The UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS, 1982) and the introduction of 200 mile wide Exclusive Economic Zones along the continental margins had dramatic effects worldwide regarding fisheries, particularly for sedentary species such as scallops. Rapid growth and modernization of our fleet, the loss of the historically productive eastern portion of Georges Bank, coupled with

strong demand even at elevated prices, set the stage for the current restrictions deemed necessary in our scallop fishery. The continental shelf along the Atlantic is one of the largest in the world and has supported the largest scallop fishery, but we have come to its limits with the passage of

the Sustainable Fisheries Act, concerns of bycatch, impact on other species, and concerns about the integrity of the ocean bottom itself.

Since the 1970's, countries in all parts of the world have begun scallop culture operations. These generally involve spat collection, growth of juveniles in hatcheries or seedbeds, and growout in hanging cages or in protected seabed. The Japanese model with spat collection, contained first

year growth away from predators, seeding of areas remote from collection, and rotational fishing of growout areas, has been applied successfully in Japan, where culture efforts now contribute half of Japan's sea scallop production, in New Zealand, where scallop aquaculture has consistently matched production in the wild fishery and uses 1/3 of the boats and 1/5 of the area:

in France: and in the Magdalene Islands. Hanging culture has been successfully employed in China and Chile.

In New England, the scallop fishery has been so threatened by overfishing, that 6,000 square miles of the most productive bottom is now closed, and pressure on inshore areas may lead to more closures. This situation sets the stage for the evolution of an open sea shellfish growout industry to develop as a viable component of the nearshore fisheries.

Key elements necessary for development of a sea scallop culture industry are biological and technological research to identify:

1. A dependable source of seed no matter whether from hatchery or spat collection.

2. Secure and biologically favorable growout sites.

damaging or compromising them or the environment.

4. Supportive social, legal, and political frameworks.

The primary recommendation of the sea scallop summit is to develop a rotational sea scallop fishing effort that includes spat collection, seeding in protected areas, and rotational harvest, based on the successful Japanese model.

The Sea Scallop Working Group (SSWG) was organized in 1994 (Leavitt, et al, 1996) as a major initiative of the Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology (PCMBT). It was designed as a forum for discussion and action by a wide spectrum of stakeholders, state and federal officials, environmentalists, financial supporters, and scientists with the goal of supporting the development of sea scallop aquaculture in New England. SSWG meets bimonthly and involves all stakeholders. Minutes of the SSWG meetings are distributed broadly.

In 1995, the PCMBT, the Cape Cod Economic Development Council, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sea Grant offices organized a workshop for July 24 - 25 at Cape Cod Community College. This workshop involved many individuals representing all aspects and disciplines that would be associated with the development of a sea scallop aquaculture industry and utilized key resources to develop an overall action plan. The workshop included presentations by invited local and Canadian experts on sea scallop biology and culture techniques, environmental requirements and issues, and economic considerations. A Working Paper, which included a review of relevant literature was prepared and served as a basis for discussion of breakout groups at the Sea Scallop Workshop. The principal issues addressed were: sea scallop culture technologies appropriate for Massachusetts; siting criteria, including consideration of user conflicts; potential environmental impacts of sea scallop aquaculture; regulatory restraints to sea scallop aquaculture; economic feasibility of sea scallop aquaculture; public education with respect to sea scallop aquaculture; and developing a better knowledge base for sea scallop biology and aquaculture technology.

The document resulting from this Workshop (Halvorson, et al, 1995) was an industry-driven, bottom-up blueprint for sea scallop aquaculture. Hence, it put forward recommendations from the perspective of potential sea scallop farmers tempered by the advice and guidance of professional scientists, government managers, regulators, lawyers, environmentalists, and economic development specialists. The recommendations of the SSWG have been used to promote demonstration projects that can showcase the many opportunities for applying new technology for the commercial benefit to the region. One of the projects under consideration by SSWG initially was a proposal to establish a nine square mile site south of Martha's Vineyard, MA, for an 18-month experiment and demonstration project involving sea scallop research and aquaculture. This experimental use proposal, by a consortium of sea scallop operation owners in consultation with the staff of the MIT Sea Grant Program and the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston, was selected for US government funding (Smolowitz, et al, 1998). Since this project would be conducted in federal waters, it required an amendment to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fisheries Management Plan. With support from SSWG and others, the New England Fisheries Management Council approved this amendment in February, 1996. This is the first permit for aquaculture issued in US Federal waters, and opens opportunities for aquaculture projects in New England federal waters.

The impact of the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS, 1982) and the introduction of 200 mile wide Exclusive Economic Zones along the continental margins had dramatic effects worldwide regarding fisheries, particularly for sedentary species such as scallops. Rapid growth

and modernization of our fleet, the loss of the historically productive eastern portion of Georges Bank, coupled with strong demand even at elevated prices, set the stage for the current restrictions deemed necessary in our scallop fishery. The continental shelf along the Atlantic is one of the largest in the world and has supported the largest scallop fishery, but we have come to its limits with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, concerns of bycatch, impact on other species, and concerns about the integrity of the ocean bottom itself.

In contrast to scallops, oysters have been grown for over a century in culture operations in Connecticut on Long Island Sound. This activity encompasses all life stages from larval set, thinning, through growout in ocean bottom and contained systems. Oyster culture in Connecticut generates annual sales of $100M, about equal in magnitude to each of the three highest value Atlantic capture fisheries: lobster, groundfish, and scallop, while using only a fraction of the area required for these.

Since the 1970's countries in all parts of the world have begun scallop culture operations based on the Japanese model (Kirk, 1979; Paul et al., 1981; Reyes, 1986; Naidu and Cahill, 1986). Some depend on collecting spat; others use hatcheries to produce the spat. What follows is a brief overview of existing scallop culture and enhancement operations undertaken in other areas where scallop resource limits were reached earlier. This is background to the scallop related projects funded in New England in the last few years and to the current events in our scallop fishery.

Commercial fishing has always been about production, a few men bringing food for many back to the land. With strong consumer demand, and increasingly severe restrictions on the commercial fishing industries, there is a great opportunity for shellfish culture to develop. The sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, commands a high market price, and is a likely candidate species. Commercial scallop fishing activities are currently prohibited in over 6,000 square miles in three areas of the offshore US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): the Great South Channel, the Northern Edge of Georges Bank, and south of Nantucket Shoals. These areas have been the source of about 50% of commercial landings for the entire Northeast region over the last 20 years (SAW 23,1996). As fishing pressure intensifies in the remaining open areas near shore, it is foreseeable that the end result will be closure of these spawning and nursery areas as well. Massachusetts State waters within 3 miles of shore are under tremendous fishing pressure from the mobile gear fisheries and are already limited to vessels less than 65' with historical participation before 1992. This situation sets the stage for the evolution of an open sea shellfish growout industry to develop as a viable component of the nearshore fisheries.

