SSWG Minutes

March 5, 1997

In Attendance: A. Baker, W. Burt, L. Byrnes, D. Dutra, J. Dutra, M. Forest, R. Garrison,
C. Goudey, H. Halvorson, R. Hanlon, R. Karney, H. Lai, D. Leavitt, C. Mancuso, R. Miller,
J. O'Brien, J. Pappalardo, K. Riaf, S. Soares, P. Spalt, A. Spinale, J. Winslow, R. York.

Opening Remarks: Dr. Harlyn Halvorson
Dr. Halvorson began the meeting by informing the group that the SSWG endorsement letters that were recently sent out to coastal Massachusetts representatives and senators had generated some positive responses. It would be a tremendous help in keeping the momentum going if SSWG members would contact their representatives. D. Leavitt informed the group that the legislative panel at a recent Quahog meeting at the Mass. Maritime Academy was embarrassingly uninformed and could really benefit from having some input. H. Halvorson suggested taking a small group and visiting the legislatures to inform them of the problems being addressed by the SSWG and possible solutions to those challenges being faced. He also mentioned the possibility of putting together a local TV program in Falmouth about sea scallop aquaculture. This would include some film about sea scallop aquaculture which would be followed by a roundtable discussion. The dates will be set during the next few weeks.

Views from the Congressional Scene: Mark Forest
M. Forest, formerly working with Rep. Studds, has recently signed on with Rep. William. M. Forest informed the group that even in the short time since Delahunt has taken office, he has made an aggressive effort to be in a position to help aquaculture efforts. Delahunt has taken a seat on the Resource Committee (check name of committee) and would have tried for a seat on the Fishery Subcommittee(check name of committee) had one been available. M. Forest remarked that it's a little early to tell how things will be going with Congress as they are under a period of re authorization. He also pointed out that when topics such as aquaculture are elevated in public awareness, it can also raise the interest of people that like to add regulations. This was to point out that it might not be so bad if aquaculture is not as predominant as some SSWG members would like. The CZMA has added planning which identifies aquaculture areas. The subject of money was brought up. In response Forest remarked that there has been some discussion about making some emergency fishing assistance monies available. However, he then reminded the group that most of our problems are in the regulatory arena.

D. Leavitt asked about the status of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds. R. Garrison stated that the S-K program was not funded this year and instead held over last years funds. D. Leavitt then asked if the monies are non- Federal, how can they not be funded? Forest replied that there can be a problem if the funds are being diverted. W. Burt wanted to know what can the group do to establish seats on the Fishery Subcommittee(check name of committee) ? M. Forest stated that the issue is on the Republican side and involves getting enough Republican interest generated to maintain balance on the committee. When there isn't enough interest being displayed they end up shrinking the number of seats on the committee to maintain a balance. M. Forest reminded the SSWG that it may be better to not have more people on the committee that were more extreme.

H. Halvorson asked whether or not they are working through the Department of Agriculture? M. Forest replied that if we're looking at expanding the pot, yes, however the pie is shrinking. There is less revenue to play with, the brunt of the cuts is discretionary spending. He then stated that by the spring we should have a clearer picture. W. Burt wanted to know if Forest has a sense of whether or not the White House has a clue about what is going on. Forest replied that informing the White House is largely due to Congress. So far the congressional agenda has been limited. There has been discussion, however, of putting together a coastal caucus. We should be able to build a key group of legislators due to our large coastline. H. Halvorson reminded the SSWG that approximately 75% of our population lives in coastal states. M. Forest informed the group that they need a focal point in order to educate people.

R. Garrison brought up the fact that so far, NOAA's perspective of aquaculture appears to be focused on the potential environmental aspects. He feels that there is no real policy or person to work on aquaculture and wanted to know what can the SSWG do about this? M. Forest asked whether or not the SSWG has looked at their(NOAA's) regulations and made suggestions as to improvements that could be made. R. Garrison replied that NOAA's position is vague and has no clear policy to work with. M. Forest then suggested that then SSWG formulate specific response to NOAA's position paper. H. Halvorson remarked that this had been done and would send another copy of those specific comments to M. Forest. H. Halvorson suggested that a delegation of this group sit down with Delahunt and Mark Forest to review their concerns.

