Attendance: Bill Burt, Leo Byrnes, Cliff Goudey, Harlyn Halvorson, Rollin Johnson, Rick Karney, Deirdre Kimball, Dale Leavett, Paul Russell, Ron Smolowitz, Richard Taylor, Rick York

Greetings - Dr. Harlyn Halvorson welcomed the group and thanked the Mass Maritime Academy for hosting the meeting. He reported that the first draft of the Summit Meeting will be submitted soon to the editing committee and hopefully in a few weeks ready for distribution to the attendees. At this meeting we will need to reexamine and prioritize the summit recommendations.

Dr. Dale Leavitt reviewed the activities of SEMAC. An experimental shellfish hatchery is being established at the Academy which will include some scallop hatchery techniques. SEMAC is continuing to hold shellfish growers forum which attracts 30 - 40 people. Next month there will be another HACEP Workshop. SEMAC also has a major effort to help support a bay scallop industry in Massachusetts. Sandy McFarland is preparing a background document of this industry on the Cape and in other parts of the country. On the 6th of May SEMAC is holding a Workshop to determine priorities for bay scallop restocking. Experts from Long Island and Florida will be attending to update their experience with bay scallops restocking.

Plans for Aquaculture / Environment Conference - Dr. Harlyn Halvorson updated the plans for a workshop Aquaculture and the Environment: A Meeting of Stakeholders is being planned for the spring of 2000 in the New England area. This conference will examine key issues relating to environmental effects of cultivating marine organisms as viewed by the aquaculture industry , and the environmental and the scientific community. This meeting will provide an open and full discussion of the scientific and technological basis of the concerns.

The objective of this conference are to identify the following: (1). What are the issues of concern ? (2). What is known ? (3).Where are the gaps in our knowledge ? (4). How do we prioritize and deal with these gaps? (5) How should decision-making about aquaculture development proceed - - given what is known and not known ? To achieve this it is our intent to bring the key stakeholders (industry through environmentalists) to "the table" to participate in public discussion where the relevant scientific and technical information, including gaps in our knowledge, is available to all. It is the intent of this Meeting to have the relevant stakeholders address these decisions collectively and develop a common map and common language relating to the issues that are at stake and the gaps that need to be addressed. In planning this conference, the first task will be to survey the potential stakeholders, have them identify the major issues, and invite their participation. Invitations to participate, especially from industry representatives, are being distributed. A broad group of stakeholders have thus far participated in the early planning sessions. Concerns were expressed over the breadth of the topics, the desirability of focusing on offshore marine aquaculture, and the need to involve more industry representatives. Further planning sessions are anticipated to which these suggestions will be raised.

Report on NEFMC Activities - Mr. Richard Taylor reported that the good news was that there are lots of scallops offshore, especially on the closed areas on George's Bank. It is the largest bivalve aquaculture ever. The first three weren't even closed for scallops they were closed to protect fish. The scallops have been left alone longer than they have ever been in recent history. There are now more scallops in Closed Area 1 and 2 than there ever have been. The low ball estimate for CLA2 is ~1B pounds. This means 200 M pounds annually (whole weights). The three areas have benefited by two more successful recruitment's. There is no way to determine which of the many factors contributed to this. It seems to me that the closure been successful for both settlement and maximal yield per recruit. On the other hand the fleet is so regulated by this process that they are inclined not to go into these closed areas. Fishing under these constraints, i.e. low bycatch, larger mesh sizes, is not promising. Fishermen over 55 with he multimillion dollar boats look like they want out. The younger fishermen, who benefit from this type of management system, don't know which way to turn. The fishery is not being managed to achieve to maximize productivity and revenue. Many users are being accommodated. I have hope because there is a limited number of licensed fishermen with scallop permits at present. Looking ahead I don't believe that scallop production should be limited to 20 - 50 people. All of the scallop production on the shelf will be controlled by people who currently have licensees.

Rich York reported from his discussions with New Bedford fishermen that given the present situation the entire fleet would only harvest a few percent of the available yield in a year. Has the council looked into this? Taylor replied yes. If you look into the growth rates, for year 2, 3 and 4 scallops, they are doubling in meat yield per year. So you get a 100% increase less what you lose to the starfish and the crabs. On the other hand the Sustainable Fisheries Act considers other species which have different growth rates. But if you only take 20 % you end up a year later with more that you started with. No one has tried this before. York pointed out that given these productivity factors, NMFS should consider this approach more seriously. There is10 times more revenue yield in scallops than fish. In you were to manage an area for maximum production and economic return, you could manage the area for sea scallops and ignore the fish.

