — = .' 2 ^_2 -•= a c — a r^ tn < ti.2 5 lis .5 a b| rt C C ,*- O O r* o u ^1 3 T3 >. ■f ^ u « c — y = til ^ c - 2 c 3 S'S » a! 5 a " S Ji m OJ S p OX S "5 ^ S . — "x r rt «.2 " til > ^.•- C u rt rt -i - oS ' 5 S - o <- t- F ^ yi x yT ""^ 3 « S ^"^ tr O O 5; t. O fe S S ^7=^ .— P 3J O tn T^ gS f-> a-- I « i^ °* ij b = !^] ''" -^ - o m 3-S ed ai CO S.!2 ■5 = 0! T3" C C .*- o e =o C rt =« OJ 4) 53 I J 'to cs r c , S.2S ;6= ^«" •■ si t- G, U,i « J3 *C t« -^ ^ C ^ — C«~ Zj 2 5 ai c .s ci;"*- 03 ^ C to ' — OJ i Wc ^ ■^ > £■ S ■^ 0/ s« a* r* Oi o _ ET £ c .- = 2 r" o •«- - n 3 a to a — -= i S =1 2 ■" 5 , a _c "7" c ^ rt ta- "^ ^ ^ Ef >rH . " S ■ • 3 **" ^ — c Qi L- .— ^ > " — " O .• 3 ^ >> aj ~ ^ S X' to 3 §2 3 C CO '3 t- O 3 a c a. S-o ll^; =i to ^ • « S S CO "^ .^ « t- Oi ■*-' r*> af >^ ai 0) c-r *5 CO o 2 -t^ te a 5 rt o ^ **^ 3;z;X o ■<{ V- — 'C _ O rt ^ ■l-li C O) p OJ en t- = ^; ^o1 to'S — t- O c^ oi-- a £ Si ? S-§g C 0X1 C W t. L- ishery Mai s and the hority ove ean seawa voti nt. t inte (-2 2 ^ to^ 2 a 1=5.21^ -a o -2 a; « ai ^ _, . S ^ — .2- ^ 5i,_ -' to X J ,2 a OJ S o to — — 5- 3 >>-^ O B g ^ o= S o ■ tM ^ '" a ^ O 3 _3 3 o a ■►^ - u= .< a a ox-hVj: ^ P to Pf-— ^ =^ — § £ ^ 1-^ 5 g e SX c I g O Oi - :; 3 c yi o o > - 5 ojC .' 3 S = ■-g h 5 * -J -3 a tC li o a c u 2 u S « ^ a ' ^ ti ^^ , a — S a ;•: .- 3 O 5 "C 3 O to a; to a ^ ^ o) : — -3 3 3 a K a" 3 . 2 o ai 0.* >i— - ^ OJ t- a !n bl2 ■*j to P o : 3 r -s — X ■ ; X " :r P to "5 X So %' P ""^ o & - p 03 z "a -r C -< — CO Ci S. oi a 01 ^ kr r- IT ?r- "^i oS a- Oi t^H ■ O M-i ■- tx ,~ a £ >r a. 3 ,SCx gi^-fccS T3 — j; a '^ ^ 3 ^ ^ 3 3 t/; o i X a to. — 1; £ j: a :•= 3 „ ° >- S' a- S: a 0, « - 5- * ^j=*3 >X = -2 1 5 ^ £ = H c = Pt3 ,.^'~ " g 0 o. -X -r Cm- -£'7 o a c a" 3 c 3 .£ ii M- 3 '-*- - J r en r^ ■ ' '- a ?— xHx~ r^ .3 i-xxrs ui to 3^ X 2- 2 a S " ;_ li £ ?f^ « ' — X o g CO a CO. 'X oT <-'2 S 3- 5c- = :o'*'-^'^-3-r0 3'~Sli2'^Ufli ii^: Sx b c a" a x^- 1 a c — 5~i =-S X 3 Etc C ^ — ^ TO C r ." - g-Sx-5;=rx_^.S7, •-J " ^ G, • — ^ 3 a__ cj c,^ m- o — 5c ~.S. ; "= 3--s"^c "£ C a"— ^B-Z.- <: — to .2 _ a *j < M- I O o s - i Sg£ ■^ 3 — ■£ 0 -r M- t: c 'E b3 a o if! r o i 3 £ =. =.27: - «X =i — - o 0 :^ c ?- c 3. -2 - a tl g. X'ci ^ ■— c3 en in vO > (Nl 3 ■>!