Key elements necessary for development of an open ocean culture industry are:

1. A dependable source of seed no matter whether from hatchery or spat collection.

2. Basic knowledge concerning what areas is favorable for growth.

4. The security of growout sites, including conflicts with existing users and regulations.

The need for reliable seed sources was illustrated in the previous section. The following text will focus on siting, handling, and security issues.

Identification of culture areas should be approached with three basic considerations:

1. Biological: which areas appear most favorable for growth and survival;

2. Regulatory: which areas are available for shellfish culture given the existing laws;

3. Existing uses: which areas are known to have activities which will present conflict.

Published reference information about the scallop is limited and must be collected piecemeal. The primary text concerning shellfish resources in this area, written by Dr. David Belding in 1909 as part of a series published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, focuses on the estuarine populations of soft shell clams, oysters, quahogs, and bay scallops. However, the deep sea scallop is descried only in comparison to the smaller bay scallop. Publications of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries giving yearly landings by area fished and port, detail historical productivity of the local nearshore areas. (US Bureau of Comm. Fish. J. 893-1965). Annual stock assessment surveys for scallops, conducted since the mid 70's by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), Woods Hole, provide good insight into the fluctuation of offshore scallop populations on Georges Bank and in the Mid-Atlantic, but have not included data from tows in the Gulf of Maine since 1983 (NEFSC, 1975-97). Current scallop fishing activity and resource estimates there can be obtained using data from Coast Guard overflights recording vessel position, and mandatory vessel trip logs, which include information on area fished and landings

Video transect records from over 300 separate manned and Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) dives within 40nm have been collected by the National Undersea Research Center, University of Connecticut at Avery Point. These video records, many with a data field for GPS or Loran C position, are the most accurate source of information concerning substrate and benthic communities encountered over the entire range of features and depths in the local area. In a review of areas near known scallop fishing grounds, scallops were notably sparse or absent, underscoring the narrow geography normal to many settlement areas.

Unlike the fisheries for cod, haddock, pollock, flounder, lobster, and the seasonal fisheries for herring and tuna, the local area has not supported a stable scallop fishery. However, there have been intense pulse fishing efforts with high landings several times during the last 50 years, drawing vessels from Maine to Virginia (Prybot, 1996).

Since the issuance of the Blueprint for Sea Scallop Aquaculture in 1995, funding has been secured from various NOAA-NMFS grant programs to address the recommendations identified in the 1995 Position Paper. There was a high degree of collaboration and cooperation between the projects. Investigators presented summaries of their projects at a Summit Meeting of the Sea Scallop Working Group held at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy on March 10-11, 1999. A brief summary of the progress of the various sea scallop projects follows.

Permitting of the 10 acre lease site 2 miles from the Pamet River in the waters of Cape

Recent History, Groundfish closed areas, scallop rebound Paul Rago, NMFS

Landings of sea scallops in the US EEZ have fallen from a peak of over 16,000 mt in 1990 to less than ca 5,000 mt in 1998. Reductions in landings are the result of fluctuations in scallop recruitment, reductions in fishing effort and the closure of large areas of Georges Bank in December 1994 to mobile gear fisheries. Closure of Georges Bank to scallop vessels has demonstrated the remarkable growth potential of scallops. Average biomass levels in the closed areas, as measured by surveys by the R/V Albatross IV, have increased about 14-fold between

December 1994 and July 1998. Biomass in the open areas has increased about two-fold over this period, but this increase is attributable to a moderate increase in recruitment. In summer of 1998 the average biomass observed in the closed areas was about 10 times greater than that observed in open areas.

Following the 1998 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) scallop survey, a cooperative survey involving commercial fishing vessels, the University of Massachusetts' Center for Marine Science and Technology, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and NMFS was conducted in Closed Area II. This survey corroborated the findings of the NMFS survey, allowed for direct comparison of research and commercial vessels, and provided estimates of gear efficiency. These efficiency estimates, when fully vetted through the peer-review process, will permit estimates of total biomass. Hopefully, the cooperative project will lay the groundwork for future collaboration by all stakeholders.

Substantial changes in fishing patterns, the increase in biomass in closed areas, and the demonstrated utility of commercial vessels for survey purposes, all signal the potential utility of rotational area management measures. Such measures are not without pitfalls. Area closures on Georges Bank led to the displacement of fishing effort to other areas, especially to the Mid-Atlantic region. Since the reduction in fishable area was not matched by a proportional reduction in total fishing effort (days at sea), it is likely that fishing mortality on scallops in the open areas has increased. Future management must also carefully consider the implications of rotational fishing strategies on habitat disturbance, finfish bycatch, fixed gear fisheries, and enforcement. The technical, policy, and enforcement issues for rotational area management are substantial but, on the whole, the prospects appear to be bright, and may lead to a more valuable and sustainable fishery.

Effect of area closures on Georges Bank bivalves: larval transport and population dynamics C. V. W. Lewis , D. R. Lynch , M. J. Fogarty, and D. Mountain

We couple circulation models with simple population and behavioral models to estimate transport and recruitment of sea scallop larvae on Georges Bank. These simulations identify source and sink regions for the closed areas and provide simple predictions of their long-term effects on bank-wide population dynamics.

Larvae are transported using the 6 bimonthly climatological flowfields developed for Dartmouth's GLOBEC Georges Banks modeling work. Particles are released in a flowfield consisting of the average horizontal velocity over the top 25 meters of the water column, advect and disperse over a range of larval durations, and settle to the substrate. Linear population models are then used to predict the effects of the closures under various levels of fishing pressure and background mortality.

The model results allow visualization of the interaction between life history parameters and regions of the bank, estimation of the efficiency of these closures, and an indication of where area closures would effect the greatest improvement on population dynamics.

in traditional fishing grounds off Gloucester, Massachusetts. Ken Riaf

As advancements in the field of aquaculture continue to make it a financially viable complement, and in some instances alternative, to traditional capture fishery methods, it will vie to share the waterfront and water with declining fisheries. Cape Ann, Massachusetts, harbors Gloucester, one of the preeminent commercial fishing ports in the United States. To examine the general level of interest on Cape Ann in pursuing aquaculture as a community development strategy and assess the social climate for such development, we conducted a series of interviews and surveys.

