|
MINUTES
SEA SCALLOP WORKSHOP 9:30 AM - 3 PM December 5, 1994 Cape Cod Economic Development Council 480 Barnstable Road, Hyannis, MA Welcoming Remarks Mr. Mark Forest, Staff to Congressman Studds Massachusetts Office, invited active participation of this group, which brings together policy, regulatory and industry people to examine opportunities in sea scallop aquaculture and to better identify the regulatory arena. He pointed out that several states, such as Maine, are working very hard and aggressively to try to coordinate the regulatory policy dealing with aquaculture. This has led to one-stop shopping whereby those interested in aquaculture can come in, identify the regulatory issues, apply for all required permits, and get out of the system fairly quickly. To accomplish this in Mass. we need such a forum as this to examine (1)what is being done, and (2) to look at each of the regulatory jurisdictions. What kinds of permits and what kinds of requirements need to be met, in order to get a realistic sense of this industry in Mass? Dr. Harlyn Halvorson, Director, Policy Center for Marine Biosciences
and Technology (PCMBT), pointed out that the Center provides a forum for
interaction on marine issues by defining relevant issues, identifying
gaps in scientific knowledge, targeting audiences in need of specific
information and recommending legislative action to local, state, and Federal
policy-makers. He pointed out that it is our expectation to form a working
group that will prepare a position paper and plan a meeting next spring
to which outside experts will be invited who can help us, from their experience
in other states, solve the technical regulatory problems at the state
level in Mass. Commissioner Jay Healey, Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA),
State of Mass., saw a real growth for aquaculture in Mass. DFA is trying
to focus its efforts where they can be most helpful. Working with the
private sector and groups such as the Massachusetts Aquaculture Association,
they will (1) help coordinate activities, and (2) provide funding for
aquaculture. The goal is to pull together a good game plan for the development
of aquaculture and undertake regulatory reform. In the short term they
can assist projects that do not require permits. In the long term, they
see a need for a strategy for economic development and regulatory reform.
Commissioner Healey reported the Governor's interest in working with organizations
to obtain one-stop shopping in Mass. He introduced Paul Sisson from the
Mass. Office of Business Development (MOBB), who is working with Massachusetts
Better Business Commission (MBBC), Bay State Skills Corporation (BSSC)
and the Executive Office of Economic Affairs (EOEA) towards these goals. Dr. James Fair, Division of Marine Fisheries, State of Mass.,
reminded us that there are a lot of questions to answer both in the local
Federal Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) and State waters. We lack the authority
to authorize exclusive use of space. Permits can be given for fishing
but not to occupy an area. They are working with Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) to try to solve this problem - but in State waters this may require
a legislative fix. We have to decide where this authority should reside. Mr. Ron Smolowitz, Coonamessett Farm, reported that the Cape Cod and Islands Farm Bureau submitted the following resolution to the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation (MFBF) annual meeting. " Whereas the Massachusetts Farm Bureau represents the interests of freshwater and marine aquaculturalists and Whereas aquaculture may soon become one of the major growth areas of agriculture in the Commonwealth, BE IT RESOLVED that Massachusetts Farm Bureau form an Aquaculture committee with representation from all County Farm Bureaus that wish to participate and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this aquaculture Committee report back to the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Board of Directors within six months a Farm Bureau position on which state agency should promote and manage aquaculture." The resolution was voted and is now MFBF policy. The new aquaculture committee will be chaired by a Cape Cod and Islands Farm Bureau member. We plan to work closely with our membership interested in sea scallop aquaculture to help them over the obstacles put in their way by government. Introductions Nearby U Mass Dartmouth hosts (1) the USDA Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, which supports applied aquaculture projects, headed by Dr. Victor Mancebo, (2) the Center for Marine Science and Technology, headed by Dr. Gilbert Fain, who provide assistance and training in aquaculture (Dr. Jean Fraser), and (3) the Southeastern Massachusetts Partnership, under Stephen Andrade, who provide advice and training to entrepreneurs. Dr. Cliff Goudey, MIT Center for Fisheries Engineering Research (Sea Grant), has experience in closed sites, testing capability, and engineering design work for aquaculture. The DFA(Commissioner Jay Healey-see above) and Coastal Zone Management (Ms. Suzan Snow-Cotter) are reviewing state regulations with a view to promoting aquaculture in Mass. The Army Corps of Engineers, represented by Mr. Grant Kelley, deals with a wide variety of issues related to aquaculture: navigation, structural adequacy, coordination of biological assessments, site selection, time of year issues, and marine environment issues. Dr. Eric Nelson of the National Marine Fisheries Service noted that NMFS provided advice on habitat protection. Mr. Dana Morse, of the Fishing Family Assistance Center, New Bedford, offers his help. Also understanding of the environmental concern can be obtained from Mr. Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation. Economic advice has been offered from MOBB (Mr. Paul Sisson), CCEDC (Mr. John O'Brien) and SE Regional Planning and Econ. Dev. District (Mr. Scott Soares). Finally, the Cape Cod Farm Bureau (Mr. Ron Smolowitz), the Mass. Aquaculture Association (Mr. Carl Rask), the Martha's Vineyard Shellfish Group (MVSG) (Mr. Rick Karney) a non-profit consortium of the shellfish departments of the 5 Island townships, PCMBT(Drs. Harlyn Halvorson and Rollin Johnson), and the Biotechnology Center of Excellence Corporation(Mr. Fernando Quezada), provide networks to support aquaculture. ROUND ONE New Opportunities: Under the Directorship of Mr.Richard C Karney, MVSG proposes to develop a hatchery and field culture method for sea scallops with a $36,000 grant from the Fishing Industry Grants (FIG) Program. They will attempt to produce, spawn and hatchery culture sea scallop larvae in the winter and fall of 1995 by adapting their already successful production methods for bay scallops. If seed is successfully set, juveniles will be cultured in hatchery raceways, inshore floating cages and offshore bottom cages. Inshore nursery culture will be located in Lagoon Pond directly off the shellfish hatchery. Larger seed will be grown in experimental cages on a 8 acre deep water tract at the mouth of Buzzards Bay on an aquaculture lease recently obtained by the Southeastern Shellfish Association. Mr.Frank Dutra will conduct the offshore culture investigations. Mr. Rod Taylor, of Taylor Seafood, Inc., says friends and family have been in the sea scallop fishery in New Bedford for generations. His company has seven years of experience growing large numbers of sea scallops. He would like to try to help the fishery by seeding billions of juvenile sea scallops. While natural recruitment may not be able to keep up with present day fishing pressure maybe a large cultural operation can. He has the know-how and experience to begin such an effort. While a hatchery can produce large numbers and a nursery can be designed to get juveniles to a size at which they can survive in the wild, one cannot grow open shellfish beds, and traditional scallop fishing makes sense. While planting and harvest has a high cost, it is nothing like the exorbitant cost associated with containment through to adult stages. In this way aquaculture and traditional fishing could work together towards a mutually beneficial goal. He has been seeking congressional assistance for this effort., and has applied for a shellfish grant. On June 28, 1994 the Town of Truro unanimously granted to Mr. David Dutra 10 acres in Cape Cod Bay adjacent to the Town of Truro for the purpose of scallop culture. David and Judy Dutra then applied to the US Army Corps of Engineers for a general permit to place their sea scallop hanging culture facility in this granted area. According to the MA Division of Marine Fisheries, towns have jurisdiction out to 3 miles and the state does not become involved in granting areas unless there is a problem. The state does issue a permit to harvest and handle shellfish which is needed by the grant holder and as of July 1994 anyone awarded a shellfish grant by a town in MA must now have the area surveyed. The Truro Aquaculture Project was grandfathered, having been issued the grant before July, 1994. Also in July 1994 all of Cape Cod Bay became a Critical Habitat to the Northern Right Whale. The Army Corps of Engineers was mandated to report our project to the National Marine Fisheries Protected Species Division. Following a meeting with Mr. Grant Kelley (Army Corps), and Mr. Douglas Beach and Ms. Laurie Silva (NMF), it was decided that a Biological Impact Study was necessary. The Army hired a consulting firm to work with Dr. Story Mayo, a leading expert in the study of Northern Right Whales. The final report, which is expected in late December, will be sent to NMF who will make the final decision. Recommendations as to facility set-up, what will be allowed, when, where, etc. will come sometime in the late spring of 1995. Discussions are underway with CZM about a consistency review(?). A Private Aid to Navigation Application is also needed, but this may require suggestions from the National Ocean Services (NOS), a group within NOAA that maintains all U.S. nautical charts. They are working with Richard Karney, Shellfish Biologist at Martha's Vineyard hatchery to grow out spat from spawn of local Truro sea scallops. Their project is based on methods currently used in Japan and other parts of the world where juvenile scallops are held in cages submerged at depths of 50-60 feet for as long as it takes to grow a harvestable product, possibly as much as 5 years. Mr. Rob Garrison, Nantucket Research and Education Foundation
(NREF), writes that they presently operate a training and development
program for bay scallop aquaculture and are involved in expanding this
program to other Massachusetts communities and to other species. NREF
initiates public education campaigns, identifies local resources, prepares
action plans, assists in implementation, provides technical assistance,
develops species specific curriculum, and operates training programs.