• 0 5^ s "^ N * ■ ^ - rt o t/j ^ -^ , C ^~ ^7- '•-z: *- c ■ ill- a to ;, ^^■z -e-- p-t 3 a, =11 ?• l_^='?^o £ a Z^Z'~ C X X- to a; -^ 6 H -~ 2 tn " z under notify ich ini H S U — . ^ C-^ =' c 15 ~- 2 C ^ K ^ ai 3 .— ^— s -< P a - i >- c c - .£ fi£ •-' > ? ^ ' — 5 "^ u ■- a'S. 7: ■y. ^ -"> Z.jr4. ~ 'It — N^ b ~ . 2 .— X 3 <— c. ~ C •J fx'g " < lositi ail. iry. IT. Z 0 " '' CO -^ '■3tC 3 f ^ ^ 0 ^ 'A 33^ S 5 P < 1 tX C *" H 3: £ 3 1 ^~ Jr*^ V^ FP-S 1-^ suos c ^ ES| 1— 4 cl 5 *- .- ^ nJ c "t ? "c ~ H ^7* c. H = 3 5 o z <: z O i c ~ c, s_ - ■' •- •a - 3 o 3 H z o a. u S tfi n a. < o zh z< cz U3 C a o M- c- .£ — C. — o 2 - "to *^ £ en" C '-C — r •--. -^ "rn r ;= c - c ^ S: 'x"C Crr u: T c- 0 ;- — '-3 £ C c 2 0 s rt "-5 c c c ^ 0 a 01; e5 -- n c ^ 0 j= ■> ■- 5 ^ X r ~ c: > t. 0 *^ CO £r g-i ^ ''^^^ :£ t- 0 x 0 i ill e3 ^ — 5 55 ^ 1— ' t c §3-c « ^ S en 0 =ii:e ii. ^ i ^ ^l"? -: - ■€ o -i ■ H- 3 -tH *- ti 3 ..- a ei a ^_3>;r;o T r ■=. = - 3 - z'-^ £' c a - - X .^ 0^ 3 -T7 a to t -3 3 3 tii^ X.1 C X ,._, - — a — S ?: £ — cr r- -■fe.2 "3 "=.2 00 = 3 C c o C3 ■- o o -3 «i . '-t- 3 N ci " a C'C 3 a C 3 f 3 - -l 2 II ,i: to 2.2-^ t 3 — ?' c r--- i/p-~ i- r a^ V. - -t? Ci i;— ai=:— i-ra3_to Z ■■-■'• r r ' 3 t^ 3 Li a iO 3t- ■ X c^ o a : £.£: 3SEx c -r .2 " i ' ^-'C "a 2 to 0 E. > c o ^-^33 ■3 -^^_^a-7^.^*- c— - ■, o"^ 3 o y: .-; X ;_ — c M- .3 ^:x.2 K O a 3-3 125 3 S in I IS D a, ^ -C.2 "-r -5 £' ■!i ^ -^ .,- 1: ■s ^ t^ .i: T3 ■a 5 — I. « J- OT3 5 ® S ■rt.a C > o u Ml- 2 J:^ ^ 2 Ji ■a i o c c» = 8 o E = i^ F en ■a S 0) X c ^ O cr tl 'S Ea ? ce o t< 2; T3 ^73 cZ t ; 4) ^ o -—■" oj = o g-S S| s^ 9 £ c ?, o c t. '•■5 ?;■?-• t-T3 35 «. ■ -3 O "o rt s i:: — "i; ^ ■> Oj o c -5 " a o •^^ j= a, 2 M- u^ub^ 2 2 o o -r; n ■" 51 9 ►ii _o -s .^ -r = " = e o. r_ 5 q fc ~ < a, o E - ti »- = =^ = 0'.2 5 o c i ■- £ S « 1- O "^ ° '^ u a; a> > tt a- 'f ^ > <^'Z, ~ ^ 'f- rr, ~ o j: ~ c ■- t. Z •- tt - T = c = . W c ' — **- . > ~ ^ S ==^2 -, z >-.■- s. ,c — -u ^ ^ i; e S ^ = ■='5.5 rt = «a _c ^ ^ e c c ti = ^-= = 2 '' OS J3 c £ X S o z ^ i-= o >-.x > C o ;= 2 p c ■«- - >j ;r: =^ -£ <= ? = I =^ fe 5 c '- c c c < .S,-t 53 3--; H — O '■ ■ 0* 3 £ i C t -C t; -— N *- C "S'^'M- 2 ^i = s 5 " cs aJ ^.2 , 9- a^ a C — a; X O = (^ e-S .5 C^ c ■- " jo >., '^ a "ffi = _ — 3 i ■ ■ -^ rt _;^ .