The subject of resource enhancement efforts was brought to the table. M. Forest mentioned the modified Army Corps of Engineers????? , natural resource recovery, but is not aware of any major new initiatives being attempted as money is tight.

R. Karney mentioned to the group that he just got back from World Aquaculture Society (WAS) meeting in Seattle. There was a discussion of experimental areas and the procedure where the general public can petition NOAA for their direction. S. Soares was interested in finding out what is aquaculture perceived as being at those levels, i.e. do they consider it fishing, farming, or what. M. Forest informed the group that the agencies have not had things sorted out for them yet. They have tried to settle these issues but since a lot of the agencies look at aquaculture in terms of something they have control over, they don't like to give up control. There is a tendency to deal with new issues as they have dealt with old issues the past. For example, if they have been aggressive in dealing with things in the past they will tend to be aggressive towards new ideas. Congress is heavily regulatory-oriented. Before asking the agencies to make a rule, think strategically what you're trying to accomplish, the support you'd need, direction you want to take, and consider the need to be able to sustain the momentum before approaching any agency.

R. Karney mentioned that in the last round of SK proposal review, a lot of the aquaculture projects were shot down. He felt that this was because the review board is nationally based. He feels that is the review committees were regional, the aquaculture projects would have gotten more of the funding. M. Forest suggested to the group that they assemble a list of the things you need the government to be looking at, form a general "big picture" and come up with specific questions for the legislatures to address. H. Halvorson suggested that the SSWG form a subcommittee and draft such a group letter.

It was pointed out that many people don't know who the Farm Service Agency is. M. Forest then suggested that maybe those are the people we should invite to a SSWG meeting. It was suggested that the rational to approach funding is that since aquaculture is defined as agriculture, we can plug into farm support programs directly. As for the regulatory problems associated with draggers going into closed areas, more enforcement to keep out boats would help. He went on to suggest that instead of the boat buy-back program, the government should increase penalties for fishing in a closed area. This would avoid using taxpayer dollars to buy their boats.

W. Burt voiced his concern over the National Seashore Plan. M. Forest reminded the group that the boundaries of the National Seashores extend into the waters. D. Leavitt stated that much of the problem exists because of the frequent turnover of people on these committees so that aquaculturists keep having to reinvent the wheel with them. W. Burt wondered whether or not environmental groups are looking at hatchery reared stocks impacting wild park populations. S. Soares commented that in January the Fund for Rural America covered new crop development. L. Byrnes informed the group that the Farm Service Agency which guarantees loans granted approximately 12-15 direct loans. They have the authority to guarantee bank loans as well as for local agencies such as community development organizations.

Aquaculture Opportunities at the MBL: Dr. Roger Hanlon
The focus of aquaculture opportunities is the Marine Resource Center. The MRC facility is 32000 sq. ft., and is capable of aquaculture-related research as well as biomedical/biological research. The MBL is both willing and interested in participating to work out bottlenecks, i.e. your problem areas. Some of the scientists have direct experience in aquaculture and disease processes. The Laboratory for Aquatic Animal Medicine and Pathology (LAAMP) with Drs. Bullis and Smolowitz and others at the MBL such as Dr. Norman Wainright can draw on their expertise and outreach programs. If you are having a problem, we may be able to team up with you and try for the highly competitive monies available. Teaching and education might be courses of interest to you. Dr. Hanlon also mentioned the Aquavet course run every year by LAAMP.