However Taylor reminded us that even under optimal conditions the yield will not feed ourselves. If you take 20 % of all groundfish biomass you would get only ~50 M pounds per year. Therefore going to pen aquaculture is a long term necessity. It is impossible to maximize all species at the same time. The value of the sea scallop industry has been on a par with all the finfish industry. However you need to consider the entire food chain. On a tropic level you have to have more herbivores than carnivores. York reminded us that Japan is growing bivalves, not finfish. It has been argued that on strictly economic grounds, it is more profitable to raise shrimp.

Taylor said there are three major issues before the NEFMC. First opening the closed areas. Next, shutting off the codfish industry. Third trying to estimate harvest level and accessibility. Other issues involve gear. Ron Smolowitz reported that in the Scallop Framework we managed to get in some wording that set aside 1 % of the total allowable catch for the next 6 months. This framework is intact, for purposes of research. A research plan has to be submitted to the regional administrator with a cost associated with it, and this, if approved, can be compensated by an increase in the vessels trip limit. One of the areas identified for preferred research is crop enhancement. Thus we now have a mechanism for funding sea scallop aquaculture. There will be a meeting of the scallop committee on May 24th to review submitted proposals. This can include the cost of the scientist, data collection and equipment. The boat owner would have to pay these costs out of pocket for later reimbursement. In response to a question by Cliff Goudey, Smolowitz replied that today boats are bringing in $7,000 per day for 1200 pounds of scallops. All of the cost would be converted to pounds of scallops. The only place where a boat gets a trip limit is in the closed areas. This may or may not be attractive to boat owners. It all depends upon the price he can receive for scallops collected outside the closed area. The real issue is to control costs such as insurance pools, refinancing etc. A by-catch limit has been placed on this which is ridiculous. We have to take the existing industry and get them enhancement and multiple species oriented. Another option is more combination vessels, i.e. scallops and yellowtails. Three years ago NMFS turned down a request to use a fishing boat for research as NOAA's lawyers declared that fishing vessels were not research vessels.

Review of Summit Recommendations - Dr. Rollin Johnson introduced the summary recommendations which were generated from his notes, the tapes, the summary sheets prepared at the summit meeting by Dale Leavitt and the economic recommendations supplied by Steve Edwards. These were divided into three categories: (1) Support, Jurisdiction and Demonstration, (2) Technical, and (3) Economic Research.. He noted the redundancy in the recommendations. Cliff Goudey noted that there are some areas of technical research which you may want to add. We also may want to add some more on economic research. There is a lot of information available to be able to make a compelling economic argument to industry: the economics of a rotating closure system and the economics of an intensive seed transfer using closed areas. We need the biological information to make that economic analysis. It seems we do for the rotational closed areas. He drew attention to the information coming out of Canada during the past five years. Richard Taylor noted that a fisherman with a general category scallop licensee who is allowed 50 bushels of shells is not going to be allowed in the off shore closed areas. The smaller boats have the right to do that. It is stretching their range to go into the offshore areas. The economics are near zero along the beach, where the big boats wipe that out. Transplanting scallops to the near shore makes perfect sense. This would make opportunities for boats excluded from off shore activities to be involved in reseeded nearshore areas. The real key was that the areas that were closed in George's Bank were selected for fish. Cliff Goudey asked what would the outcome be if the areas were closed for different purposes: i.e. for scallop enhancement but trawling had been allowed? Taylor replied - Good question. The areas which are closed down south are open to scallop trawling. Scallops are setting in all down the mid Atlantic. There are lots and lots of new settlements. The only other controls are effort controls on the dragging fleet. Scallop closure areas are unprecedented. Ron Smolowitz commented that the statements that modern fishing gear allows every place on the ocean floor to be towed. This is totally not true. What percentage of the bottom can be towed? At present the fishing fleet is working in concentrated areas. Scallop spat is settling in open areas, that doesn't mean that they are actively towed areas.

Turning to the recommendations, Ron Smolowitz commented as you go down this list there are two totally different activities: One is private aquaculture, and the other is resource enhancement. To many resource enhancement is less of a pejorative subject. The fishing industry could be decimated by the environmental movement. We have some extreme points of view but no leverage. FMA is now proactive for bycatch, proactive for habitat, but is not proactive for resource enhancement. nor for leasing for private aquaculture. It is not true to say there is a bias against aquaculture. Getting a seat on the council for an aquaculturists does not change anything other than to help collect information to assist decision makers to help overcome any misperceptions. The council should have more authority to conduct research and to set policy.