£: ;^ o « S3 c £ « i - cfi 3 — u .. g.S K m O a, en rt w.c ?: a ° g "! ». — , c a :, 2 -^ ? , 3 - £ ° D. >. '5 c. g2:-£ , a. ■>^ 0 ^ *"^ t- M X tfi 55 0 0 tn ir. eS •*- 0 03 te > !J tL C 0 si C X c 1 X c4 c ■< 1 Q; rt «^ ^ 5 C .'tS c H a- a- F — "i: t3 07 « X. -^ 'S c 3 5 4) t. 0 en te 0 & tf-i a- 0 X 0 -J3 a < I 3 &-X Oi en • :r :^ t^ — .2 ° S "3 X r =^ i-ix i 3 S - -S '^ a 3 3 •'- -^ 2^ a be ^ ^ ■ 5 £ ■" 5 a ■- u > c o =5 " »-i *M i* C > ti O 2 Xx oJ=~=£'S.-3 j3oX*-a-3aaci,a, ex .2§ ■*-' C* tn 5 ^ '' " _ tj rr ■=■ <"- c'° o -2 o 3 — a > ^ '„' el' '^ ij= 3 it: X' en ^ ii ed o ij= a ^ en e- :— B > T a < 3 2 " 3w 3 a'2'~ a2 .2 "' !5 '> X -C ^ ^ > - ^ iz ta , c 0- c '-n r" = o - >* ? • — i t:: o^ c •5 ■£ ■;: S-c 3 5 ^"^ a -H 3 ^'o S -i o q; O) i5 c «j:H bi a bfl c , CT ;zz X-S 3 ^ a. gx~-' « bo JS^-rx, M^ S.S.S<1.S^- ■e^; aO 3^ •j a ej 3 ^tC a^ a-r bL a ■ a 3 — t. - i?i C en aJ — „^ (J 3 C a 4^ <^ o bt 3 es Z i 2 i-^ >../". x 4, >- 3 o ■r Sri: P S e^ , "^ X ? a 4/ ■r. 4- g ^ Lu 4I a "7 '^ 4; 4> 3 .xf- e- = ■ r ' X 'P a S en 2 en — 15 ^ c t^x - c t; a I 3 T «■ I. O * c 2'-5 till 2 "-^t C > o O 0; ?; c 3 c a !:j: 2:;= e 0, C a- 2 c " t- O *- o ^ a; O - — ■ r- o.a o ,^ ^ v^ 03 rt =If1 £-r 5 a >.'0 iJ= i'^• ^ a- 5 o s O au: p 3 a J ^X 3 a = X ? a, 3 :, , <*..i; 3 c a i o-;; i: c 3 - . . Sl5 ; ^ o =^-0 X— 'x-^ 'c g a f^ a « T* 3-^ a. a,^. "*- g : • bi. C 3 *^ ™ 4- r- , — 4/ .3 ■z: o - e3 u .'O ai; bi < 3 4i [-.-•- ; : = 2 & S = = J. = Cg-K 3 c 5 i^ S « i 2: t. a a. 4J £ -. a. f.3= -S;^- ax i 2^ry. =~ §•>,!■. 9:- « fc C t- O •= i- i-~ >> 4^ X "-_ £ a. ^ tj = c S - C- en 1^1 ^ 0/ «^ £■ 'J 4. ^ = .E c >. 4, ^ **- - 4^ 3 eje ' CL en »^ ''■ 5e „ -r en X ■— r^ T!e s a = |"S 4) 2 -= O fe e. i 0, C.„a '-^^x-S > 2 xji: a 3 a X = a ^. &2 C T- a f e, _ 5 a X C a. CL i c t. >. 3 a c — c !_"*■ a f a, 4i ■ - ^i;;: 3X~=i~i-i 4, ^^X 73 ■ - cft . S ^2-^-=-^:h tnCr: ■3.-£ D.C, a a ' blx - -I a — tc ex E 3 p^E . a .^ o xK--r S^x"S Q* t, i; *- a, a a- 1*:^ 4 >iC J -"COS 2 jn.br "x S- 0.2 4 kX — "^ a/ *■ 'i ix"= c f c^ c •-.£ >'Z ° a a - o. S ^ a 3 4i O 3.2 _3 .- fc. ^ X bl t. ^ en 5*3 Ma a c ■ = t- a g; '■S 3 ^ « a = X 5 S- a.