The question was brought up of how aquaculturists can plug into NRAC (Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center) funds. Problems being faced such as QPX disease can lose continuity and immediacy if there are gaps in funding. B. Miller, chairman of the Board of Directors for NRAC, suggested that the best way are the grants programs. He suggested the NRI program and the Special Grants Program which requires the involvement of Congressional people. W. Burt asked when the next course for regulators would be offered, what kind of time frame would be required to put one together, and what times would be best to hold it. R. Hanlon said that mid-June through August would be difficult but any other time would be okay. He suggested that a 6 month notice would allow sufficient time to put together a course.

WHOI Sea Grant Funding: Dr. Dale Leavitt
Dr. Leavitt informed the group that as of Monday, the final permit for the Westport project had been granted and that they can now harvest small scallops. C. Goudey mentioned that the new buoys are in place and next week will be conducting a side scan survey of area. They are interested in talking to people that are interested in using some of this area.

D. Leavitt then went on to discuss funding. The NCRI, a Federally funded program based in Oregon, recently put out its RFP. They do support Aquaculture research but to obtain funding, projects need to be tied into almost instantaneous turnaround to commercial applications. WHOI SeaGrant has just put out its 1998-2000 Omnibus (generic funding). The due date for applications is April 18th, and typically fund projects from 0-$50K. The proposals are reviewed at institutes before being sent to Washington for final approval. There will be an open meeting on March 19th, 2 PM, Clark Room 507, WHOI for those interested in applying. MIT Sea Grant funding is running approximately within one week of WHOI Sea Grant.

D. Leavitt also mentioned that there is a concern for sea scallop management, and will be a workshop some time in April on different strategies for mgt. including the impact of mobile gear on ecosystems, Canadian/resource enhancement, bycatch reduction issues, New Zealand practices, SEASTED, public vs., private rights, etc. The talks will be followed by break up into working groups. M. Forest asked to what degree has there been interest in pursuing Sea Grant dollars for aquaculture projects? D. Leavitt remarked that yes, some funds have been awarded, however the funding tends to be more for fisheries than for aquaculture.

Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance: Craig Pendleton
This topic has been rescheduled for the next SSWG meeting.

Boston Market: Sandy Campbell
The Commissioner of Agriculture is trying to make a more visible presence to allow for an RFP to do something similar to Pike's Market in Seattle in the Boston area. This topic will be discussed further during the next SSWG meeting.

Sea Scallop Fact Sheets: Dr. Halvorson
Dr. Halvorson remarked on the positive responses he has received regarding the need for further information to help promote aquaculture interest. Fact Sheets would be the best way to reach that largest audience. W. Burt mentioned the Aquaculture for Regulators Handbook and the video of the course, and its usefulness. Dr. Halvorson suggested that the material should be collectively reviewed in order to make the information useful to different target audiences. He asked whether any of the SSWG members would be interested ands asked for suggestions for the next course of action. W. Burt suggested that S. Soares should help coordinate our efforts. S. Soares replied that there has been some interest from Bruce Peters, who has recently written a document on subtidal aquaculture but Soares is not sure how to proceed. R. Karney suggested involving the SE Massachusetts Aquaculture Center. H. Halvorson will invite some people to some of our next meetings as to be acceptable, the fact sheets will need endorsements. The group was reminded that a large part of the problem and part of the solution resides with the press. There is a need for articles about aquaculture in general and about the process. These could even be done as part of a series of articles. W. Burt mentioned that NRAC is currently working on an Aquaculture video project which should help get the word out. S. Soares recently met with people from the Farm Bureau and spoke with John Richards from the Mass. Aqua. Association regarding the lease fee. The SSWG will be contacted in the next few weeks, in order to continue our endorsement. J. Dutra agreed that the group should continue our endorsements.

Next Meeting: APRIL 30th, 9:30 - Noon, Cape Cod Economic Development Council Conference Room, Hyannis Airport.

Concluding Remarks: John O'Brien
J. O'Brien mentioned that the loan plans for displaced fishermen tie in with technical assistance, R&D, and educational pieces. These pieces are beginning to come together with new products also playing an important role.