In Attendance: M. Barbeau, B. Blanchard, W. Burt, L. Byrnes, J. Caskey, M. Collins, D. Dutra, R. Edgar, C. Goudey, H. O. Halvorson, K. Harrison, R. Johnson, R. Karney, D. Leavitt, C. Mancuso, R. Smolowitz, S. Soares, R. Taylor, R. York.

1. Welcoming Remarks: Dr. Halvorson welcomed the attendees and brought John O'Brien's greeting. He commented that SSWG has received some publicity with the March 1996 article in Aquaculture News and an upcoming article in a NMFS publication. In addition, Dr. Rollin Johnson has been invited to the JSA meeting on May 23rd to discuss his OJA report on aquaculture. Dr. Halvorson has been invited to the June 17, 1996 meeting to discuss the activities of SSWG. A proposal has been submitted to host a session on Sea Scallop Aquaculture at the February 1997 meeting of the World Aquaculture Society which was accepted on 5/28/96. Finally, we are in the process of preparing a number of grants to support the activities of SSWG.

2. Future Goals for NRAC Dr. Halvorson introduced Dr. Kim Harrison, the newly appointed director of the Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center (NRAC). Dr. Harrison began by giving the group an overview of the center itself. The NRAC office located on the UMASS-Dartmouth campus was established by the USDA and covers the region from Maine to Maryland and West Virginia. It also includes D.C. There are 4 other regional offices. The funding process of the other centers is conducted through a work group conference. NRAC has used that process in the past but currently they use the Request for Preproposals (RFP) process. In order to receive funding all projects must serve the needs of the industry, have the support of the aquaculture industry and they must be intraregional. The intraregionality aspect to the funding process serves to help build bridges between states within the region and to leverage funds, academic & technical expertise, and industry experience.

The NRAC RFP process follows a 12 month cycle. In January, an Industry Summit is held to identify research topics of importance to the Industry members and then to prioritize those areas. After targeted research areas have been established by the Industry, NRAC's Technical and Industrial Advisory Council (TIAC) meets to edit those topics along with any discussion of them into "Need Statements". An RFP (Request for Preproposals) is drawn up which informs the public of the targeted research areas and explains the RFP format. The current RFP was mailed out on May 1. The Deadline for the submission of preproposals is June 6.

The NRAC office will sort through the preproposals received and send them to TIAC members. The TIAC will screen the preproposals to determine whether they meet the needs of the industry and have met the guidelines specified in the RFP. Top-ranking preproposals will be selected to the total funding level of double the FY research budget, and the PI's (Principal Investigators) of those preproposals will be asked to submit full proposals. Full proposals are reviewed by the TIAC review panel and external reviewers. Reviews are then submitted to the full TIAC in August for final selection. The selected proposals are submitted as a package (POW = Plan of Work) by NRAC to the USDA Aquaculture office in Washington, D.C. for final review by the Aquaculture Team and the USDA Grants office.

Currently NRAC is targeting to finish their Plan of Work (POW) by December so that NRAC can have monies available by February or March. Once submitted to USDA, the proposals are given to the Aquaculture Team at USDA made up of Hank Parker, Meryl Broussard & Gary Jensen. They evaluate and decide on acceptance, then the grants department will look over the budgets. Two areas that funding is not allowed are for overhead funds and for tuition reimbursement for students (students are allowed to receive salary).

Dr. Harrison informed the group that any areas the group can identify as needing research or is a problem, etc. will be given consideration and forwarded to the industry members. The NRAC office maintained a fairly decent library including journals, fact sheets and videos which is accessible to the public. NRAC is a good source of information and is more than willing to help in any way they can. Dr. Harrison hopes to have the NRAC Newsletter out this summer. The newsletter will focus on important people in the region. She encouraged members to submit articles on an industry person in the region. An NRAC web site is currently under construction. Once finished it will serve to link people interested in aquaculture with information sources, carry a calendar of upcoming events and hopefully be useful to the SSWG as well.

C. Goudey expressed his concern that by not providing funding for indirect costs, NRAC is eliminating academic researchers from obtaining funding. K. Harrison recommended drafting a challenge to USDA to get that decision overturned. The NRAC Board of Directors (BOD) oversees policy. The BOD has a panel known as the Executive Committee (EC) chaired by Dr. Robert Miller of URI. Dr. Miller has also mentioned that this is a critical concern of his as well.

4. Predation & Bottom Ranching: Dr. Miriam Barbeau presented a review of sea scallop bottom seeding trials conducted in Canada (Gulf of St. Lawrence, New Brunswick, etc.) These seeding trials have been very small scale, involving various sizes of both juvenile and adults scallops. Studies were also conducted during different seasons to measure any seasonal effects. There was a great variation of the survival.