- o CO H < I/) o - .S ■ as ti 4) P -J-r. H S "a rf^ H S •- Pg I a- 3 0, t^ -t= s 8 « a; ■ a < rj} 111 to >^ — - o +^ fe.2 ■ c ■- II >1~ z r; c [2£ ; Vh OJ -w s >, B£ 5-^ "2 £ bD _- ^■- = =c S £"= g"s h- o- " >.-i: c S: I -c ., '-o j= «.££ ,1: oj a; ■ = I !? o ^.w = c a^ i oi 3 C< a o " 5 t- ''I i» r- e* ^ «^J °^ E " o & e 3- B S 3 '5 ^ o ' — ■ rt - — '^ ^ j: c « 0/ c 0) « ;« 3 . CM ■w C.^ oj ^ C s^ - ^ »- 4/ a; _o ^. c 2- =« i ^ °- 0, 'ao'Sc?3^. E^ 0'5 (A ^ ■^ o C aj IS C .1 c « I"? S g « I c -^ y-3 *J bt o OS-..S £ O c a"rt C„ p 3tc a;--~c-^ » •- -C — e fe-S ■? 5"^ tc a rs £ c a2 a ■" E - ii 7;v, g c iJ2 b-p £r ?;-£ a •5 g.-S;' ^. . - ^ a ■- CO ^ 2 c 5 2 a;2 i = '^ ^.f 2;-c ti ;|J2 »"-S-i^ -f a^'S c C..E '^ a ^ ^^5 i*— , 7: i- ' o « ^ _2 c m -^'^ fc-;7'ti ci-u^ ice E-Wf f £ -I 'a: ® 3-sg = Q i> u 2 &>c bfO ci .5- S f^ c- *♦- c 2 fli >,'i3 a > "--c c-Scc a •fc-M 2 I I ^c■- .= C-- c a a ' o — o *- S o. bi,.2 ^ W -r 9. 1. - -T- ^o££-^ Ch c £ „.2 ' a t- — t- ^ 2 -c a t >-. tl i S £ £-^ i; =4 H a ^ :^f -J= «- £ — >^ r ?; vj 3 S fc fc ^ fn « ^-S '^ i - 0-2 a _ a a, '^'a'2 &• o c a 2 ■S a "bix X .2 s ■ ""• oj-e - C 0- — "a 2 .5 fc^E S 5£ g a oi ,-^ o , biM.- oj CO c a > o ~ 5— i 3.2 ,,' J=." ^ «X"« ^ r- < 3 0. in ■43 .T3-= blT3 ■ 2S 2 ■£.= = ?! £ c^ 1 < h — "^ ice ;^, (/D ^M^ 3X ■3 -s -£ -i ° § l^'lll bo « c E n £^ vt Hi E E .s E E o U 127 I 3 0. O & c a r^ „ s? S3 -■2 6XM 5, ■* o 2 ^ : •y. s — ^ *" « c r ■ o I ^ "Z c IS I. --2 3 I ? £ ^ o tf ci o 2 — ""~ 5 S 5 c s i o c 5 ^ - TS « _ « C 33 - ^ > s i - «■ t. — o c = =3.25 — ; s; : I i c c >■ , - "~'~ t?_~ i-l'f 2 2 £§ 1 -r; ^ t- *■. f . /-«-■_ y C/J *- - o ai X c cj !,■ o *- "^ - .2_ , ?- I =i3 _ cS &- _ S !^ S * ti _ r^ = C3 = C — \--^ ^ wc.s-e: 3 *u: "f? — 2 03 ^ o i-c r i ^ «,S c~ — £J5 r — 33 CW 33 i- Sr; - 2 - -= s £■?-= i B-^S - o ^■- s- 3 o o 5 = _ o oj X « u: c c TJ >. c C t. it. w c bi 11 C^ Ji'f' L. >-.'&. 33 c ^ L. i c^ <^ U X , w 3 £ Of ^ CC CQ S >^c S o 33 5* 5 T - S M^ c. £ — 21 *^ ^ 0^ — 5 - 33 .• 33 tL'. i 03-- • ^ =8 - o >.- i ^ ? -c £:>^ cf 'fi ~ I. 33 — -2 2 v.~ ill! "cT Cfl ^ X 'f. = JT 2^-2 I' -. E O S ai £i2-2. 3J •-• 8 c a •a " ^ =^ b 3 " - w'e; > = = >•£ u S = = ~ = 2 >-. o s •J, _ 03 -3 - — C^ e5 r/^' ■^-. — '*'^.-— 3^^""3.-.