The 23 individuals interviewed for the section comprise a cross-section of the community; fishermen, elected and appointed officials, environmentalists, and people whose businesses are dependent on the health of the industrial waterfront. Interviews typically lasted an hour or more and included discussions on ecological responsibility, resource management and private use of publicly trusted submerged lands. In the course of interviewing these individuals, whose opinions and activities shape the discussion about aquaulture on Cape Ann, several themes emerged.

Routinely conversations turned to the economic shortcomings of traditional fishing with its seemingly more frequent and more abrupt cycles of abundance and scarcity. Several interviewees pointed with frustration to commercial fishing's future prospects because its high fixed and variable expenses continue to drive the overexploition of many species.

There seemed a general, though not universal opinion, that aquaculture needed designated inshore areas from which to operate and that barring interference with existing uses, it should be allowed to demonstrate its viability. Small scale operations, which gave a sense of control to individuals already engaged in traditional fisheries, were also regarded as a way of addressing concerns about privatization of public resources. Further, fishermen believed that working on a cooperative basis to enhance/restore depleted scallop stocks was not only a practical solution to reduced landings but a way of spurring regulatory reform and social acceptance of this emerging industry.

Among younger fishermen and new entrants into the fisheries there appears a high level of interest in exploring aquaculture. It was recommended by some that culturing activities could take place in administratively closed areas, no longer accessible to commercial fishing interests. Fishermen also held deep aspirations for their children; whether it was continuing in the family fishing business or breaking into aquaculture, being on the water and functioning independently were of primary concern.

Given fishing's unreasonable lifestyle demands and dim prospects, aquaculture was perceived in fishing circles as a realistic, yet still futuristic, alternative to capturing fish. On the whole this group felt that a future aquaculture industry comprised of many small players was not welcome and preferable, in contrast to one in which a few large entities control large tracts.

Elected and appointed officials tended to tread slowly, perceiving aquaculture ironically as both a threat to, and possible savior of, the already decimated fisheries. When aquaculture competed for political recognition with long established and vocal fishing constituents, aquaculture usually fared second best. While officials tried to steer some moneys into aquaculture research and development, the political commitment necessary for meaningful regulatory reform was absent. Perhaps most disconcerting in the political realm was the inability of legislators to move quickly and decisively to revise and contemporize laws.

Political leadership failed, in some instances, to grasp the potential social and economic ramifications that increased aquaculture activities implied. The question of how a local sustainable aquaculture industry can provide relief during the projected long-term fisheries crisis is not ripe for discussion in the political arena. On the municipal level only piecemeal incentives available for general business purposes, and by no means tailored to the specific needs of aquaculturists, were available.

Several individuals offered solutions to the obstacles confronting the advancement of aquaculture. These suggestions included adding aquaculture units to the school curriculum, and the creation of marine based industrial parks, to undertaking assessments of financial risk for the purpose of lending to aquaculture startups. Some subjects felt that aquaculture could be a driving force in abatement of land based effluents that not only threaten stationary aquaculture operations but fish larvae and fish habitats as well. Others saw the opportunity for the use of unproductive uplands, tidal and sub tidal zones for culturing efforts.

The efficacy of private cultivation on submerged public lands and publicly funded enhancements needs further debate to sharpen the issues, as does the question of whether centralized decision-making is preferable to that of often-fractious local boards. Security of tenure, the right to maintain long term site control (i.e. access), along with the day to day concerns over site security and gear conflicts continue to be major impediments that warrant renewed and vigorous debate.

Finally, it should be noted that the interview process itself advanced the discussion about aquaculture during the very difficult times and circumstances surrounding the fisheries crisis. Interviews connected many individuals who had never been drawn into the discussion and the sessions infused this much-needed dialogue. Hopefully, what emerges here will clarify the issues, display a sense of where the community stands and aid policy makers in defining exactly what they want to do, before opportunities are precluded by a failure to act in a timely manner.

While the legal and social aspects of commencing sea scallop aquaculture at the sites identified in this section were discussed with interview subjects, the questionnaire was also geared to elicit responses and impressions about overall aquaculture activity in the waters off Cape Ann. This was done because many respondents had a working knowledge of aquaculture as a general topic, but few had a specific understanding of the unique needs and requirements of offshore scallop growout. An explanation of these requirements, for example, the relative benefits of rotational enhancement versus cage grow out, or the intricacies and implications of siting and species selection would not have served the information gathering purpose of this section. Obtaining and depicting the prevailing climate for sea scallop aquaculture on Cape Ann was accomplished by broadening, rather than narrowing, the scope of inquiry so that sea scallop growout was included within a comprehensive exploration of attitudes about aquaculture in this region.

A small area with a large set of sea scallops, P. magellanicus, was rediscovered and worked

by a few scallop fishermen off Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in the winter of 1996-7. Although most had never towed scallop gear, many small (<20m) local commercial oats put a dredge aboard and began fishing for scallops because shrimp catches and pricing were low and groundfish nearly absent. Even though individual vessel landings were closely regulated, scallop catch per unit of effort declined as more vessels were attracted to the area. This pattern is generally representative of the scallop fishery where newly discovered beds are quickly exploited to commercial limits. The ability of vessels to move freely between fish areas, without previous participation, only served to make the situation worse.

Past experience suggests that this scallop settlement area may not yield commercial quantities again for many years. While growth rates of scallops in the shallow nearshore high current areas are good, the unpredictable recruitment of sea scallops has limited this area to sporadic production. This cyclical effect is well known to local scallopers.

Collectively, the consequences of the fishery's mode of operation, collateral dredge impacts on other species, and damage to unretained scallops, have made the inshore beds commercially unreliable over time and susceptible to pulse fishing where full and legal exploitation of the temporarily abundant resource is permitted.

Aspects of the sea floor geology and oceanography of Massachusetts Bay relevant to sea scallop aquaculture Brad Butman

Recent investigations provide a regional framework of the oceanography and geology of Massachusetts coastal waters and an improved understanding of these complex systems. A long-term goal is to develop predictive capabilities for management actions in the coastal ocean. These studies include:

Mapping and characterizing the sea floor using multibeam and sidescan sonar: New sea floor mapping technology provide high-resolution maps (5-10 m pixel size) of the sea floor topography and sediment characteristics. The USGS, in cooperation with NOAA and the Canadian Hydrographic Survey, have mapped the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and western Massachusetts Bay Valentine and Butman (1998), Gardner and others (1998), Knebel and Circe (.1995), Knebel and other (1999)]. One of the most striking characteristics of this new view of the sea floor is the variability of the bottom sediments and bathymetry that were not resolved by previous survey techniques. Coupled with additional observations such as bottom photography and video, these maps can provide detailed information on sedimentary environments (deposition, erosion) and on the type and location of benthic habitats.