Their goal is to develop the aquaculture industry through activities on
a community level. Public and private industry can be advanced by combining
local resources with a development plan, technical knowledge, and business
start-up assistance. Specifically for sea scallops, NREF is cooperating
with Martha's Vineyard, the Southeastern Shellfish Association(SSA) in
Westport, and the city of Gloucester to develop sea scallop aquaculture.
FIG money received by the Martha's Vineyard Group will fund a sea scallop
growout demonstration at SSA's growout site. Frank Dutra, NREF's Director
of Shellfish Aquaculture and Enhancement, will be overseeing this project.
In Gloucester, NREF is working fishermen, community activities, University
of Massachusetts, the Mayor's office, and local economic development agencies
to implement an aquaculture development program which identifies sea scallops
as a major species for development in this locale. Mr. Joel Fox has a shellfish grant in Wellfleet. Ms. Barbara Bragdon describes their interest in aquaculture. "It was a dark and stormy night, our boat was braving the seas" - and aquaculture seems to be taking over many of the world markets in the sea food industry. This is true in the scallop industry as our wild caught scallops are being mixed with Chinese Bay Scallops. We believe that special management areas will become a large part of the future of the industry. The special management areas could become the ideal fishing grounds for medium to large boats. If the fishing industry is going to survive, it must change to meet ever expanding competition from the world market. Mr. Alexander Gryska, NE Fisheries Association, has two grants in Eastport, Maine, one for finfish and another for sea scallops. Mr. John Winslow, Orleans, described his 2 acre grant for aquaculture.
ROUND TWO Dr. Rollin Johnson, Moderator Dr. Rollin Johnson briefly reviewed his study for the US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of factors contributing to that success and failure of aquaculture producers. He summarized those barriers which were reported by over 50% of the producer respondents. They follow in rank order: State Environmental regulations are too restrictive; Permitting is too time consuming and complicated; Siting of aq. operations is difficult; Lack of available sites; Federal env. regulations are too restrictive; Permitting is to uncertain; Costs of expanding operations are too restrictive; High risks from disease; Lack of public understanding of operation; and cost of maintaining operation. Priority Policy Options for Federal Action requested by producers included: Revising environmental regulations to accommodate aquaculture; Streamlining the permitting process; Facilitating the siting of a aquaculture operations; Providing capital support for aquaculture operations; Increasing the review of drugs for treatment of fish disease; Educating the public about the real benefits and risks of aquaculture. He noted that while his was a broad study of freshwater and marine finfish and shellfish aquaculture, we have had an opportunity to be more focused on a specific area and to make real progress toward creating more favorable conditions for successful scallop aquaculture.. Comments from Producers: Ms. Judy Dutra asked where we are going to do sea scallop aquaculture? How do you get permission from the state (who has jurisdiction) or local authorities (who lack jurisdiction)? If you are going to put in any facilities then you are dealing with the Corps of Engineers. The problems snowball and soon you are dealing with National Marine Fisheries. The Dutra's have had a small boat fleet for 70 years. They pointed out that moving into this activity, investing their own money, that they need protection from some of the larger operations who are moving inshore. The means financial burdens are great. With Cape Cod Bay being declared a Critical Habitat all aquaculture ventures may be threatened. By moving out in the several months that White Whales are in the bay, they thought some accommodation could be reached. The decision is up to NMFS. They strongly urged that the Farm Bureau, not NOAA, be responsible for regulations. Further barriers to them are, what type of gear to use, keeping up with the technology, and marketing. Financial support is needed for new technology. They also felt that if examples of success were available that other fishermen would join them. In reviewing their process - they have received approval by the Town, a grant from the State, and need only a permit from Div. of National Marine Fisheries to handle the skate and shellfish. They already have 19 licenses that cover sea scallops. Possibly the CZM will be involved. Since there is no effluent from shellfish, EPA has not yet commented upon shellfish. It was pointed out that EPA had an opportunity to make comments and declined, so at least in Region 1 there is no interest in regulating this activity. This is in sharp contrast to open pen systems for finfish in which there is a discharge into the ocean. Judy Dutra raised the possibility that for underwater pens they may have to go to the Coast Guard for Aids to Navigation. Possibly there are other agencies whose approval is required. Dr. Eric Nelson of NMFS Habitat Protection, pointed out that they do not have a separate permitting process - they are required to make recommendations to the Corps of Engineers. Under the Endangered Species Act they must consider species and habitat Mr. Gary Shedomiotir, Shellfish Constable in Westport, questioned whether you needed bonding or insurance to make certain that in case of problems - someone will pay to clean up the beach. Another barrier raised was that if you catch a scallop more than 3 miles offshore, nobody seems to care, whereas if the scallop is within 3 miles, you need to assure that it comes from certified waters. Whole scallops must come from certified waters; if dealing only the scallop muscles - then there is no concern. USDA