= - oi = -~ ■" :2 I >. c - O o 2«^ -■1-2 ■ K a i u ^ - -• c a >, 2^-= o 3 r a o c i a a „ = = ^~^ — c -^ u *^ — M = a o ;J = £ i: a a c £; 2 — -c ^ . a a. =^'> — £1 2-f 1 Z ? S a 5 ~ - - = < 2. ^ ll "a ' - ^ " a Z ■ " a = ■ - "^ ^1 £•= - - -.^•^i -2 C x. c. -3- .- u: j: cS ^.i_ ^ a o I. ^ E^ F = -'■£ i a a — V- - a J ^ t- a - 2 5t- = ==i'S 5!_ -.2- S^ £ "t: = -?- = -. .. re^i !=r"- 3 = z £2 i: z: a S a.i = --^ - ^ -^ CO ^tC r ti ^ ^ G S ^ rt a !;-• n f fc ^■5 315 Ltii, C^ a 0:5 ,5 tr"^ a 3 -G o , = , C " ■r a— ii " lis ~ e.2 li ^ i= iicS-. a t =..2 5^-S -.£ o !f£ := ■2 c5 ^ a; ^= C-C ^ ?? 3J CJ O* il o s C - „-^ ^— — ^ « Cfi > G I- x: ^ c ^ i; tT!? .i- . S-2^- G & > 5 = u-s ~- ."3 G 2 : ~'3 ; «*- 3 .2 * t2 t- -:5 5/J -3 " -S - • - G 4' 3 3 r^— i ? 2 2 5-r r^ II — 1' o c 5; t. 0. c = , -■ _ 3 I U I :r ^ ^ £• jf 5 = - S-i *. a_2 - . c- -^ ^ - .= S; 2f a — C !•■ a L' a-r; o 13 a g m ►.'3 S 3 -S O __ m.i ■^ a' a -§ ^ ! - '^ 2.C ~ 3 3H.C3„G3H a - — 3/ C 3 ? 3 >-,- a X 1. - c • 9 j= ^ — **- — il *- - "3 a; C c 3--2 ^- -3 a u . G ^. a_- in — -3 a x. >". Si — 3 ^ S x"^ 3 y gES a uS - —•£■3 iV 3 y ■-" . - S.— .5^-=*- ,3 ,J G 3 b :r-.-3^ S I ?,r= j- 3 >t; i I G >i S 3 — — 3 a C c , J. . 3- J s<; X c s t->.^ c '■ 0. c ?- -S * fc > H J S:-2-| £ ^ 0^ C T" d > C *^ -^ o t. _r ■ - iLi C ' c .— c -^ ^ rt 5 3 ^CO ^3 p-r 1^ s». 1. ii J H-^ X C a-o . 5 ^ III £ ^ X E. 5 S 4/ X* t.* i, p c "•£ = i 2 a — — . cS f- m c I >. fc I -i 1 1 i" 3 : £ = =« C t. — cfi £ = 2? I a -~ bl~ -^ ^" u — ■= "^ •H 2, =■£ c 3 li: a S t- ^ a a; :=! i i G a "3 "3 Z X -„ X ■/ C ^ 3 §-i M ^..i.3 I c — a :J • -J C 3 Z -f '^ > > a - .3 :3 a f- S - 3 -_^r t XT -X =^ h G "; < r 3 3 — Wl 3 . t. o-^^^ = 23 -- i X X j* ' I - 3 ^ .S c w— aPh _ X c tfi 3 «♦-. «^ O U O -.so i 0 2-2 i:-3..^.s •- ?:a^- it: 3-- £T 4> a c „ U s >• aa z o ■r. a 3 _a "a a. 3 - a; 3= " ^l^sfl'-":-?-! '• a a 3 a >r-7:-^ C. C = ^ 2 &'■= = S ■- ^ ir • i G X a^.-c o 3 3J: " C O Cx 3 ===s ?■ Z ^ ^ ;i». -*■ a X _ J- * G.2,i a — .3 " S~ £7 3 = 3 x^Sc^ ^ 50 5-a c ^< £^ ■ — 3 ■" —■"*-—■ T ■5 5:5 ^.£5 £ g E o «a u (A vO rM I ■<*> 3 < i 0) J. cs A £ ^ £ S'K ^ &>"! ^Inl "I ^iS .--t: c u c-a >= .^t- o "^ _ 5 >^ g a m ^*: _ C ,y; o t; r^ -. -^ tjD S O CJ rt £ = =V-^-5 rt rt - *- - ^ "- '"-^ c "o m 5 ^ ^ == ^t " — ^ *" ^ *"" * J. = 5 g ~. 0 ^ f - « ^ ~'E1"*- — c . - — I— » o £■0 4; a: u £ X 0? -fc^ 71 M fc- X c- c: uj -^ ^ cfi o wj rt tj: - c c - _r; ' — ^ ^ = 2 £ 5 , = M ". ■-.