Currents and circulation: The currents in coastal areas fluctuate over time scales of a few seconds to days. It is convenient to conceptually separate currents into surface waves, internal waves, tides, wind and density-driven flows, and the residual circulation. Recent studies have investigated the regional flow patterns, and their role in mixing and exchange in Massachusetts Bay (Geyer and others, 1992; Butman and Bothner, 1998). The mean current typically flows southerly through Massachusetts Bay and turns offshore into the Gulf of Maine. During much of the year this weak counterclockwise circulation persists in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, principally driven by the southeastward coastal current in the Gulf of Maine. The current proceeds southwesterly into the Bay south of Cape Ann, southward along the western shore, and easterly out of the bay north of Race Point, typically at a strength of about 5 cm/s (0.1 knot). This flow pattern may reverse in the fall, especially near the western shore, because preferential cooling of the shallow water creates denser water near shore. Fluctuations of the current caused by wind and density variations alter this simple flow pattern on any day. In most of Massachusetts Bay, the flow-through flushing time for the surface waters ranges from 20 to 45 days. In western Massachusetts Bay near the new outfall site, mixing and transport of water and material into the regional mean flow pattern is accomplished by a variety of processes, including the action of tides, winds, and river inflow. The distance particles travel in a day is typically less than 10 km. The future outfall is located in a region generally to the west of the basin wide residual flow pattern.

Circulation modeling: Modeling of the currents in coastal areas using 3-dimensional numerical circulation models provide insight into the processes driving the currents, and spatial and temporal information that would be difficult to obtain from direct field measurements. In addition, the models provide a predictive capability to investigate the implications of various management actions. Modeling of the circulation has been used to predict the dilution of effluent from the new Boston Ocean outfall (< biblio >) and the advection of red tide along the New England coast. Comparative dilution simulations for the existing outfalls and for the new outfall projected that effluent concentrations in Boston Harbor will be greatly reduced by using the new outfall site, without significantly increasing concentrations in most of Massachusetts Bay

Distribution and transport of contaminated sediments: Contaminants adhere to fine-grained sediments, and after cycles of deposition, resuspension, transport and biological and chemical transformations, contaminants are finally buried on sea floor. Sediments adjacent to major metropolitan centers, such as Boston, are contaminated because of dumping and discharge of wastes since colonial times. Boston Harbor, Stellwagen Basin, and Cape Cod Bay are long-term sinks for fine-grained sediments and associated contaminants Butman and Bothner (1998), Bothner (! 998)]. .The regional pattern of sedimentary environments in the Boston Harbor-Massachusetts Bays sedimentary system is a result of the basin geometry, the supply of sediment, and oceanographic processes. Fine sediments accumulate in the Boston Harbor estuary because of its restricted flushing and low-wave climate. The inner shelf along the western shore of Massachusetts Bay (water depths shallower than 40-50 m) is covered by deposits of gravel, coarse sands, and bedrock. Fine sediments do not accumulate here because storm currents resuspend and remove them from the bottom. The deepest part of the system, Stellwagen Basin, is generally a tranquil environment where fine-grained sediments accumulate. These observations suggest that dilution is not the best long-term solution for disposal of toxic substances in this coastal system. Instead, reducing the input of toxic substances is the best strategy to ensure the long-term environmental quality of the sediments. Sediments in Boston Harbor are getting cleaner, principally a result of decreased loading over the last 20 years (Bothner and others, 1998).

Sediments are transported to Stellwagen Basin and Cape Cod Bay by major northeast storms and by the residual southeasterly mean flow. Strong storms with winds from the northeast resuspend fine sediments from western Massachusetts Bay and transport them offshore and toward Cape Cod Bay. Northeasters, with winds that blow across the Gulf of Maine, generate large waves that enter Massachusetts Bay from the east. The oscillatory currents associated with these waves cause resuspension of the bottom sediments in water depths less than 40 to 50 m over areas exposed to the northeast, principally along the western shore of Massachusetts Bay. Typically only a few millimeters of sediment are resuspended from the seabed during each storm. The currents driven by winds from the northeast flow southeastward parallel to the coast (with an offshore component near the bottom) and carry the suspended sediments toward Cape Cod Bay and offshore into Stellwagen Basin. Sediments settle to the sea floor along this transport pathway following each storm.

Sediments that reach the sea floor in Cape Cod Bay or Stellwagen Basin are likely to remain there. In this coastal system, currents caused by surface waves are the principal cause of sediment resuspension. Cape Cod Bay is sheltered from large waves by the arm of Cape Cod, and waves are rarely large enough to resuspend sediments at the seabed in the deep Stellwagen Basin. Thus, once sediments reach Stellwagen Basin or Cape Cod Bay, carried either by the mean flow or transported by storms, it is unlikely that they will be resuspended and transported again by waves..

Assembling data in Geographic Information System (GIS) format: GIS provides a strategy to synthesize a wide variety of scientific and other data for analysis and management of coastal resources. Recently an adhoc group from state and federal agencies, academia and industry assembled a library of GIS layers for the Massachusetts Bay region (Butman and Lindsay, in press). This library is a pilot effort to bring together a wide variety of information in Massachusetts Bay region.

The U.S. Atlantic sea scallop fishery is typical of wild capture fisheries around the world where fishermen hunt the ocean for concentrations of fishery resources, only to harvest them prematurely and in excess. When the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act implemented national exclusivity in 1977, U.S. fishermen enjoyed high profits. These were dissipated within about 5 years by a fleet that increased steadily in number (not to mention fishing power) from approximately 25 to nearly 400 vessels and scallop numbers declined. The decrease in stocks was reversed in 1994 when Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan introduced individual vessel effort quotas. Today, scallopers take extraordinary steps to survive financially with approximately half the number of days that they used to fish. Further reductions in effort quotas, a formative habitat policy that singles out dredge as well as trawl gear, and new closed areas await the sea scallop fishery in the year 2000.

Economic studies of property rights and practical aquaculture experience underscore the importance of exclusivity for resource management and husbandry. Overcapitalization of capture fisheries is a significant source of economic waste (estimated at about $40 million a year), but non-exclusivity also precludes benefits from choice of product and choice of technology. That is, the option to grow scallops longer for larger and more valuable meats, or to use fixed gear (e.g., raft or cage culture) disappears if others can dredge through the area. Legal exclusivity is a requirement for restraining overfishing, stimulating investment in aquaculture, and for monitoring and enforcing fishing grounds.

