68 



estimates and other data, and of assuring that 

 management plans adequately reflect the na- 

 tional interest and are consistent with national 

 management standards. The Council and 

 NMFS will also work with two other Federal 

 agencies — the Coast Guard and the Depart- 

 ment of State — in enforcing regulations and 

 determining foreign fishing allocations and 

 regulations to control foreign fishing. 



With all this complex organizational and 

 procedural set-up, it will undoubtedly take 

 some time to develop a smooth operation. It 

 appears that an important aspect of smooth 

 operations is close-working arrangements be- 

 tween the Federal and regional levels. To date, 

 there are no written requirements for work to 

 be done by the councils and no firm criteria 

 for use by NMFS in judging the plans 

 developed by the councils. 58 At present it ap- 

 pears that communications between Federal 

 groups and the Regional Councils will be 

 through NMFS regional offices when services 

 or data are needed but through the NMFS 

 Washington office when management plans 

 are submitted for approval. 



Presently, the NMFS representative on each 

 council is the Regional Director. However, it is 

 possible that better liaison with the councils 

 could be accomplished if the director of the 

 regional fisheries research center were the 

 representative instead or in addition to the 

 present appointee. The research centers con- 

 duct the service function of NMFS and will be 

 supplying the councils with scientific and 

 other types of data to be used in drawing up 

 management plans. Presently the councils 

 have no mandatory policy-level link with 

 these centers and must work instead through 

 nonpolicy-level representatives to the councils 

 or through the Regional Director who has no 

 authority at the centers. Placing the center 

 director on the Regional Council could force 

 the centers to be more accountable for the ex- 

 istence and reliability of data requested by the 



councils and improve working relations be- 

 tween the two groups. 



Close coordination will be required in three 

 areas of major problems which have not yet 

 been resolved: 



1. What budget allocations will the councils 

 receive from NOAA and how much dis- 

 cretion will they have in spending funds 

 for collection of regional data not availa- 

 ble from NMFS and data not considered 

 reliable enough for management deci- 

 sions? 



Roughly $30 million are programed in the 

 fiscal year 1978 Department of Commerce 

 budget for implementation of the 200-mile 

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

 to NMFS for its work, the work of its regional 

 laboratories, and the work of the Regional 

 Councils. The rest of the moneys go to NOAA 

 for administration; Sea Grant for research by 

 member universities; and the National Ocean 

 Survey for operation of research vessels. 



The councils' requests for funds must be ap- 

 proved by NMFS and NOAA before the 

 moneys are made available. According to an 

 NMFS spokesman, there is presently no con- 

 flict between the councils and the NMFS 

 laboratories over funding for research work. 

 However, conflicts over the division of the 

 funds between NMFS laboratories and the 

 Regional Councils can probably be expected in 

 the future because of some local fishermen's 

 lack of confidence in national NMFS opera- 

 tions and council desires to break out of the 

 traditional NMFS research pattern. According 

 to NMFS, "every consideration" will be given 

 to the councils' requests for research funds; 

 however, council funding will reflect NMFS 

 decisions on who can best conduct specific 

 research in the most cost-effective way. 59 

 Presumably, the councils will be more suc- 

 cessful in requesting money for research into 

 social and economic areas, where little exper- 

 tise now exists within NMFS, and less suc- 

 cessful in requests for funds to conduct 