— >. C/1 ^ '■" ■ -^ '= O CJ QJ = 15 I- o C t, o OJ p 5: -^ — :^ aj Z i- C = o ^ la z " ; M- c 1 tl"? -2 a ° 0) ^ - < = t^ - ■ - o -: ■- %■ " ^tL W), c =^ a - So - -*-* o o ■-< M S a. 2 X •='s . CO ■r -a £ _= y 0^ ^ -c 0/ — -A ~ - ■ - "5 t c i r~ ■£ ~'5 5 ■? E •'■• = B o a - -, c si .::; == t; 1- = C >o !:;§ si tX'^ >>« =3 > >-1 = o o ■^■2 o "H h'S aJ - a* ^ to =;^ 'x; a 2 = £ " O/ '" :, '-/j 5 •r d t- ~ O OJ .0 -^ G C "5^ c O 'V li a (U ■ ■73-^ £ o X. '^ a-z. S — " ' c -c: a — a *^ ii -== ci S i ^ ^ £ > c +^- = ^ -£ ^ .2 a "5 ^ a -2 c — a " 1= 5 &^ S 5i! £ o g c a o ~ t^' g_^ o « 2 « ^ "C x ^ C tn o ^ -^ ?^ >* = - ^' - ^ en '^ .2 rt o -"C CJ ^ 73:5 >, rt o ■Cm t- "t^ C ^' j: OJ t; s o ■S -" ^ 3 M -^ C ^ en 0- "t; o £ cc t/3 0 ^ £ "^ ^ i *^ tj;. a--^ >-. o i^ - t- o — :^ ° 5 - > - S ?f I — ' ^ . t- — OJ C_ ~ 5 -5;^ '■" ^ o ?"££■;: S S-^-g^ c ■£ a ' 2 E'-^ ~ — 2 $ 1"= ° "*« 1- ^ = =5 ^ S '^ ■— -TJ *- ;- =C.2-^^ "S S , ^ 2 £-1: & ,-^ yi ~ ■ — y] a z^ i 3 1^ - 0.2 ~ c tt -. ,. « fi ^ O 1-' -^ ^ X c '-> ?^ o ■'■' « ->- c/: = fc s ?i 5-ga ^ £■ a r« 3 t- OJ -_ 3 o;^ « a. t- - o >^- ■■- H- 1 ^ ;: .t= ' ^ ■ — -.t; -^ o &^3 ^-^ & c a ■R -^^ H Q,a i ^g 2 a 3 o\ 0 ^ ■"TD 2 ^' q: a 3 ; s::p -— r; ® ■ 0 u _w 0 •^ ::: — a — gc^e 1 M - a ^^:; >< a - a .Si = u — • a a - M £: ^ E — - 2, S -5.2 5.2 tj U OJ £^ C M— ~ -7: i-s ?? 5 & a t- •_::^ c .5 3 c -r: L- a en d- - ^ =- -^ ^ i: ?> 3 ■a -' o a i.i 3 -* en -13 3 c; C .3 ;1& c c >-. , « 3 c ^ a -C By., .^ « hH B 3 3 .t- tn ,^ X ^ g — 3' s S « 3 3 o « en .*i 2 3 I3 ej — 3 W- c en c. c;_ .^1 o c '" Z u "^ 3 c ■•" 3 -^ ol " S-^ £ &•- ^ >■, tfi C (t G, - _^ rt c - = . TS _ cfi — — - C' - c: !- a- 0^ g-.£|.2£.^- - i ll t It-' -e i-* 0. C c) 3 -r c =* "^ IT) 3 ,^^ ■3.2 o - o - o .a ■2 a-- ?f^ a ^~ p. '*^ " " "^ o < H 5 I 7. ■ >.te - ;: =E- 3 - ' = 2-^ 1 ~ .s 2 g-f = .• C- .-' ■^ ^ C «:■ ^- - -^ 3j't"i tl - £ i J tn H i- 2r-xc^>-3 :. — i^-^C-a c c c _ J :2 3 c 2 ft. c — X c £ ,_ _ ec « 3 en J rn ^ *- • p S.2 O a.r: ^ lix fee- Sfc •§i 2 -a S "c. §o'H< 2 >^S 4; GJ ■ — *^ OJ ►— ^. ei . ''^ 0-2 "a 1, '.I^ ST" C § h- i~ ^^ u > c^a ^ ' en o ^ 3;;: a ■ C i^ en a t- rr- ^.j= g-?_ r.-e 9 2s:|c- ^ ^ e^ ^ 5^ i5 if 3 «^ 1^ I.' 2 := £ >.