The SeaStead Project, authorized in Amendment 5 to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, is an important regional example of area-based rights. This example could be expanded to accommodate the U.S. Atlantic sea scallop fishery and current management policies in the following way:*

First, divide the Northeastern Continental Shelf into well-defined geographic areas on the basis of recruitment patterns, political boundaries, the industry's geography, scale economics, and possibly other concerns (e.g., sanctuaries). For example, resource assessments have recognized the Northern Edge and Peak and the Southeast parts of Georges Bank and the South Channel as sea scallop sub-stocks areas, and there are similar areas in the Mid-Atlantic regions.

Second, use information from resource surveys to estimate biomass in each area, calculate each area's total allowable catch (TAC) to be consistent with the current overfishing definition, and convert these TACs to area effort quotas using technical production relationships.

Third, prorate each permit holder's annual effort allocation to each area in proportion to the area effort quota.

Fourth, allow scallopers to exchange area effort quotas with each other until each has a Scallop Mutual Fund that satisfies his individual preferences for location and risk.

Finally, encourage shareholders in each area to develop contracts or producer organizations and prepare management plans for the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS to review.

This proposal matches incentives for profit maximization with investments in sustainability and growth, and if applied in other fisheries, would provide an opportunity for negotiation of user conflicts.

*This proposal does not necessarily represent the position of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Massachusetts DMF on Regulations and Closures Jim Fair, DMF, Massachusetts

For regulatory purposes, propagation process permits are the easiest to obtain, particularly for increasing the productivity of a growing area. There are several ways to do this: to close the area and let nature take its course, close the area and add cultured animals, or close the area and move natural seed into the area. By preventing harvesting you allow the animals to reach optimum size. This also assists recruitment in adjacent areas with spawning stock.

Cities and towns for oysters bay scallops, and soft-shell clams are currently practicing all of these approaches. While this is the practice in Massachusetts, there is no reason why this could not be done on a large scale. At this time, there is no specific permit, which would cover an operation like this. It would have to be done by some regulatory action by the state through the Division of Marine Fisheries, or the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission. A petition would be required to that group which would require a public hearing. The biggest hurdle would be convincing all the other user groups in the area. This type of project would be very attractive to the small mobile gear industry, who have little else to do, but who could participate in a project like this. There is significant Federal and State money available to mitigate the effects of the ground fish closures. There are already a number of suggestions on the table for fishermen to do survey work or to do propagation work.

There is growing support for off shore aquaculture opportunities. The regulatory climate would be very receptive at the present time. SSWG has a good record of reaching out to other groups. We encourage this approach before any regulatory hearings are held. DMF would be supportive of projects involving seed and growout in state water areas. The federal government would need to approve the harvesting and transport of scallops from federal to state waters, but the state would probably accept it.

The collection of spat is considered fishing, not aquaculture. In that regard a special permit would be required to legally possess a scallop under the legal harvest size. Furthermore, a permit would be required for any aquaculture activity requiring a structure. However permits would not be allowed unless the structure were "pretty benign." Scallop aquaculture in Cape Cod Bay beyond town boundaries would be acceptable to the state. The endangered whale is the biggest problem in Cape Cod Bay. Bottom seeding of scallops would not be a problem.

It was pointed out that the state does not have the authority to issue aquaculture permits in those areas under their jurisdiction that are beyond the three mile town lines. For more information on this, one should contact the Director, Marine Fisheries Commission so that he can bring this matter to the Commission.

NOAA Aquaculture Concerns Jay Johnson, Deputy Counsel for NOAA

NOAA has a difficult time giving a single position on aquaculture. In the agency there are those who are diehard supporters of aquaculture and others who see only the potential environmental problems that need to be addressed before it can be given a full green light. At present, the simplest and most expedient solution for scallop aquaculture is to collect spat and grow them out in cages or other contained systems, and deal with the regulatory and engineering problems. This approach is probably uneconomic compared with going out and finding wild stock that can be moved to protected locations.

The economics of cultured scallops could be improved by marketing to greater benefit. The value would be higher if harvesting were done in the fall, winter, and spring rather than in the summer months, when the wild ground fishery is at its peak, to avoid competition with wild stock production.

The biggest regulatory issue, in both state and federal waters, is that we don't have a single agency to manage this industry. There are a large number of agencies (state and federal) that have to be dealt with. Each agency responds to a slightly different constituency. The answer from one agency may be significantly different from the answer you would get from another agency, even in a perfect world in which all of the information was being shared. Within NOAA we are going to have to manage a conflict between fishermen and aquaculturists. Even at some level the catfish industry competes with scallops. We have to deal with these constituencies. Offshore we have to rebuild the fishing industry as well as build aquaculture. Until there is a single agency that can handle these conflicts and provide predictable results, you are going to have fits and starts.

NOAA has several constituencies, scientists and resource managers, a relationship with the states through FMC and through CZM, but it also has a strong constituency in the ocean navigation area. Aquaculture may not be the high priority among these competing interests. At the moment no one in the government knows what is best, and NOAA and other agencies are struggling to define their positions. I am impressed how you have gotten together on the SeaStead Project. We would not have farms in Nebraska now if we had not gotten together to sort out the property rights first. The Commerce Department is now getting interested in aquaculture because in the next 25 years the economic potential is tremendous, and will be more important than the capture fisheries. These issues will be solved.

The likelihood of receiving a permit for transient gear in federal waters depends on where it is deployed, especially in regard to right whale habitat. The federal government would make no distinction in law between aquaculture (cage rearing) and fishing (dredging).

With regard to exclusive use and ownership of areas, states can sell land (marine water space) up to 3 miles but they cannot surrender their public rights doctrine. The federal government has no mechanism for selling land but can lease it for certain purposes, and would be supportive of the catching, holding and seeding of undersize scallops. There is little security at present for the investor, however. The Magnuson Stevens Act goes some way toward allowing for the setting aside areas of the ocean and sea and allow only named individuals to enter for the purpose of harvesting. NOAA is considering draft legislation, which would permit the federal government to do that through long-term leases of perhaps 20 years. The leases could be sold. To make money you have to keep other people out of it until you collect the animals. It is very similar to oyster bed leases in state waters. We need both the legal and technical ability. With the new GCS systems the technology is there. Other users must be persuaded that this is not adverse to their interests.

Regarding competing users, If someone objects to aquaculture use they must defend why their use is more in the public's interest. In all the fixed gear fisheries the Department has protected one fixed gear use from another. There needs to be area management.

