- 140 - 



agreement. During such period, there would be the attendant 

 risks to resources noted in the discussion of Alternative 1 

 above. 



Once a boundary was determined, it would eliminate 

 the present area of overlapping jurisdictional claims and 

 define the physical areas over which each party exercises 

 jurisdiction. Such developments would obviously be taken 

 into consideration by the United States and Canada in 

 resource negotiations undertaken subsequent to the boundary 

 delimitation. 



If the United States position were fully upheld in 

 the boundary adjudication, the United States would be under 

 no obligation to allow Canada access to Georges Bank and 

 would be able to manage unilaterally the stocks that do not 

 range beyond Georges Bank or other Gulf of Maine areas 

 under the exclusive fisheries jurisdiction of the United 

 States. (As indicated in the discussion of Alternative 2 

 above, some fishery stocks, however, would range across a 

 boundary entirely consistent with the U.S. boundary claim, 

 and continue to require coordinated management by the 

 United States and Canada.) 



On the other hand, if the Canadian position on the boun- 

 dary should prevail, Canada could bar U.S. fishermen from the 



