AQUACULTURE & FISHERIES INDUSTRY

= LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU

2005 LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY ISSUES

=

NEW YORK STATE/SUFFOLK COUNTY FARMLAND PRESERVATION

Suffolk County was one of the first reg= ions in the country to recognize that preservation of agricultural land would no= t be possible without a public program. Therefore, in 1974, Suffolk County instituted the first Purchase of Development Rights Program (PDR) in the country. Since then, approxim= ately 14,000 acres of the original goal of 34,000 acres have been preserved at a = cost to the public of $100 million.

The preservation of open = space and farmland is vital not only to sustain our industry but also to secure a buffer from suburban sprawl, for our citizens’ desire for fresh produ= ce, food and horticultural products, wildlife habitat protection, aquifer recha= rge, open space vistas and a destination for tourism. The conversion of farmland to development also presents a serious tax concern to local governments. They recognize the need for public investment in important natural resources such as farmland which requires o= nly .36 cents in government services in exchange for every property tax dollar = paid by the farmer, compared to $1.40 in services for every tax dollar paid by a homeowner. Farmland preservat= ion is a sound investment in our communities.

For the business of farmi= ng to succeed on Long Island, an even greater effort toward preserving the remaining critical mass of farmland must be made. For this goal to be achieved, a pr= ogram of matching funds and partnering of local, county, state and federal governments is essential to raise $275 million over the next five years. A commitment every year of the Five East End Towns of $11 million, Suffolk County of $16 million, New York State of $12 million, and the Federal Government of $16 million for a total of $2= 75 million over five years will help to accomplish this plan.

Suffolk County is the largest grossing agricultural county in the State of New York. The state’s commitment to Long Island’s agricultural industry and farmland preservation has been outstanding. The dedication of funding for preservation has increased dramatically over the years. Long Island Farm Bureau is dedicat= ed to preserving the remaining farmland in Suffolk County.

ACTION NEEDED: Long Island Farm Bureau’s request from New York State is = $12 million this year and $12 million each year thereafter for a total of $60 million in funding for farmland preservation at the end of five years. LIFB supports increased funding fr= om the NYS Environmental Protection Fund for farmland protection from the current = $15 million proposed in the Executive Budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year to at least $17 million.

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT

The Community Preservatio= n Act (CPA) would authorize New York towns to enact up to a 2% real estate transfer tax for the purposes of establishing local funds for farmland and open space preservation. The proposed legislation would not create new costs for the state nor would it require any town to take any action. The five East End Tow= ns of Suffolk County on Long Islan= d (Southampton, East Hampton, <= st1:place>Shelter Island, Riverhead and Southold)= were the first to utilize Community Preservation Fund legislation to generate funding for farmland and open space preservation. The Community Preservation Fund ha= s, and continues to, generate millions of dollars annually for land preservation.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

The Community Preservatio= n Act creates a process by which town governments can use a local real estate transfer tax to establish local open space and farmland protection funds. Long Island Farm Bureau and New Yo= rk Farm Bureau support state legislation which includes the following:

A general farmland exemption;
Land already preserved must be exempt;=
Land to be preserved should be exempt;=
Local community committee must have farmer representation;
Farmland must be highest priority for preservation funding;
Provision in state law to ensure tax collected can only be spent on preservation projects;
Provision that leftover funds (unspent) will be u= sed for local town preservation debt service, not for town general fund.

ACTION NEEDED: Long Island Farm Bureau supports the creation and adoption of Community Preservation legislation to enable New York towns to enact up to a 2% real estate transfer tax for the purposes of establishing local funds for farmland and = open space preservation.

NEW YORK= STATE FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY

New York State Agricultur= e & Markets Law Article 25AAA (also known as the Agricultural Protection Act) authorizes New York State Departme= nt of Agriculture & Markets to provide grants to counties to develop agricult= ural and farmland protection plans. To date, 48 counties have received funding to develop these plans. The development and implementation= of these plans have resulted in important accomplishments including the stimulation of local agricultural economic development programs, establishm= ent of local Purchase of Development Rights programs and the enactment of county Right to Farm laws.<= /p>

Long Island Farm Bureau s= upports amending Article 25AAA to make towns eligible for agricultural and farmland protecti= on planning grants. By providing= the resources for towns to take a pro-active approach toward farmland protection planning, the viability of local farms can be protected and farmland preser= ved.