NMFS will consider any proposal for aquaculture and harvesting if they explain the ramifications of their kinds of activities, the benefits to the environment, the neutral impacts, and the benefits to society. For example, earlier today someone from NMFS commented that they don't know if the SeaStead project could continue to mine peanut hills for scallops. The reason is that after two cycles SeaStead has not yet come back to NMFS to explain what they have learned from their project and its ramifications. So we really can't give you an answer until that happens

NMFS habitat, ecological concerns Michael Ludwig, NMFS

Under federal regulations, the most expedient harbor for scallop culture is the nationwide exclusion for traditional fishing activities. If your activity follows in the footprint of existing fishing activities that were in place at the time and passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act, it basically got exclusion. For this reason, oyster operations don't need federal permits. If you are out harvesting spat in a non-water column location and you are growing your organisms on the bottom in a manner, which mimics natural conditions, you do not need a federal permit. Minimizing the gear and getting to that point may be a valuable goal.

The biggest issue is user conflicts. The best way to manage these is to explain the benefits and consequences of your activities and know as much as possible about your scallops.

How can the SSWG enter into this decision making?

Jay Johnson responded that we have a unique opportunity for the next two years. The Sustainable Fisheries Act, the new conservation restrictions, rebuilding schedules, and the bycatch restrictions means that our catch of fisheries for the next 15 - 25 years are going to be in a no growth situation. The fishermen and others dependent upon the capture fisheries are incredibly active politically. They have the ears of their congressman and the Secretary of Commerce. If you organize the aquaculture constiuency and spread the message that aquaculture is the way out of our current crisis, the money and a change in political will will come.

This is the time to move aquaculture ahead. We are trying to free up some federal money. There is $250 million in the hands of fishermen now that can only be used to build new boats. We have a one-time legislative opportunity to allow these funds to be used aquaculture projects. These funds could be spent toward aquaculture hardware, toward immediate integration of the existing fleet into culture activities.

Legal concerns Ken Riaf

The most important considerations for NEFMC in evaluating aquaculture applications are what benefits accruing and what privileges are forfeited. The Council needs to establish a system to oversee these decisions and their associated issues. The question of whether they have jurisdiction varies. Does the proposed use entail cultivation of a managed species? Does the proposed use impact or threaten a managed stock? Does the proposed use impede the FMP's or amendments? Does the proposed activity interfere with the permitted use of mobile gear? If the answer to any of these were yes, NEFMC would have jurisdiction in each of these cases. If these questions were answered no, was it in the purview of NEFMC? The council is in a difficult position right now, growing out of the Westport Project. The council has set up a pre-application procedure where someone comes in and can be advised how to improve their proposal. Here the Council is acting in the role of advisor. Later on, there is a public hearing and the Council puts on the hat of a referee. Ultimately the Council becomes the judge. It is therefore difficult with these various roles to adjudicate property rights in the EEZ.

What would be the most expedient system? The Mass. White Paper proposes categories of project and matching levels of scrutiny. In category I, where there are no structures, no additions, and no discharges, the restrictions are minimal. This approach could be applied to the federal level. On the other hand, if something were in the water column, if there are antibiotics in the feed, or there are discharges, the project would require greater scrutiny.

A system like this should be considered for federal decision making to break the proposals into smaller pieces to which the relevant criteria will determine how many hoops, or permits, are going to be required. You could set out on a strategy to identify sites suitable for growout, for exmple by having predetermined growout areas. The program could encourage fishermen to police near shore sites. Incentives could be offered to commercial fishermen to lease these sites or incentives could encourage cooperative programs. Other inducements include designing and enforcing monitoring programs and standardized stocking requirements, all within designated areas, and aggregating acreage to minimize interference that one particular holder can create for somebody else. You are encouraging small players by predetermining engineering and navigational standards. One could designate special management areas that make aquaculture centers part of larger fixed gear districts so that they are in close proximity to administrative closed areas. This would have the advantage of having enforcement built in.

The problem with aquaculture is that it cannot obtain a foothold in the EEZ because there is no constituency to drive it and it can't develop a constituency until it obtains a foothold in the EEZ to draw people to aquaculture. Promoting aquaculture will remain a problem until this catch 22 is broken.

Political and regulatory jurisdictions Jack Wiggen

An understanding of the web of political and regulatory jurisdictions In coastal waters is essential in planning for or siting sea scallop aquaculture. Through various laws the local, state, and federal

governments have control over and exercise regulatory powers in defined areas of offshore waters.

Municipal boundaries in the offshore area of Massachusetts were established by Chapter 196 Acts of 1881. These boundaries and the offshore boundaries between municipalities were drafted onto a 1:80,000 NOAA chart by the Massachusetts Department of Highways.

Massachusetts General Laws ch. 42, sec. 1 establishes the marine boundary of the Commonwealth as the outer limits of the territorial sea of the US. Though this section of the statutes states that the

seaward boundary of cities and towns bordering on the open sea shall coincide with the marine boundary of the commonwealth, this is not necessarily the case. For example, all of the waters in Cape Cod Bay are, in accordance with Supreme Court ruling, included in the inland

waters of Massachusetts. The municipal boundaries do not reach to that extent.

The Territorial Sea, i.e., federal waters extends from the coast out to 12 nautical miles.

The state, not towns, own public trust lands and rights in submerged lands (MLW to three miles offshore). Towns do exercise jursidiction over trustlands within their boundaries. The limits are set by the Home Rule Amendment, which empowers towns to enact any by-law not inconsistent with state law.

State laws assign important roles to municipalities in the waters within 3 miles of the coast.

Municipal harbomasters permit moorings and nonfixed structures; municipalities issue shellfish grants an aquaculture permits, and participate in waterways licensing (waterways licenses (Chapter 91) in flats must ordinarily conform to local zoning); and the Conservation Commissions make the initial decision to permit activities in all coastal resources.

Towns may open up shellfish beds to public shellfishing, or grant them out, even to individuals other than the landowner. Towns are encouraged to pass shellfish management regulations but, if they do not, the Mass. Department of Marine Fisheries is responsible for regulating.

Another consideration in siting aquaculture is the uses of offshore waters, such as shipping lanes and navigation channels and restrictions imposed by law on activities in certain areas, such as

right whale habitat.

Discussions during this panel session have centered on the identification of current key user-conflict issues, a review of the progress to date on continuing issues and recommended approaches to solutions satisfactory to all stakeholders. It was pointed out that one of the key recommendations of the 1995 workshop was the setting up of a central data depository for the purpose of guiding user groups about sites of common interest. Similarly, Peter Shelley (CLF) asked the group about any recent cases since the 1995 workshop presentation on the legal underpinnings of user-conflicts.

