Massachusetts Aquaculture Strategic Plan Chapter II - Priority Recommendations

The following recommendations reinforce recommendations made by several of the Working Groups and reflect the priority actions needed to "jump start" the aquaculture industry in Massachusetts. The first six recommendations should be considered overarching, in that they address issues which are fundamental to coordinated support for aquaculture. The priority recommendations should not take away from the importance of the recommendations found in the individual chapters. In many cases, the implementation of the specific recommendations dealing with regulatory reform, economic development and environmental review hinge on the prior implementation of the recommendations presented below. Recommendation numbers 7 - 13 address the administrative requirements necessary to support an aquaculture industry at the state level.

Note: A ($) next to a recommendation indicates that a new appropriation is necessary to implement the recommendation. If no ($) is noted, it can be assumed that the recommendation can be implemented utilizing existing staff and resources. A spreadsheet of all recommendations requiring funding is provided in Graphic 3.

1. Recommendation:
Regulatory streamlining recommendations found in Chapter 2 should be implemented immediately. Standardized aquaculture applications which include detailed information needs and standard plan requirements should be coordinated as soon as possible. Regulatory streamlining and coordinated processing are central to the development of aquaculture. Each general type of aquaculture should require only one coordinated application.

2. Recommendation: ($)
In recognition of the multiple benefits of public aquaculture, the Municipal Shellfish Propagation program should be reactivated and improved. Funds should be appropriated to DMF to fund this popular program. Guidance to municipalities must ensure that propagation funds are used effectively and for appropriate purposes. Consideration should be given to incorporating the restoration of contaminated areas into this program. It is recommended that this program be administered as a matching grant program whereby the state would match town propagation budgets.

Justification:
This program had significant local support and is seen as a means for developing local support for aquaculture, both private and public. By enhancing and managing productive public shellfish beds, the recreational and commercial shellfish harvesters may not be so opposed to some privatization. Other advantages of public aquaculture include the fostering of the public's understanding of aquaculture and the creation of opportunities for experimentation in propagation and harvesting techniques. Additional incentives for the towns to support aquaculture can be created by allowing them to use the proceeds of increased aquaculture license fees to increase the size of state match.

3. Recommendation: ($)
Aquaculture staff within state and municipal government is critical to the growth of aquaculture in Massachusetts. Presently, there is virtually no full time staff in State government responsible for any aspect of aquaculture regulation or economic development. At minimum, an Aquaculture Coordinator at DFA and an Aquaculture Specialist within DFWELE are necessary to meet existing and backlogged needs.

The Aquaculture Coordinator would oversee the ACT, establish and maintain links with the regional, national and international aquaculture communities and would be responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan. Most importantly, the Coordinator will serve as the single point of contact within the State for all existing and prospective aquaculturists. The Coordinator will actively assist all aquaculturists in identifying and complying with appropriate regulatory requirements. The Aquaculture Specialist within DFWELE is necessary to coordinate the streamlining of the regulatory review process as well as carry out required field survey and monitoring responsibilities.

4. Recommendation:
Any State bond monies appropriated for aquaculture purposes should be directed toward priorities identified in this Strategy. Specifically, funding for aquaculture related projects is included in the proposed Open Space Bond Bill (HB no. 5143), Seaport Bond Bill (HB no. 5127) and the Coastal Assessment Bill (SB no. 1834). Aquaculture should be included in the section of the Open Space Bond Bill known as "Linked Investment for Agriculture" which would allow state funds to be invested at lower than market rates in selected financial institutions. The savings to the financial institution could then be passed on the loan recipient.

5. Recommendation:
A priority of the aquaculture industry is to improve Shellfish Licensing terms to provide for more predictability and stability of licensing in an effort to improve financing potential. The existing licensing process varies significantly from town to town and leaves room for much discretion. It is recommended that a series of meetings be organized with shellfish aquaculturists, municipal licensing bodies (selectmen), shellfish constables and DMF to discuss potential changes to DMF regulations as well as municipal license administration.

6. Recommendation: ($)
The state should produce a user friendly "Aquaculture Regulatory Handbook" which is easily updated. This Handbook should detail the permit requirements, review time frames, jurisdictional authorities, application fees, agency contact person, necessary application materials, and review processes for the different types of aquaculture. This handbook should be geared toward prospective aquaculturists, the finance community, and other interested parties. A related longer term recommendation is to provide this regulatory handbook in CD-Rom format.

Agency Responsibilities

7. Recommendation:
An Aquaculture Coordination Team (ACT) comprised of (existing) State agency staff with expertise and responsibility for technical assistance, environmental monitoring, economic development and permitting should be established. ACT will be responsible for policy development, industry support, oversight of regulatory streamlining, and implementation of the Strategic Plan. An Aquaculture Coordinator, located at DFA should be hired to coordinate the work of ACT. The Strategic Planning process has highlighted the need for sustained inter-agency coordination and ACT would serve that purpose. An Aquaculture Advisory Group would advise ACT. Refer to Graphic 4 depicting the proposed Aquaculture Framework.

8. Recommendation:
An Aquaculture Advisory Group which includes representation from a broad spectrum of interests including industry, conservation groups, the financial sector, landowners, municipal representatives, and academia should be established. The Aquaculture Advisory Group would advise and guide the ACT on issues of concern. The Aquaculture Coordinator would be the liaison between ACT and the Advisory Group. This group could also establish research grant criteria and review procedures for state aquaculture research and development grant programs.

Justification:
State aquaculture development and management activities should be coordinated with members of the various sectors involved to assure that policy decisions and appropriations are efficiently carried out and relevant to industry development.

9. Recommendation: ($)
A position should be established at DFA for an Aquaculture Coordinator. The Aquaculture Coordinator should be responsible for coordination of all state aquaculture activities, would oversee the work of the Aquaculture Coordination Team (ACT) and be responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

10. Recommendation:
DMF should be the lead regulatory agency for marine aquaculture and hatcheries. DMF should be responsible for developing and administering a "one-stop" permit process which incorporates the concerns and timely review of all other relevant agencies, both state and federal.

11. Recommendation:
DFW should be the lead regulatory agency for inland aquaculture and hatcheries. DFW should be responsible for developing and administering a "one-stop" permit process which incorporates the concerns and timely review of all other relevant agencies, both state and federal.

12. Recommendation:
DFA shall be the lead agency for the promotion and marketing of aquacultured products. To the extent possible, all existing DFA promotion and marketing programs should be extended to include aquaculture.

13. Recommendation:
Establish an Interagency Aquaculture Permit Review Group. This group would meet as needed to discuss aquaculture proposals presently under state review. In an ongoing attempt to streamline the regulatory framework for aquaculture, this Review Group would have representation from federal and state agencies. The coordination of this group would be the responsibility of the Permitting representative who sits on the ACT.

Justification:
The value of interagency coordination has become apparent through the Strategic Planning process. Aquaculture, by the nature of the science and industry, does not fit squarely within any existing agency in the state. Not desiring to add another bureaucratic agency, it is recommended that the Interagency Aquaculture Permit Review Group meet on an as needed basis.

Click here to go back to the Table of Contents for The Massachusetts Aquaculture Strategic Plan

Published: September 1995