-^ ^ l3 c /■ y- = = r P C £; *- ' K. J^ ^ t, *r n. • — ■^ U r;^ (M tc rj rt ^ tj^ -^ ^ ^ - ^ X - c < i tic c-.i a ~ = a -^ - ■a a 3 3 2 =3 £ £ a '^ 2^ O . ui-C >. C tfi O cy= c c titr S •' t- >^ 5- >i, c ;= C C «^ ^&"-&* t. t- U] — J Si II r"- e £ 3 3 a £;,§■ " ".5 J: t £'" 'c 3 ?: -3 fy 3 c o .*^ c t..- 1-1 ' i |-:^-|2^2 i i' c O C- i_ ^ , 23-0-3 w;v.2 3— t^ ■a ii g a 5'- O -a *- en t.- ^r— CO.— &I «0 3 « S ^ Q. U. *-. 1 n in I s c a- ^ iJ to Q< .sC^-r- 1^ o =S o o ■ - i X.' J "3 5: iro^i O rt 5-:= « o 2 en c L. -^ ^ -M » St -. tS a) ?* ►T d, so £Z <^ & r^ o; ^ y 0) '- - j_ a; >-. a; c jj i I . — It-.i *- = I X 3 > — ~^r^r- Z £ c 35 -H — o ^^ ^ ■ g B i 5 - O- a a o aj ~ -f 2 >. S — ^ o > - y_ i '' « — 5 o -= c I-^c^i S.3 K 5i a C a C V a K [_ ^ ^ = ■»■ o "^ i— ri J ■= t: o ■ 2^ = K -^ ■" W ■- Z c W t c. ■S c ^ ^ T. •- y c 1~ '=^'- !rt ^ v: ~ 0! c 0 1 1 c c 0; ■use IS puiii for not Mior ■n (a)(2) i: "isonment f J3 ._ *- s-?^?; fe^.H ^ i fc « = = «^5 •0 1 =£ ^ rt o > 1 u c, 0 X c (- c L. 1 = c ^ -c -H X a 1::. ^-1 -^' i Xi^ Ht^ 1 ^ c X 1 c Z X c' '-^ 0 c "5 u' t. ■^ s i; >. t- -^ — u "»"< 'i^p'P^-'z'^^- .- .-^ I o— i ^ cc ^ — = c 2 • c o i _ c o c c j: c "_ ■" to c' -—'-''• — ■ — K! Si" £ X V^ «^ ** *- X -S ? e c 1. l-^lt: ~ X 5 "-■ ^ i^ =.S: S 4- U =- c — X C *- o -II ^r - C T- = 1^ c - ^ = t- ^ ^ 0' x c :^ = X -^.= c c: C :^ X c « s. .. ? *r - X C^ £— c X i O/ ^ ,- X 5 a o^^ = 'Ts:iTEJ7C' as j.:.t; . i. A i f. X — — Z 0, :: X H ' OS _ &:■ 2 w i' a: X O '_3 ^ S""-^**- ".- i- "'^**- H .__ V. - en •o c"*- > X c -= J >-. - = X _ rj^-= 0 ^ X j:"^ c 4 -5 = > - Z u " X ^ . C ^ - — ^ X = K ■- xif 'Sr. a. < X — ^ Ji _ — - «i: S- fc- ►" aj 3 *- •rx o Ed -. i- 5.x •- = - ■= — — G- ' — "> a 5 " •*- t- E ? X ^ '— 7.' ''i't. Is ^c-ZZ o ■^ 2 < I XI 3 0, = o •^ c t- ^ ti. tim «- C x = .«■< ,cc ? ^ o fc 5 c ■ ■*- • - X = c .S 53 1- X J .£ = :& t; P ■= ' H. .s-c-i xjiJCc. •: -^ - ~ if: ° ' t.- 5-^.5^- r -r- ^ i = c S ti^ 2: =i = • > =^ rt P fee c - X -^ X ~ , — X *- r; ": S < 5 ■^ p"c ^ :s Mg '-'^.2 - -■E-n =^-= |;£ i-^ ^ £ £ " » =- o'" = p ■^"r 22 ...-■;: '^ i e: "^ C c ^ s o o E Q 3 X o 5.p-sBi.oa -~c.- ■*-x.