ACTION NEEDED: Long Island Farm Bureau urges members of the New York State Senate and Assembly to amend New York State Agriculture & Markets Law Article 25AAA to make towns eligible= for Farmland Protection Planning Grants (A. 4534).

SELLING WINE IN NEW = YORK FOOD STORES

Long Island Farm Bureau s= upports legislation to allow for the sale of wine in retail food and grocery stores= .

New York State is = the third largest producer of wine after California and Washington. Long Island= wines account for a significant percentage of premium wines produced in New York State.

New= York is the only major wine-producing state out of 14 which does not permit wine= to be sold in food stores. The r= esult of this restriction is that per capita wine consumption and revenues from w= ine in New York are lower than ot= her wine-producing states. It is estimated that New York State is losing over $48 million annually in excise taxes, sales taxes, gross receipts taxes, license fees, and other assessments because wine sales are = not permitted in food stores.

Of the eight states that = have most recently introduced wine in food stores, total wines sales increased anywhere from 31% to 234%. Clearly, selling wine in grocery stores will increase sales of wine, increase revenues to state and local governments, a= nd benefit the economy. New York’s wine industry directly provided jobs= to 17,000 people and paid $333 million in wages.

Allowing wine to be sold = in food outlets would not significantly impact liquor stores and would not make alc= ohol more accessible to teenagers. It is projected that the number of outlets selling wine would expand from about 2= ,900 currently to about 17,610 outlets, a six-fold increase in the number of out= lets selling wine. Such an increas= e in wine sales would stimulate demand for wine overall regardless of where it is sold.

Since beer is already sol= d in grocery stores, the same strict regulations that apply to beer sales would regulate the sale of wine. Re= tail outlets that sell beer now are used to complying with the rules that restri= ct the sale of alcoholic beverages. Controlling the sale of wine in food stores, therefore, would not be difficult.

ACTION NEEDED: The New = York State Senate and Assembly need to introduce legislation to provide for the = sale of wine in retail food outlets either as part of the budget or as stand-alo= ne legislation. Senator George W= inner has introduced such legislation this year (S. 2454).

INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF WINE

Long Island Farm Bureau s= upports amending the alcoholic beverage control law in relation to providing limited direct interstate shipping of = wine to consumers.

This legislation will ena= ble wine processed by licensed New York wineries and wine sold by licensed New York retailers to be shipped in limited quantities to individual consumers in ot= her states that have reciprocal direct shipping statutes. To accomplish this, this bill perm= its licensees in such other states to apply in New York for out of state shipper’s licenses that will permit them to make lim= ited direct shipments of wine to legal age adult consumers in New York subject to appropriate controls of the state liquor authority and payment of all sales and excise taxes. Under current law it is a violatio= n for transportation carriers such as Federal Express and UPS to send packages of wine to individual consumers for their personal use. The proposed legislation would rem= edy the problem and allow shipments to be done in states where reciprocal agreements occur.

The Long Islan= d wine industry is a key contributor to Long Island= 217;s and New York State= ’s economic and agricultural well-being. A significant market for Long Island wineries= is generated by thousands of tourists who visit the East End of Long Island. This legislation is vital for the wineries to continue to consume Long Island and New York State win= es when the visitors return to their homes in other states. The benefits of this bill will pro= mote long term economic viability to New York<= /st1:State>’s Wine and Grape Industry.

GOLDEN NEMATODE

In order to prevent nematodes from spreading, certain “quarantine” measures are imposed on local potato, nursery, and sod growers. These products are restricted from certain markets – Canada in particular. Sod from quarantined land cannot le= ave Long Island. Most serious is the fact that farmers whose lands have been determined to be infested must grow nematode resistant varieties and comply with strict crop rotation methods. Some 2,000 = acres of potato land is infested and must comply with the mandatory progra= m to control the spread of nematodes. The problem is that the nematode resistant varieties do not match standard traditional varieties in yield or quality.