It was mentioned that conflict avoidance per se might not be in the public interest as much as avoidance of stalemate or impasse. Identifiable conflicts with identifiable interests can be addressed openly and productively. Silent or latent conflicts may not receive the necessary attention until it is perhaps too late. The Chair invited the group to look not only at the legal/regulatory or technical solutions (such as culture techniques or site selection) but also to institutional, informational, and strategic goal-setting solutions.

One of the user-conflict areas cited in the discussion was between lobstering activities and dredges used in scalloping. An example of conflict resolution approaches was described as the formation of a joint council, which adopts various solution alternatives in accordance with the problem. In one situation it was resolved with a line in the water dividing each of the uses. In another, there was an agreement on the alternating use of mobile gear and fixed gear. Another user-conflict issue mentioned was that of the sensitive habitats for other species or ecosystems. Whale breeding concerns were mentioned in this regard. The suggestion was made to provide more emphasis and opportunity in "conservation farming" and additional exploration of ways to apply the project models like SeaSted.

After considering presentations by panel members and the reports from the recent and ongoing projects, as well as the Regulatory and User Conflict Panels, it is obvious that there is a plethora of data available to plan for inshore (Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays) and offshore projects, and to expedite Sea Scallop mariculture in both habitats. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Woods Hole (MA) and Milford (CT) Laboratories, hold data collected over several decades and concerning the distribution and abundance and assessments of sea scallops off New Bedford and in the Middle Atlantic Bight. These data summaries are available in several Technical and Fisherman's reports (see, for example Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1998), and as cruise reports. More detailed data sets are available through consultations with principal research and management scientists at the Woods Hole facility (Thomas Azarovitz).

Data and information on the early life history and the development of the species are available from the NMFS Milford (CT) Biological Laboratory. In addition, the U.S. Geological-Service (USGS), Woods Hole, holds extensive data and reports on sediment types, current regimes, suspended sediments, and sediment transport. The NMFS Laboratory in Woods Hole periodically releases data compilations which provide descriptions of oceanographic conditions on the Northeast Continental Shelf (see, for example, Taylor and Bascun, 1998). Such compilations include surface and bottom salinity and temperature at hundreds of stations seasonally off New England (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank). Figures also depict temperature anomalies or deviations from a norm or average.

The NMFS facility at Narragansett (RI) develops information on the distribution and abundance of chlorophyll in the Northeast Continental Shelf ecosystem (see O'Reilly and Zetlin, 1998). These data, from vessel and satellite monitoring, in juxtaposition with the aforementioned geological and physical data, are essential to understanding the basis for sea scallop distributions and abundance, and habitat potential to support the species as cultured.

Finally, both the USGS and NMFS/NOAA are involved with developing data on the distribution, abundance, and effects of contaminants in U.S. coastal and shelf waters (see O'Connor and Pearce, 1999). Obviously such data will be important as industry and fishers contemplate the location of sites for spat collection and juvenile culturing and grow-out.

The literature is replete with systems for spat collection, culturing, and growout. What is immediately needed are permitting processes to operate sites on an experimental basis. The various aforementioned data will be invaluable in locating appropriate sites, and will form benchmarks for monitoring. Monitoring and assessment of site production, and habitat variables is necessary to evaluate production success.

Monitoring of habitat variables is also essential to understanding the consequences of seasonal and climatological changes, and long-term global climate change effects, on sea scallop sea-ranching production. Also, the anthropogenic consequences of culturing, and effects of coastal development, can be understood.

Such monitoring can best be accomplished through interagency (state and federal) cooperation, involving the basic stakeholders representing the industry and non-governmental interests (NGIs) and organizations (NGOs). Since the monitoring of aquaculture systems for other culture species, i.e., for finfish (salmon and cod), oysters, and mussels will be necessary, several industries and agencies can share much of the expense.

gear.

Economic Research Topics

world, with a close look at management and ownership differences.

Bothner, M.H., 1998, Metal concentrations in sediments of boston Harbor and Masaschusetts Bay document environmental change. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 150-97.

Bothner, M.H. ten Brink, M., Manheim, F.T., 1998, Metal concentrations in surface sediments of

Boston Harbor - changes with time, Marine Environmental research v. 45(2), p. 127-155.

Bothner, M.H., Buchholtz ten Brink,M., Butman, B., Knebel, H.J., Manheim, F.T., and Signell, R.P., 1994, Circulation and Contaminant Transport in Massachusetts Coastal Waters: A

Summary of Achievements and Future Plans. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

94-649, 43 pp.,

Bull, M.F.. 1988a. The New Zealand scallop fishery: a brief review of the fishery and its

Bull, M.F. 1988b. New Zealand scallop enhancement project - costs and benefits, Proceedings

Butman, B. and Bothner, M.H., 1998, Predicting the Long-Term Fate of Sediments and

Contaminants in Massachusetts Bay. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 172-97

Butman, B. and Lindsay, J.A. (eds), A marine GIS library for Massachusetts Bay; with focus on

disposal sites, contaminated sediments and sea floor mapping. U.S. Geological

Open-File Report, in press. 1 CDROM.

Gardner, J.V., Butman, B., Mayer, L.A, Clarke, J.H., 1998, Mapping U.S. continental Shelves: Sea Technology, 39(6), p. 10-16.

Geyer, W., Gardner, G., Brown, W., Irish, J., Butman, B., Loder, T., and Signell, R., 1992, Physical Oceanographic Investigation of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, Technical Report MBP-92-03, Massachusetts Bays Program, U.S. EPA Region I/Massachusetts Coastal Management Office, Boston, Massachusetts, 497 pp.

Halvorson, H., A. Keynan, and H. Kornberg. 1995. Blueprint for sea scallop aquaculture in Massachusetts. Proceedings of the Sea Scallop Workshop. West Barnstable, MA. July 24-25, 1995. 17 pgs.

Harvey, D. 1996. Aquaculture outlook 1996. #LDP-AQS-3. Supplement to the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Monthly Report. Econ. Res. Serv., USDA, Washington, D.C. 6 pgs. (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu /reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-aqs/1996).

Ito, S. 1988. A history of scallop culture in Japan. Proceedings Australasian Scallop Workshop,

Hobart, Australia. 1990, M.C.L. Dredge, W.F. Zacccharin, and L.M. Joll, (eds.)p166-181.

Knebel, H.J. and Circe, R.C., 1995. Sea floor environments within the Boston

Massachusetts Bay sedimentary system: A regional synthesis: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 11, p. 230-251.