certifies food products but as yet this does not apply to fish. There was general agreement that the problem of jurisdiction and regulation between state and federal is complicated and needs to be clarified and simplified. The experience of the Dutra's argued for one-stop permitting. Mr. Ron Smolowitz commented that the financial burden of monitoring water quality is too large for small aquaculture producers to meet. Two successful countries Japan and Norway are proactive and provide this help. He suggested that in federal waters, the federal government bear this cost - and in state waters the state could do this. The government should define the aquaculture zone, and do the monitoring. Mr. Mark Simonitsch pointed out that the question of water quality arises when you have to consider international markets and comply with European standards. Further if you wish to attract investment capital, water quality will have to be addressed. The business considerations are not unique to aquaculture. Mr. Dennis Walsh said one of the barriers is the biological basis for species choice. The Arctic boreal species that has been selected takes 5-7 years to grow to commercial size. Aquaculture industry has enough problems to grow a hard clam which takes 24 - 36 months. He works with scallop farming in Chile, where they have 600 people doing this with low pay. They are able to make a profit because they sell the animal whole in Europe. They are building a hatchery to supply their needs. The most successful shellfish aquaculture in the US is in Connecticut where it depends on natural seed. He argued as soon as you begin to use natural seed you will face opposition from the fishermen. He suggested the sea clam as an alternative. If you seeded 12 - 14 mm animals in April, you could have a marketable product by fall. NMFS did all the basic research 10 years ago, and yet there is no sea clam industry. Mr. Ron Smolowitz argued that he has worked with the sea clam industry and it is market limited. The Canadians have published that they can go from seed to marketable sea scallop in 27 months - albeit in small scale. He pointed out that it is native to our area, grows well, and while labor intensive, there are now techniques to deal with these. There are many approaches - i.e.. put them on the bottom in areas where they can sit there and grow. If the scallops are above 30 mm in size they will have a low rate of mortality. There is a huge demand, a high market price, and an existing infrastructure in New England (300 boats) for this industry. Sea scallops could be grown with surf clams in polyculture. Mr. Rod Taylor stressed that with a strong infrastructure, we need a strategy. He saw problems with net aquaculture for scallops - rather we should place scallops on the bottom. The Japanese have been very successful doing this. We need to add aquaculture to the current infrastructure. Removing barriers include enhancing the natural environment, site selection, and habitation. We need new technology, research regulations and public policy. All agreed that sea scallop aquaculture was 2 - 3 years away. Mr. Frank Dutra, Nantucket, was concerned about the thermal barrier. We will not have the needed depth of water until we get to the deep sea. We have a tentative site in Westport in 7 feet of water. When we get to the open ocean the Japanese technology will no longer apply. He is working with the Advanced Technology Center at Dartmouth to provide technology gear. He urged experimentation. We have to look for large scale hatchery production. This requires R & D money which is hard to see coming from private industry. These groups need to be coordinated. There was a broad discussion about the EEZ. Mr. Ron Smolowitz pointed
out that the scallops are not the property of the draggers. He suggested
that aquaculture producers could petition the Council to close certain
growing beds to commercial fishing and that these be a source for spat
for aquaculture seed. This would be a legitimate use of that resource
- there is nothing on the books to prevent this. Mr. Richard Taylor also
pointed out that the spats are very delicate and when the draggers leave
them on deck, they die in a few hours. If boats are equipped to refrigerate
or cool them they can be kept for 12 hours or more. Others cited their
success in keeping the spat for up to 5 days if they could be kept in
cold water or on ice. The spat could be sold at 1-2 cents apiece for seed
to aqaculturalists. Comments from Regulators: Mr. Grant Kelley, US Army Corps of Engineers, reviewed the issues that emerged with the applications for offshore aquaculture. The Corps regulates under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act. (1). Traditional navigation could be a problem. (2). The Corps needs assurance of the structural adequacy of the mooring systems. (3). Endangered species - there must be public notice. NMFS and EPA will be asked for comment. (4). Marine environmental issues: especially where food is added, the effects of wastes on the benthic community must be monitored. (5). Disease transmission: this is usually associated with stress in a cultured organism, and transmission to the wild stock must be considered. (6). Genetic impact of finfish escape: not aware of any examples to date. (7). Use conflict. The Corps must adjudicate issues - but they do not have a mechanism for this. Therefore they defer to the Council. (8). Public trust. Who speaks for the allocation of public space? Who collects the fees? Who coordinates environmental monitoring? Dr. James Fair, Division of Marine Fisheries, pointed out that their agency is in favor of aquaculture - and their Director is on record for pilot projects. They are required to consider disease - and if this is a problem, to shut down an operation. DEP will be a player as environment is a big issue. Another issue is private property rights in the intertidal zone. They will be required to certify that aquaculture will not be adverse to