Currently, the Cornell Research/Outreach Program is facing a reduction in support. The total impact of this reduction= is still being assessed, but it will mean a reduction in breeding efforts for = new golden nematode resistant varieties and in the generation of seed stocks of these varieties by Cornell. T= hese funds are critical to maintain the personnel and program activities that le= ad to resistant varieties, and resistant varieties are now the centerpiece for golden nematode management. T= his situation is further exacerbated by the determination of a second race that= can overcome the current resistance gene in selected potato fields. Germplasm with resistance to the n= ew race has been identified but is not yet incorporated into advance breeding selections.

This program has been a cooperative effort of USDA/ARS, USDA/APHIS, New York Sta= te Agriculture & Markets, and Cornell University. The current cuts and proposed cuts jeopardize the viability of the current program and have the potential to irreparably fragment a unique collaborative relationship that = has been recognized as one of the leading examples of a successful IPM program.=

ACTION NEEDED: LIFB urg= es restoration of adequate funding for the Golden Nematode Program. The Executive Budget has slated $4= 4,000; $7,000 in funding is still needed.

AVIAN DISEASE PROGRAM

Long Island Farm Bureau is deeply concerned over the proposed 2005-2006 Agricult= ure & Markets budget as presented. <= /span>In particular, we are concerned over the reduction in funding for the Avian Disease Program. This program= is vital to Ne= w York’s poultry industry. It prevents and controls diseases = by providing diagnostic service, extension service and problem oriented basic = and applied research. It funds st= aff members both at Cornell University Duck Research Laboratory in Eastport and= at the Cor= nell University Veterinary College in = Ithaca. Currently, salmonella enteritidis, avian influenza and duck virus enteritis control and monitoring are accomplished with this aid.

For Long Island, these cuts will force Cornell University to withdraw much of its support for the Eastport Duck Lab. This la= b is funded primarily by the duck industry, however, without <= st1:place>New York support through Cornell, it is unlikely that = the lab can survive. This support= is essential to retain the PHD’s and DVM’s on staff. The lab is vital to the duck indust= ry as it is the one source of vaccines, without which the industry would have tro= uble keeping its birds alive and healthy. It is necessary to monitor, control and prevent poultry diseases on a statewide basis so that epidemics do not wipe out individual producers, and problem organisms such as salmonella and listeria can be held in check to ensure food safety for consumers.

ACTION NEEDED: LIFB urges your support in restora= tion of funding for the Avian Disease Program.&= nbsp; The Executive Budget has slated $272,000; $43,000 in funding is still needed.

<= /p>
<= /p>
FUNDING FOR NY STATE WINE & GRAPE FOUNDATION

New= York owes much to the small family-run grape farms and farm wineries. Long Island produces internationally acclaimed vintage wines for local consumption and = for some of Manhattan’s finest restaurants. Thousands of tou= rists flock to the Finger Lakes Region and new businesses such as the Ramada Inn = in Geneva are a result of the expansion of farm wineries. From Long Island and the Hudson Val= ley to Chautauqua Coun= ty, grape farms and farm wineries contribute to the local and state economies.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This means more tax dollars to the= State and more employment opportunities for our citizens.

The New York Wine & G= rape Foundation has played a pivotal role in this economic expansion. They have expanded marketing opportunities not only in New York and the rest of the United States but also in foreign markets, as well. The Foundation also provides much needed research funding to Cornell= and the Geneva Experimental Station to allow grape growers to remain on the cut= ting edge of technology. Cornell s= tudies on the health benefits of grapes and wines have been cited in national news reports and offer an excellent marketing tool for our farm wineries. However, the challenge our growers= face is to remain competitive with other wine producing states and countries.

The 2005-2006 Executive Budget proposed to fund the= New York Wine & Grape Foundation at the level of $3.5 million generated by a proposed 560 percent increase in the wine excise tax. We are respectful of the fiscal challenges the State is facing during this difficult point in time, however such a substantial increase in the excise tax would have a deleterious impa= ct on the wine industry, regardless of the increased funding to the Wine & Grape Foundation.