Knebel, H.J., Rendigs, R.R., List, J.H., and Signell, R.P., 1996. Sea floor environments in Cape

Bay, a large coastal embayment: Marine Geology, v. 133, p. 11-33.

Kirk, R.G. 1979. Marine fish and shellfish culture in yjr member states of the European Economic Community. Aquaculture 16: 95-122.

Leavitt, D.F., H.O. Halvorson, and C. Mancuso. 1996. Efforts to develop sea scallop farming in Massachusetts told. The Aquaculture News. 4(5):1.

Naidu, K.S. and F.M. Cahill. 1986. Culturing giant scallops in Newfoundland waters. Can. Manuser. Rep. Fish. Aquat. No. 1876. 23pp.

Northeast Continental Shelf. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 98-01,

National Marine Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 112 pp.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1988. Fisherman's Report: Sea Scallop Survey, Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole.

O'Connor, T. and J. Pearce. 1999. U.S. Coastal Monitoring: NOAA's National Status and Trends Results. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 37(1-2):1-113.

Paul, J.D., A.R. Brand, and J.N. Hoogesteger. 1981. Experimental cultivation of the scallops Chlamys opercularis (L) and Pectien maximus (L) using naturally produced spat. Aquaculture, 24: 31-44.

Reilly, J. and C. Zetlin. 1998. Seasonal, Horizontal, and Vertical Distribution of Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Ecosystem. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 139, U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle. 120 pp.

Reyes, C.F. 1973. Preliminary results on spat collection and growh of the catarina scallop, Argopecten circularis in Bacochibampo Bay, Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. F. Williams, ed. 1986, vol. 37, pp201-208.

Signell, R.P., 1998, Predicting the Impact of relocating Boston's sewage outfall - effluent dilution simulations in Massachusetts Bay. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 185-97.

Signell, R.P, Jenter, H.L., and Blumberg, A. F., Predicting the physical effects of relocatin

Boston';s sewage Outfall, Estuareine, Costal and Shelf Science, accepted.

Somolowitz, R., C. Goudey, S. Hendriksen, E. Welch, K. Riaf, P. Hoaglund, H. Kite-Powell, R. Smolowitz, and D. Leavitt. 1998. Sea Scallop Enhancing and Sustainable Harvesting. The Seastead Project. Report from Westport Scalloping Corporation to NOAA Award No. 66FD0027.

Taylor, M. and C. Bascun. 1998. Description of the 1997 Oceanographic Conditions on the

Valentine, P. and Butman, B., 1998, Mapping the Sea Floor and Biological Habitats of the

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Region. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet

078-98.

Valentine, P.C., Unger, T.S., and Baker, J.L., 1999, Sun-illuminated sea floor topography of the

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off Boston, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Geological Investigations Series Map I-2676-B, 1:60,000.

Mass. Maritime Academy

March 10-11, 1999

9:00 Welcome Dale Leavitt Northeastern Aquaculture Center Harlyn O. Halvorson, Director PCMBT

9:05 Presentation of purpose Harlyn O. Halvorson

Ron Smolowitz Coonamessett Farms

9:15 Background Ron Smolowitz, Coonamesset Farms

Richard Taylor Scalloper

9:30 Scallop production trends Richard Taylor Scalloper

Japan, China, New Zealand, Chile, Canada

Primary requirements

a place to operate, a source of seed

10:00 Summaries of recent projects: Rick Karney Marthas Vineyard Shellfish Program

Truro Project David and Judy Dutra Truro Aquaculture Project

Cape Ann Project Richard Taylor

NEFDA Project Rich Langon

Mook Project Richard Taylor

Gloucester Aquaculture Project Ken Riaf

Martha's Vineyard Shellfish Group Project Rick Karney

Beals Island Chris Bartlett

Cobscook Bay Tom Pottle Perry, Maine

11:30 Summary of scallop fishery Rick York Masphee Shellfish Dept

From 1995 to today Paul Rago, National Marine Fishery Service

Finite element modeling Chris Lewis Numerical Methods Lab.

Looking ahead in Scallop Fishery Paul Rago

1:00 Economic potentials of area usage Steve Edwards, National Marine Fishery Service

1:40 Identification of priorities

Commercial evaluation of seeding Ron Smolowitz

Testing of Mass permitting process Cliff Goudey

2:00 Regulatory panel Rich Langon

Regulations and Closures Jim Fair MA Division Marine Fisheries

NMFS aquaculture concerns Jay Johnson NOAA

NMFS habitat, ecological concerns M. Ludwig National Marine Fishery Service

Legal concerns Ken Riaf Gloucester Aquaculture Project

3:00 User-conflict discussion Fernando Quezada Biotechnology Centers of Excellence

4:00 Science needs Discussion Jack Pearce Buzzards Bay Laboratory

Identification of existing data sources Jack Pearce

Circulation in nearshore areas C. Lewis, B Butman

Plankton monitoring DMF, WHOI, USGS, SeaWiFs

Contaminates Jack Pearce

Growth and health monitoring Mike Hickey, DMF

9:00 Discussion topics Facilitators

Industry coordination Cliff Goudey

Regulatory strategy Ron Smolowitz

Science planning Dale Leavitt

Funding sources Rollin Johnson

11:00 Priortizing recommendations Harlyn Halvorson

11:45 Summary and conclusions Richard Taylor

March 10-11, 1999

Chris Bartlett

Trade Center WCTC

RR#1, Box 74

Eastport, ME 04631-0618

Erling Berg

Atlantic Capes Fisheries

P.O. Box 555

Cape May, NJ 08204

David Bouchard

Coastal Aquaculture

100 Glenn Road

Cronton, RI

Herman Bruce

Bob Bruno

Dartmouth

Bill Burt

P.O. Box 367

Barnstable, MA 02630

Brad Butman

U.S. Geological Survey

384 Woods Hole Rd.

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Leo A. Byrnes

P.O. Box 2156

Hyannis, MA 02601

Sandy Campbell

Consensus Management

P.O. Box 900

2 Market St.

Ipswich, MA 01938

Lee C. Davis

Cape Cod Conserv. Dist.

Box 195

Barnstable, MA 02630

Bill DuPaul

VA Institute Marine Science.

Gloucester Point, VA

David and Judy Dutra

Truro Aquaculture Project

P.O. Box 326

43 Shore Rd.

Truro, MA 02652

Steve Edwards

NMFS

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

James Fair

Div. Marine Fisheries Rm 1901

100 Cambridge St.

Boston, MA 02202

Cliff Goudey

MIT Sea Grant

Building E38-372

292 Main St.

Cambridge, MA 02139

Harlyn Halvorson, Dir.

PCMBT

UM