Their study examined processes that affect mortality due to predaion by crabs and starfish. The sites varied from being in a channel open to current flow to being enclosed without much tidal current. Sites was defined with lead line. Between 10-20,000 scallops were released in the center of the sites. Monitoring was done by a diver holding a video camera. To look at predation, they used tethered scallops. They also had a 24 hr time-lapse video used before and after seeding. To monitor the effect of current flow they released marked scallops.

The seeding experiment in November seemed to stabilize around 40%. There was a noticible decreased in summer and winter. The dynamics were very rapid. Within weeks of beginning an experiment you know what your outcome will be. Scallops were planted at a density of around 250/meter squared. Stablized density ended up being about 1 per sq meter which coincided with the density of the naturally occuring scallop population in that area. The main predators were starfish and crabs. Researchers saw that neither the density of starfish or crabs tended to coincide with the density of the seeded scallops.

Even after day 1 there was significant dispersal. By the second month the initial aggergation has disappeared once again demonstrating how rapid the initial dynamics were. It also appeared that the site effect was greater than the seasonal effect. Predators do not seem to aggregate where the scallops are located. To examine the effect of predation on seeded scallops, scallops 5-30mm in shell height were tethered to stainless steel stakes by gluing a monofilament line to the shell. These were put out in several different arrays and monitored. The type of predator can be determined by the shell remains it leaves behind.

They also looked at preseeding predation. They found that larger scallops had better survivorship. After seeding researchers found all of the size groups to have a high mortalitiy. Survivorship appeared to be higher at colder temperatures. The variables exemined included site characteristics, water temperature, predator densities, scallop size and scallop densities. Researchers found water temperature and scallop size to be a factor for starfish predation. Survirorship was greater for larger scallops and for those in colder water. For crab predation they found that site selection, scallop density and water temperature all played a factor.

To test these factors in the lab tanks were set up offering either only one size of scallop or offered a choice of scallop size. The Nonchoice tank demonstrated that starfish consumed smaller scallops at a rate of 3-4 per day and larger scallops at a rate of 1 per day. The Choicetank results showed that starfish still prefered small scallops. Starfish did attack all sizes but the larger scallops were able to escape more easily.

For crabs it was found that when given only one size of scallops, crabs preferred medium sized scallops at a rate of 20-25 per day. When given a choice, crabs preferred larger sized scallops. Crabs appeared to have a good catching ability so in order to minimize predation you would need to minimize encounters. With high scallop density you can either have an individual predator eating more or else more predators may aggregate there. Proportion mortality doesn't really change w/ scallop density for starfish. It was found that there doesn't seem to be an aggregation but rather increased consumption for starfish. The 24 hour time lapse video showed that during the Summer, crabs are actively feeding during the day. During the Winter, crabs were found to be active at night. Smaller scallops are more vulnerable to starfish, all sizes are vulnerable to crab predation. For starfish there was a strond temperature effect. For crabs, this effect was effect overshadowed by site or density.

The researchers also examined dispersal (displacement from where they were seeded and where they ended up). Both size and current played a role in dispersal. With stronger currents, juveniles moved in the direction of the current but adults move farther out. Juvenile scallops could swim up to 10 meters in the Summer but only 1 meter in Winter. The currents don't seem to explain their dispersal. The stufy also examined growth of seeded scallops on the bottom and in suspensions. They found that growth did not vary greatly between the 2 methods in the shallow coastal sites. To minimize crab predation have lower density of scallops,or use a Predator Exclusion Device (PED).
In general when looking into site selection take suitable substrate, lack of predator refuges and overall size of the site into consideration.

Funding for this study came from several sources: Dalhousie University which was supported by Canadian Federal monies in the form of Centers of Excellence grants as well as contributions by industry members.

4 GIS Technology: Dr. Edgar presented a brief overview of GIS technology. GIS systems are used to collect & consolidate spatial information on a region which is then made available to anyone wanting such information. The use of GIS in aquaculture siting decisions appeared initially in the mid-1980's. Large FAO regional workshops were held in locations such as Asia, Kenya & the Ivory Coast promoting and facilitating the use of this technology in aquaculture. Basically GIS provides information on the spatial location of "things" (features) and "properties" (attributes). The key to GIS is that you can take this information and get visual answers to your questions. It can be likened to a marriage between a map and an almanac. There is a whole hierarchy to it because you can build at a fine level then integrate the information and ask questions at coarser levels, or to whatever level of resolution you want. Knowing requirements/characteristics of a site that you will need for your project, you can then use GIS to go "shopping " for the habitats that satisfy the niche requirements of the cultivated species. It is also easy to go back to the original model and stretch your variables (decrease the constraints) to perhaps increase the area of "suitable" habitat. UMD has the software, computer power and the students and has already begun the process. He needs the group to give him the parameters that are important for sea scallop aquaculture ie temperature, salinity requirements, primary productivityetc. Once it is together, what are the priorities of those variables ie frequency of boat trafific, regulatory boundaries, etc that contain pertinent information that will impact siting decision. CZM, the Division of MF and other groups both private and governmental have data sets that can be useful, also.