Richard Taylor said that if SSWG wanted to adopt platform policy, we should address the framework. Ron Smolowitz thought that recommendations 2 and 3 could be combined. We need well developed arguments to influence and educate the decision makers. It is easier to educate a council member than an attorney. Overcome the bias but the mechanism is immaterial. You have to look at what concerns the council. Each individual has a different concern. Rollin Johnson asked how you present information to the council. Smolowitz responded that, for example at a habitat committee meeting you can not be effective if you do not have the information available to respond to some of the claims made. Rick Karney said the materials are available - we need a mechanism to get the information. Dale Leavitt noted that we all have the ability to search the date bases. We need to know what the questions are and we need to find someone with the time to do this. Deirdre Kimball recalled that this was like the discussion that NFMS had several years ago with the Dutra's. Richard Taylor thought that the council's staff were aware of the problems and gets this information out to the subcommittees. The problem is for committee members to digest that large amount of information supplied. Getting a topic on the council's agenda is more challenging. Subcommittees are more approachable. Cliff Goudey thought the strategy was two fold. One is that you give the council members the information they need and two you start a fire like the Westport Project. Richard Taylor proposed that with the set aside we go directly to the council for support than write SK grants. Leo Byrnes asked whether anyone has prepared a paper on how the council does work? Dale Leavitt recalled a paper from Georgia which described the council process and promised to have it available. There was some discussion as to whether the role of the council was regulatory or advisory. Deirdre Kimball said it was clear it was regulatory- some of the decisions were deferred to Washington for political reasons in response to the collapse of the fisheries. NMFS writes the recommendations and the council votes on it. The Secretary of Commerce has veto power.

Ron Smolowitz thought this was one of those rare moments of opportunity to have a very strong say that will cover most of these items. This is an adjustment to a framework which will apply only to December 31st. The new fishing year begins March 1, 2000. FMC will go through Amendment 7 which is based the old estimates on what the abundance of scallop is out there cut the fishing to 50 days from its current 120. This is so severe, in the eyes of the fishing industry, to destroy it. The council has said that the fishing industry has accepted the principal of rotational strategy, which would require that an amendment be written. The reality is that we are plowing new grounds. How do we write a new amendment in this council process? This would be a whole new concept on how to manage scallops. The staff will either work on an amendment or an adjustment to those days at sea. The scallop industry should work on the framework process to get the days at sea adjusted upwards. But come March 1st there is no more access to the closed area unless that is incorporated into the new framework as well. This is an opportunity for a group outside of the process , a combination of stakeholders, to develop a rotational fishing strategy. Rich York asked if this would be for the entire fishery? Smolowitz replied yes, but an amendment could accept existing components of a plan. York said that in the open areas they can do what they want in the existing plan and then set up the closed areas in a rotational basis. Smolowitz said this is an option. This might be an opportunity for us to draw a straw man amendment that basically deals with all these issues. This would take time and people. Now there is an opportunity and hunger for solution for problems. Taylor asked if the SSWG wanted to work in this direction? It was agreed that they would be supportive of this trend. Smolowitz said we should just prepare a document, which is basically an amendment on how to handle the scallop industry. Goudey pointed out that there are many components to be considered. We need to get the various factions together. The Committee and their staff will have to direct their attention to polishing it off.

Halvorson said that in terms of closure of the blueprint we could have a simple statement without being too specific about the details. Goudey thought 3 or 4 people could put together the principals and getting input from various other experts. Smolowitz suggested that SSWG take the responsibility if drafting the amendment and invite the participation of anyone interested and other stakeholders and inform the council that we are happy to work on a rotational fishing amendment. He proposes that we make a recommendation to ourselves to do this. In this amendment we take into account the nine recommendations from the Summit Meeting. These are all related: enforcement protection, rotational fishery, seed collection areas, spat collection, growout. Johnson asked if there were some prepared documents. Smolowitz replied that in the details we have to consider how to control the harvest in the open area as well as the issues related to enforcement. There are six closed areas if you include Westport. There would be a research needs section. York questioned number 7 regarding temperature tolerance should instead be a higher productivity at the higher temperature. Rick Karney broadened this to include other factors such as disease resistance. York suggested we should try to get some fund to gather information, do a literature search. Taylor said that Shumway has a bibliography with over 1000 references on sea scallops. York suggested that we need funds to put a full time expert to work on this. Taylor asked whether any funds could be obtained from the scallop industry. Smolowitz said he would approach them to seek their financial support. If they agree we draft a letter to send to stakeholders asking their support. He further suggested that the council itself has some funding and could be approached for support. He suggested Richard Taylor as a logical candidate to take this role. Taylor noted that document is a framework adjustment. The next step was to go to amendment 10 and have this ready by March 1st. This is not going to happen. So you have to have a second framework to open some of the other areas. The due date for amendment 10 is 2001. So we have a year and a half. There was a general discussion of the cost to carry out this effort. It was thought that with cooperation from SSWG that someone could produce a document for about $10,000.

Next Meeting Tuesday June 8th. Univ.of Mass Boston Campus