the environment of a Town. They will have to go out and inspect an area - by diving or dragging the sites off shore. This is a new ball game and the agency is not equipped to cope with these problems. As aquaculture has advanced with a small amount of private funds, the regulatory system has not caught up with this. He expects a confusing year ahead before this is sorted out. Dr. Eric Nelson, NMFS Habitat Protection, commented that the concerns they raise on protected species and the environment do not result in a denial of a project. More often we recommend to the Corps of Engineers changes in practices that will minimize impact on the environment and possible interactions with endangered species. We are more than willing to work with the aquaculture industry. We see as a successful cooperative effort between state and federal agencies that used in the state of Maine, where the one-stop permitting is working very well, particularly with the salmon industry. We work closely with monitoring. The state runs the monitoring program which is funded by charges to the industry ($.01/lb). They recommend that Mass. adopt the system used in Maine. One solution they see is to focus on juvenile scallops - raising them and harvesting them prior to the point that they can reproduce. This would relieve pressure on natural stocks. He sees a lucrative market for a new industry if the undersized stocks could be kept and sold for outgrowth. One participant(?) reminded us that we have to consider introduction of diseases with exotic or nonnative species. In the last 20 years in Mass. genetic changes have occurred with quahogs which were less than 3% Mercenaria. Now with aquaculture 20-23% of the quahogs collected are Merccenaria. Mr. Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation, raised a number of issues that deal with the regulatory framework. (1). Conflicts with traditional navigation. What is it? Who owns the sea lanes? How do we choose in a regulatory area which is constantly changing? We need criteria to help people who have to deal with permitting. This is also true for the user concepts. We need a basis for traditional users. In ocean - if you use one square mile every five years, are you a traditional user of the area? The lack of criteria is a large problem. (2). Related problem arises in comparing the ocean zone to public parks, forests, or agricultural lands. There is an absolute absence of any integrated overall federal policy for development and use of anywhere from the Territorial 12 mile limit to the 200 mile economic zone. A federal policy is needed for the multiple activities in these areas. (3). Producer barriers. In some resource areas the government serves as a developer, whereas in the ocean, government regulations serve as barriers. In which agency does economic development lie? Certainly not Agriculture, nor NOAA. A coordinated state and federal government strategy is needed to deal with these barriers and seek solutions. The env. community is supportive of aquaculture in the ocean. Entrepreneurs, acting randomly and independently, do not have access to capital, research funding, R&D, information or the time to achieve this. Commissioner Jay Healey replied that in contrast to Maine, Mass. has 7 or 8 agencies that have jurisdiction. Their Department is very much in favor of one-stop permitting but they need resources and need help. They need scuba divers, and access to the experts. Industry, Sate and Federal Governments are not well organized. He suggests that industry should bring a plan to the state . In other areas where regulators function there is an industry which drives it. There is a lot of support -recently from the Governors office to manage the regulations, but the issues are complicated. Ms. Suzan Snow-Cotter, CZM, pointed out that in this state the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has a role to play although they have not as yet done so in shellfish - and are not quite sure where they stand. She reported that a white paper on Aquaculture in Massachusetts (Characterization, Management Framework, and Recommendations) is currently under review and is expected to be finished by mid January. A task force has been created to address regulatory problems and develop an action plan. CZM is not approaching this with any preconceived notions. In response to the moderator's call for examples of specific recommendations Mr. Rod Taylor supported one-stop permitting and called for a champion for this industry. This group could serve that role, because a broad constituency is needed. Why did the scallops disappear - is there a better management? Financial support is needed. Mr. Peter Shelley likened this to a chicken and egg situation. You need $ before you can get permits which enable you to obtain $. Mr. Ron Smolowitz reviewed how the federal government uses the Council for decisions outside of state waters. If you asked the Council, for example, to hold a 2 sq. mile area for a 6 month experiment for aquaculture, the council does not have a mechanism to handle this. They would have to amend a district management plan. We need a mechanism for exclusivity. This brings up the problem of traditional users - where there are no criteria. A solution would be to have special management areas. State and federal governments could define experimental aquaculture zones. The government should be proactive. Finally, the Federal government is responsible for any animals beyond 3 miles. If you put aquaculture there , the animals belong to the government. There is a lack of data. Fisheries data is collected on a 30 X 30 mi square. For any given area, what animals exist, what would the impact be, there is no data whatsoever. Dr. Jack Pearce, NMFS, listed the concerns within his agency. He pointed out that in Canada they are trying to solve the problems with mariculture. We should watch how they do this and how they solve these problems. ROUND THREE Mr. Frank Dutra raised the concern that 5 years