5. National Aquaculture Development Plan: Dr. Halvorson asked the group to focus on the set of priorities in this document and comment as to what we think should be the priorities. This document will be the subject of some regional meetings. K. Harrison mentioned that the steering committe is being put together at this time. It is likely that the meeting will be targeted for early September and will be held in Providence, RI. Dr. Hank Parker from USDA will be the opening speaker and will address any questions the audience may have. This development plan only affects Federal policies and actions. Invitations will be sent to various industry groups to give their opinions & assesments of the plan. Input will be in the format of combination ballot and comment statement. The groups should meet and fill out a ballot. A representative from the group can then tell how many people's viewpoints are represented by the ballot and rate or acknowledge omissions, etc. Individuals may also submit their own ballot to make their own personal opinions known.

Goudey pointed out p. 7 in the plan. He disagrees with the comparison made of aquaculture and agriculture. There needs to be a new mindset in order to progress. We should forget about this incremental improvement. Is your topic selection process subjected to this limited thinking?

Harrison replied that Judy McDowell will be the Sea Grant designee. As far as NRAC process, looking for overlap of federal funds. NRAC is driven by the understanding that the industry itself will identify their needs. It may be biased towards those already in existance. NRAC is more practical in nature compared to the more long term, academic/ theoretical Sea Grant.

Goudey then pointed out that there will be opportunities here to push the tehnology. Industry can't always be counted on to be looking towards the future. Harrison conceded that NRAC is not set up to work on a 10 year project.

The point was made to Harrison that the Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture has switched its funding emphasis to untested commercial species. Harrison pointed out that that is why people need to become involved in the Industry process. Halvorson called attention to the table of funding patterns and requested that SSWG members read this document before the next meeting. It was pointed out in the discussion that we should try to obtain as many industry experts opinions as possible. Harrison suggested that input from yourself and others on that issue could be presented at future JSA meetings.

6. Other Business: Leo Byrnes discussed the recent Supreme Court decision on the legal boundaries of Massachusetts waters. A press report indicated that the boundaries have been drastically changed so that the Federal waters have been extended right to the shores of MA but this is not the case. In actuality, it represented an order confiming the finding by a master (a series of findings) for defining where the baseline for measuring the baseline of state waters would be. The boundaries continue to be the 3 mile from shoreline or from a baseline across the mouth of designated inland waterways. Related to the boundary question, it was brought to Byrnes attention that a recent decision of the MA DEP touches upon what the boundaries should be and what areas are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. The name of the decision was "In the Matters of American-Norwegian Fish Farming"(2/13/96). It is basically a superceeding order issued by the MA DEP which is ruling on the request of a superceeding order from a regional office. The decision basically confirms that the boundary extends from 3 miles. The Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) holds true for all of these areas. An exemption within the WPA exempts normal maintainence of an existing site involved in aquacultural from the requirements of the WPA. A new site is not covered in this exemption.

Ron Smolowitz brought the group up to speed on the ammendment plans. After the Council vote last month, the lobstermen from Martha's Vineyard asked him to meet with them. The lobstermen were unhappy with the proposed location of the 9 mile site off of Martha's Vineyard. They suggested flipping the site over. This was acceptable so they next went to the New Bedford fishermen to get their opinions. They responded by claiming that would be even worse for them than the original location and suggested a third site. The lobstermen and the draggers discusssed possible locations for a site agreeable to all. It was finally decided to be a full consensus between those groups to go with the 3rd site. At a second Council meeting, the attorney for the Council advised that, because the project represents such a precedent, the Council should withdraw support for the project and have another public hearing. There will be another public hearing today at the Cranberry Experiment Station in Wareham. Both the lobstermen and the fishermen have verbally agreed to strongly support the site. The hearing today will probably involve the changing of a few lines in the current ammendment. It could be reviewed in the June 6th council meeting before going into the federal register system. Hopefully they can have the ammendment in place some time in September or October. Leavitt drafted a letter for Halvorson endorsing the support of the project to be presented at the Council meeting. Burt moved to adopt this letter, which was voted to approve. Somolwitz commented that we will need to go to this new site and side scan and resample. This can be expensive. MBL has agreed to lower the rate of their boats.

7. Next meeting The next meeting was sheduled for Tuesday, July 16th, 9:30-Noon, Cape Cod Economic Development Council, Hyannis airport.

At the next meeting we will spend some time discussing the Aquaculture Development Plan.

Minutes were prepared by Chrystal Mancuso