— " X ». ' „ i; c u5 c . j: c 'x « ^ „ £ « S is I £§,-2 a M "E ^. C oj *^ u '^' z. '^ _>'..c Ei i X C a, *"=- = £ = C t. ° X "^ .i . X '— ■•- w ^ i-5 ■= ^ a , = i-TT - C I-X.2 tt ^ -E S X x'3,. >. X . C r- X > n [L r ■ — c — - .. C X • ' w X >.Z-"? J 5 »•• X ^^ -^ , — d c X tl I -- 'x .' L tii C >.-i=£i ll^-I i^f '-C - w — " C u — - /- C c ^' X • ^ '^' I t- c .- *- -^ -- ^ C 2 C c £ E ^1 - .2 X a* X ■- o £ fc 5 C c = o S I c£ K /. d »— c _^ U ^ — L." « 5 H " r: c- c - -3 '± c, ."^ 2 t = U y. C - ^i = ss ; -r = -"5 -r X C ■< - - '^ r ^ ?^.2 - • - c > ;_f -a. 1 Zt-^-.-~l u CO ■- = !-=_ c z. <^ T o ... w - ^ *- X — -S ■£ ^ i " -£ c t x .2 S "x >."t; --=-r'''-^x£-'^.|t£" < < o CO oo U U a< 1-2 crl^ ^ "jiis^^:"^^! :i'i-^^:i^|o| .ii^:|.i-g^-^ 1^ ^ fct^'s^a ;-) -■g e?^ i 5=^iS-^-^^^£-|"^ £-^.2i.8S«g!.s:? «-Sl^x|-|i^^ fc? S ""l^^-^-^^ H- 5- ^£|.2£gT?s=f 5.2i.sr^g^ S--|fe^,= b>.Masi •Scg^ti ffi"! "'=*'•- §J"S oc=:"5 ='-S'€ ^r 5 i-i gc?0== S |t£" -J'-g f li S' ^' J j_, ^ t^ •— ^— ~~ t- ^ I- bad «— ( r" .*_. "Ii -- '^ C .— . — ^-^ — _ t- a, ■*- . L "T ;_ , g.3c £•£ .2.^:2 S.t'H^^?-^^ S--t: .^Eg-c l'^-^. E"" ■; .22 ;S ,= :S = s -73 c a- c c.~ c ■- £ c =-'5 o = J c = w >. o . j o o = g £ -p •- — c c .^ o 131 in J 3 a, ■s-TX : - t C- i .3 ^ ^ _ III r|| — ^ — c, — ■3.;; — ■/: '^^ ■!:' ■ •*■ 5)^^ ~ 5 = ' 5 "Hi Z t = i = =■-■£ ^-r ill--^ 1 = ='r. = ^ = ;;- ^ I S I ^ J X r^ f J ?■ P 2 2 r^ ^' ^ "c Z u >■ z o u z 3 u H — 3 -: ■ r s -S ^- S - _• 2 = en z o p • < D. C ai a. &. •< El. c . z o , p < . _c ■ ~ r, * 1r 2 _ -r; si J ^ a < J='~ C, c x. - _ i t ^s i7,-r? . — -Of t- 0- « w S ^ .£ ■ = 5<; 'fz o -s.s P CTi ac X 't: = a 2. « X E- - — St. - «t iS •. 4- t. L - n: -*- y -— .— [fi C i- CT. (- > I- ^ c - "^ ^ 5i =■?£ x c - •£ iT c X =3.-^:^ " rt C:, '^ -e M y 4, " ' ?* ci c v; en C cc ~ c/: £ a- ^ II _0 t- -^ T! c; g - y £ = -r :.y. i"— —_ >-. ~*K E = w;?.2; c Sr: . rt a- en ;^_C - _= _ to > - = ^ Si ^ ^ ^ Q T. ;; -^ • - ^ X -t; tJC ^ c/: ^ — .. ^ — .— ^*- C/ o = -? > £ h.^ : >^ ^ ■ _ .t: X y= 5 c w.i,>. iE; ^ =£-= ~.r_~.5 t- = — ..». z ^ — c w --. ; x !; 0-;= '3; B = ? > s; V. < C ; = - " ■ s ^ X: . - c C "x li.; £C |c| i^i^cj ^^^ ■^- c. . r- ^ > ail-?! ^ X *" c Cr X ■/. - Z ' - ^l-5..li ;; ^ -^ .J -H *- s. -M i — 5: ri ~ c ::"= . -- u °' 2 161 f . X r X - i ~ 'XX = 1 f P.5 C.= cs* cs= — ir =£i!- ~ Jx 3; c ^^|£. r ?- C . — So: « ? c 2 ^ *- = 5K- I" 03 .'. < .E u u (/: ;r OiO