can be seen in Gloucester, Mass. With major assist- 
ance from EDA (specifically using grant funds from 
Title IX of the Public Works and Economic Devel- 
opment Act), Federal, State, and city officials to- 
gether with private groups have pulled together a 
varied package of projects to revive that city’s fishing 
industry. The project has two principal components 
as well as a series of studies into additional possible 
forms of assistance to the industry. After a 2-year 
delay due to engineering and legal complications, 
construction was scheduled to begin in June 1978 on 
a new freezer facility on a reconstructed State pier. 
Expanded docking space is to be provided, a gear 
storage building constructed, and stalls renovated. 
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) 
is putting forward more than $6 million towards this 
effort. An additional program is a revolving loan 
fund of $250,000, with support from EDA, New Eng- 
land Regional Commission, and the city. Money from 
this fund is available to boatowners unable to get 
financing otherwise. Officials report that repayments 
have been excellent. 
The Massachusetts State government has put $1.2 
million into the project in its original form, and an 
additional similar amount to help meet unexpected 
construction costs. The city, county, and regional 
commissions have invested funds as have NMFS and 
the Sea Grant Program. Additional projects include 
a marketing effort on two underused species, the 
dogfish shark and the ocean clam. A feasibility study 
of a large vessel pier will be made. Surveys of the 
handling of fish waste and of a fresh fish wholesale 
operation are additional elements. 
A third dimension of the relationship of the fishery 
industry to broader national economic development 
interests is as a key component of waterfront areas. 
Frequently, waterfronts are decayed and neglected, a 
condition as true in some newer cities as it is for older 
communities in the east and south. The fishing com- 
munity is sometimes a major occupant of the water- 
front area or, in major port cities, a relatively small, 
but a highly visible and colorful element whose pres- 
ervation and restoration could be a key in a water- 
front redevelopment. 
Just as new methods of handling cargo have left 
many port facilities unused and dilapidated, so have 
changes in distribution methods of fish made older 
facilities outmoded. What has happened in some 
areas is that the fishing industry, which occupied 
prime waterfront land, has been replaced by higher 
income-producing facilities, while fish distribution is 
handled at a warehouse distant from the waterside. 
In successful fish districts along the waterfront, as 
in San Francisco and Annapolis, Md., the area is a 
magnet and many businesses directly or indirectly 
related to the catching, distribution, and consumption 
of fish locate nearby. Preserving and enhancing these 
districts is a challenge to city governments. The trade- 
offs are the balancing between the tourist attraction 
on one hand and the possibility of an office, residen- 
tial, or commercial redevelopment on the other. 
Some fishing industries on the waterfront are per- 
ceived to be small, smelly, dirty, and frequently 
housed in old buildings. This has made it a prime 
target for redevelopers who prefer more suitable in- 
habitants of waterfronts, particularly when efforts are 
being made to attract residential and office uses to 
such areas. This was the case in the Boston water- 
front redevelopment in recent years, for instance. 
Federal-State Relations 
The relationship of Federal and State governments 
in the fishery area is, unsurprisingly, complicated. The 
fishery conservation zone extending fram_3_to_200 
nautical miles o ei Federal co . The 
offshore sea_to 3 miles involves_a division hor- 
ical miles offshore is under Federal contro} 
1ore_sea_to 3 miles involves_a division of aut 
ity. The States exercise authority over_recreational 
and commercial fishing in the territorial ce Tae 
the” Federal Government controls navigation, pollu- 
Sa 
nder the provisions of the Fishery Conservation 
and Management Aci of 
plans for the area beyond 3 miles are prepared by the 
Regional Fishery Management Councils, which have 
ments, local communities, and_private interests. The 
Councils prepate—the-management plans, but_the 
plans are implemented by Federal regulations. 
TRE sharing of the decislOiaHSRIme prowess is in- 
tended to be balanced. On the one hand, the Councils 
only recommend fishery management plans to the 
IS 
1976, fishery management 
Secretary of Comm n the other hand, the Sec- 
retary’s appoint cil membership 
is restricted to nominees submitted by the governors 
together with certain designated members, such as the 
NMES Regional Director, ; 
The Councils have been termed “a new form of 
government,” because they are unlike traditional 
State, local, or regional entities or intergovernmental 
advisory bodies. A recent report to the Marine Fish- 
eries Advisory Committee noted that numerous ques- 
tions and uncertainties have arisen about the relation- 
ship of the councils to the Federal Government, 
especially the Commerce Department. 
The relationship of NMFS to these Councils will 
evolve in time. At present there is naturally some 
confusion about the relative roles of each. NMES_has 
HRC ates 3 rae 
funding in their budgets for operation and a responsi- 
bility for providing the data on which domestic quota 
decisions based on the optimum_yield concept will 
I-27 