from now, when the scallop harvest was ready, the price of scallops could drop to $2 or, like the lobster experience, imports could bring in smaller scallops than were permitted to be harvested locally. One of the producers (?) pointed out that the Japanese were already producing an excess of scallops, and were even canning them and using these to produce a "tuna fish" spread. Dr. Johnson pointed out that scallops are not unique in this; any product that takes a number of years to produce has an inherent risk factor. Mr. Forest agreed, but it is an issue that we can not deal with here; we should focus on the regulatory process, regulatory agencies, and identify the regulatory barriers. Mr. Ron Smolowitz remarked that since we don't have one-stop shopping for any given agency, we need to have a synopsis of which agency controls which step in the process. Mr. Mark Forest noted that several years ago there was an effort to streamline the process for shellfish aquaculture. Federal agencies worked very closely with the Massachusetts Aquaculture Association an worked out a number of problems. At the Federal level there is almost the equivalent of one-stop shopping for shellfish aquaculture. The view was expressed that it would be very helpful, if a flow chart was available to guide one through the regulatory process - such as is available in Maine. Mr. Grant Kelley explained that in Maine they have developed a joint application form which covers the Corps of Engineers, EPA and the Maine equivalent of DMF. On this one form you apply to all 3 agencies - the equivalent of one stop shopping. The hope was expressed that this was the way we should proceed in Mass. Ms. Snow-Cotter reported that the flow chart would be part of the White Paper she spoke about earlier. Another point raised was the regulations covering gear. Mr. Karl Rask noted that in their experience agencies do not have aquaculture as a category in their review process -- it goes under industry. They simply do not know what to do. There are over 900 people working for EPA, and you do not know who you will get. It might be wetlands, waterways or someone new. You have to repeat the whole explanation. In every hearing we go through the same process. Everyone here should be able to agree on solving this problem. Mr. Smolowitz said there are three things that producers must do to overcome barriers: (1) we need to reach out to find out what are the concerns of other users, (2). we need to allay fears by dealing with the lack of information, (3). we need to establish criteria so that all projects can be evaluated fairly. It was pointed out that in Maine the one-stop shopping only solved the problem if the producers knew where to go to get started. The other problems remain. The real problems are buried beneath the one-stop concept, these are the ones that have to be addressed. This was clearly the message delivered to the committee at the last meeting. Mr. Richard Taylor noted that the Gulf of Maine covers 40,000 square miles, more than half of which is on our side of the line. The shelf from George's Bank to Cape Hatteras is another 80,000 square miles. The Council has adopted regional approaches for the New England area -- for the area from the North and South of New Bedford. Some of the species cross these lines and there may be jurisdictional issues. The near shore environments are clearly site specific, and the problems encountered in North Carolina do not exist here. He suggested that we should evolve home rule as there are local issues. We have cold water outside Boston, but not here. There will never be cold water in Cape Hatteras -- and they will never have a scallop industry. In response to a question by Dr. Johnson as to whether beyond the 3 mile zone states should get together, he replied that it will depend on who gets there first. All regulatory agencies are being reactive because the pressure is on. We are here to recommend how that reaction takes place. One potential method is to use a regional approach. Dr. Cliff Goudey said he didn't know how the Council process is going to deal with this, based on their experience with the scallop proposal. Certain species, because they cross these boundaries, are regulated by larger groups and this eliminates the Council initiatin. One could argue that for regional aquaculture, it should be taken away from the Council and instead set up a North Atlantic States Aquaculture Commission to deal with a migratory problem. The point was raised -- do we need to add an amendment to the Magnusen Act? Mr. Mark Forest said it makes sense. It need not be comprehensive, but at least it will force some of the key players to address the problems. Mr. Ron Smolowitz thought that all you needed to do in amending the Magnusen Act was to instruct the Councils to identify 5% the areas they are responsible for to Aquaculture. This would force people to deal with the issues. Mr. Mark Forest- What about the comments raised by Peter Shelley? Mr. Ron Smolowitz, said the council cannot exclude commercial fishing from the aquaculture areas. There are many gray areas in between -- but they can be forced to deal with it. Consider his own project south of Martha's Vineyard. It occupies 9,000 areas of space ( 9 sq. miles), insignificant to the fishing space. Based on the Japanese stocking experience, 10 square miles of space can produce the entire landings of the sea scallop industry. It is mind boggling that a way cannot be found to solve this. The Dutra's pointed out the difficulties of a business that both dredges for wild stock and would also be interested in sea scallop aquaculture. Part of the problem would be eliminated if the boat sea time for fishing were not counted against aquaculture time. Their boats are equipped with tracking systems so that they can prove where they are and have gone. Dr. Donald Abt reported that many of these concepts have been
discussed in the OTA Committee. This includes putting all aquaculture
into one agency to give it a higher status. There has been talk of appointing
an undersecretary for Aquaculture in the Department of Agriculture. There
are a number of political problems connected with this, but it is one
form of one-stop shopping. Mr. Grant Kelley, in response to the question does this make sense?, commented that from his listening to Council deliberations he observes they do not have the financial resources or manpower to do the job. Further, aquaculture does not sit effectively within the Magnusen Act. The issue must be treated separately. It should be incorporated into the whole Coastal Zone Management. It was commented that any legislation must include appropriate regulations. Giving 5% of the space for aquaculture begs the questions of who is going to regulate the issuance of leases, collect fees, and underwrite environmental monoriting? All this should be vested in a single document and not fragmented. Dr. Abt pointed out that this is the reason that led to the suggestion of a single lead agency, like Agriculture, with the ability to solve these problems. Mr. Peter Shelley pointed out that there is another dimension in the way the Council is constituted. If the Council were to make a commitment for management zones to support aquaculture, and put the limited resources together in a coordinated fashion to the Council , they have the votes from representatives from the states. You could create aquaculture zones quite easily which would remove a lot of the barriers in terms of regulatory activities yet would be set up at a sufficient scale to justify the resource expenditures. He pointed out that the staff is overworked. While the States have a limited role, they could come together on regional aquaculture zones which could be given Council blessing as special management areas, This is already in the program. This could then be opened for bids from people who have projects and funds could be channeled into these zones. All this could be done without amending the Magnusen Act. Mr. Ron Smolowitz pointed out that if a fisherman wanted to change his approach there is no extension service or research program identified to support the aquaculture industry. In contrast the Department of Agriculture provides loans, technical advice, in fact a whole infrastructure. He sees nothing wrong in having one agency (Marine Fisheries) be a regulatory agency and another (Agriculture) be an ombudsman for a new agency. Dr. Jack Pearce reported that Marine Fisheries has several hundred thousand dollars in its budget, not for more data for regulations or conservation, but for wise management. As you know, their collection of data is at random sites. Dr. Johnson said that we seem to have a problem in how we get there from here. Dr. James Fair commented on why we have barriers. Marine Fisheries is an agency which will never give up their legitimate concerns about aquaculture. There is lot of interest in the aquaculture community to take advantage of the benefits available to the agricultural community. There will also be regulatory responsibility in one agency and promotion in the other. Marine Fisheries should be concerned about animal health and environmental issues involving habitat. Dr. Cliff Goudey called for more R & D. The issues involved include the production of seed, i.e. whether to use hatcheries or to depend upon natural production. There is the economic question of grow out and when one should harvest the final product. We have been dealing with an industry which has been reluctant to look at the important issues. It is in your best interest to determine which gear is most appropriate While the industry may not be able to impact upon the natural product, if you have a piece of ground that you wish to cultivate, the choice of gear is important. We need improvements and the ones who are trying to utilize the small catch should be supported and encouraged. Mr. Frank Dutra said that most people do not think about the small catch, and it just dies on deck. We should be encouraged to keep the undersized catch on ice and take it to where it can grow. There are regulations against keeping small scallops. The bycatch issue must be addressed whether you are a scalloper or a dragger. Mr. Mark Forest asked , assuming that the other problems can be addressed, what is the economics of doing this? Can the introduction of new technology increase the bottom growth rates? Can a system which is effective and economical be developed? The whole issue of on bottom / off bottom needs to be addressed. At this point the experience of the Dept. of Fisheries in Canada was raised. J. Parsons, with 4 collaborators at the St. Andrews Biological Station studied sea scallop aquaculture at 3 different sites at 3 different temperatures. Their recent paper showed the economics of this. The question of scale and the need for new technology was raised. Dr. Rollin Johnson, commenting on this report, asked the producers -- where do scallop farmers get information on new technology? Ms. Judy Dutra said there is information from the extension service, the National Marine Fisheries and some on Internet - but few fisherman use this. Mr. Rod Taylor added that there is information in the library, publications of World Aq. Society, annual aquaculture meetings - but most fisherman do not have the time, money or knowledge of libraries to take advantage of these. Mr. Karl Rask pointed out that there is plenty of information available and that the producers have to make an effort to obtain this - just come and ask. Dr. Jack Pearce also said there was a lot of information in his agency and in technical journals. However, in recent years technical information from agriculture extension has been cut back extensively. In mariculture Dr. Harold Rosenthal, Germany, has experience in Aquaculture all over the world - and much of this is applicable. We need an agency to spread the word. There is plenty of information but it is not readily available to people who need it, or to people who own homes on the coast so they don't have to fear aquaculture. The solution is effective education. Mr. Ron Smolowitz contradicted that it is not technical advice that the industry needs. There are plenty of people with great ideas who need some financial support. If this could be set up, it would solve many of our problems. The Government can help with monitoring and with technical advice. Mr.William Mebane commented on his 10 - 12 years experience in freshwater finfish related lessons learned from Minnesota and West Virginia. Aware of how biased information from companies selling aquaculture equipment nearly ruined the freshwater aq. industry, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture split off a branch of Aquaculture. They funded $8 -10 M for this, built a 30,000 sq. ft. aquaculture facility at the Univ. of Minn., traveled extensively and finally set up 3 of the best turn- key recirculating systems (Germany, Swiss, and US) for the public to see and use. They set up retraining for extension agents to learn about fish and invited farmers to come in and learn how to access information. Aside from supplying critical financial support, they made non biased information available. General Mills Company then made major financial commitments to aquaculture for 5 or 6 years. The second experience was West Virginia where with the strong support of Senator Byrd, extension agents were sent off to schools like the MBL for retraining. They then taught farmers how to conduct aquaculture (trout), including raising algae, which not everyone can do. If you had a spring on your property, the extension agents would come out to test the water, and give you $6000 to start. It was pointed out that information is also needed to make intelligent regulatory decisions. We need to educate regulators about specifics of projects that appear in applications Mr. Rod Taylor recalled that Sea Grant once funded a book on how to grow sea food - including quahaugs. Mr. Rick Karney said they were planning to prepare some material for training fishermen to do aquaculture. The need for further information on suitable sites, temperature, structure of the bottom, etc. was also stressed. Mr. Mark Forest stressed the importance of siting. You cannot go to a real-estate agency. You need consultants to tell you what is on the bottom. Mr. David Dutra said you should site where the sea scallops already grow. You know that they have been there. Mr. Frank Dutra said they had to choose a site off Nantucket where nothing grows. Mr.Ron Smolowitz contrasted the great help he had received from the state for agriculture in contrast to aquaculture. Sea scallops are everywhere. Fishermen know where there are dense sets of scallops, where they grow well with large, hard shells and other places where they do not grow so well - with small, weak shells. Every now and then there is a good bed of scallops. Presumably some environmental activity kills off the young most years. If we could identify these, and introduce larger young, at the right temperature, these would become excellent places to grow scallops. Ron stated that the site he selected south of Martha's Vineyard was a result of his own experience as a fisherman and from the literature and data base he got from NMFS. Looking at the water temperature, he surveyed the 100 ft. deep contours along the Mass. coast and identified the above site. This is an area that does not produce large amounts of scallops for some reason; you have a primary crop only every few years. The State looks to avoid such areas. To identify these it will be necessary to send a biologist out to inspect. Ron pointed out that it would be helpful for Government to define aquaculture zones with equivalent types of information. There was a general discussion on how valuable these zones could be. There is the potential for raising more scallops. Examples were given where the are pseudo-quasi titles to have fixed gear in an area for a period and then following public notice the gear can be switched. The public perception is that this gear is like lobster pots! Rhode Island has problems like this with the quohaug lobby. It is not certain that you can leave your gear on the bottom In Canada one has a lease for 20 days. The question arose about the coexistence of draggers and scallop aquaculture. Ms. Judy Dutra pointed out that you have to rotate the cages. As the scallops grow they have to be moved and taken out of the water. Scallops will accumulate under the cages. She does not see this as a problem. Who has aquaculture rights? Mr. Ron Smolowitz noted that there are no more dragging or scallop licenses. They are giving aquaculture rights to individuals, so we need to act to set some areas available. He suggested 5% of the area. We need to identify these. One participant observed that there 460 scallopers and 249 large vessels. 11 men own half of these. The small aquaculture base that exists is the only competition to this. Dr. Jack Pearce commented on examples where wise government action made a large difference. In Ireland they use one sea lock to recruit mussels and oysters, etc. These are later towed by boat to another lock where there is lots of food. Ireland is now an exporter of mussels. In Barnegat Harbor in New Jersey clams are recruited and then these are collected and moved to other areas for outgrowth. The high demand for clams make this affordable. Thus there is ample precedence for this procedure. ROUND FOUR FORMATION OF A WORKING TASK FORCE A Sea Scallop Working Group was generated from volunteers at the meeting. Their goal is to plan for a spring meeting that will focus on the priority issues identified at this meeting, invite relevant experts, an generate a working paper as a basis of discussion. This group will meet several times next year. SEA SCALLOP WORKING GROUP
Appendix of Conference Recommendations Problems and Solutions for Reducing the Impediments to Sea Scallop Aquaculture in Massachusetts
|