PROPOSED ACTION: Governor Pataki’s proposed 2005-2006 Budget proposes to increase the funding to the Wine & Grape Foundation. = Long Island Farm Bureau supports any additional funding without increasing the excise tax on wine production in N= ew York State.

AQUACULTURE & FISHERIES INDUSTRY

Marine Fisheries Management<= /u>

&n= bsp;

Long Island commercial and= recreational fishermen are governed by Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) crea= ted by the following agencies:

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>a.&n= bsp;            = ;       National Marine Fisheries Service div. USA Dept of Commerce (NMFS)

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>b.&n= bsp;            = ;      Atlantic States Marine Fishe= ries Commission (ASMFC)

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>c.&n= bsp;            = ;       Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) <= o:p>

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>d.&n= bsp;            = ;      New England Fishery Manageme= nt Council (NEFMC)

NMFS and the fishery mana= gement councils manage stocks from 3 to 200 miles offshore of the United States (US Exclusive Economic Zone ̵= 1; EEZ). These bodies develop and enact regulations as proscrib= ed by the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.   This Act created eight regio= nal fishery management councils with voting counselors that include: a fishery management agency representative from each state; a Governor’s appointee from each stat= e; at-large counselors and the Department of Commerce represented by a Regiona= l Administrator (RA).

The ASMFC is an interstat= e body created by the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. Each of 15 states from = Maine to Florida and the RA has one vote. It creates coast wide FMPs for stocks within 3 miles of land and revi= ews each state’s FMPs for compliance with ASMFC plans. The RA is empowered to impose fish= ing moratoriums on states that are found out of compliance.

For species with signific= ant stocks in both state and federal waters (i.e., summer flounder; black sea b= ass; scup) plans are developed jointly with the appropriate fishery management council and the ASMFC. <= /o:p>

While conservation of fis= h stocks is the mandated goal of fishery management, actual FMPs are often influence= d by political alliances and state interests.&n= bsp; Those states with well-funded, cohesive, informed and committed Mari= ne Resource departments have an advantage in the process of developing regulat= ions because of long-standing scientific and data collection programs within the= ir state that afford them ‘proof’ of the positions necessary to re= ach their goals.

New York State has been particularly disadvantaged over the past twenty years by factors such = as:        &= nbsp;

           &n= bsp;    Data collection practices: The aforementioned mid-Atlantic stocks are allocated on a state-by-state basis based on “weigh-out data.”&nbs= p; That is, a boat’s landings are weighed and purchased at the do= ck; a receipt is given to the boat; a copy of the landing receipt is sent direc= tly to state and/or federal data collection centers. New York= State does not have any weigh-o= ut data. Docks serve only as tra= nsit shippers for fish that are then purchased by dealers in New York or processors in other cities and states. Thus, records of New York landings have been vastly inaccurate and deficient, resulting in smaller allocations of stocks than we rightfully de= serve. It is to the advantage of states w= ith better data-keeping practices to maintain the weigh-out data system because they get larger shares of the quota.

           &n= bsp;    Reporting requirements: Boats with New York State commercial fishing permits were not required to report their landings until April 2002. Thus, only catch = landed in New York by federally permitted boats or catch sold through federally permitted dealers (only 1/3= of the Fulton Street wholesalers) was counted towards historical landings data.

           &n= bsp;    Regional alliances: At both the MAFMC = and NEFMC, verbal references are often made to the “Southern New England Region.” This would enc= ompass New York; Rhode Island; and Connecticut, whose interests and fishing activities are similar. However, New= York sits on the MAFMC and Rhode Island has a seat on the NEFMC. We a= re unable to support each other on either council and New York is consistently overruled by a New Jersey- Virginia-North Carolina alliance whose goals are often not in our best interests.

           &n= bsp;    Lack of and dilution of funding: <= st1:place>New York StateR= 17;s marine fisheries are governed by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Yet funding and= staff for marine issues is often diverted to the Division of Fish and Wildlife.   Although over half of fresh-= water recreational fishing takes place in the Great Lakes,= the rest of the recreational activity and all commercial activity take place in= the marine areas of Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean.

           &n= bsp;    Lack of continuity: The DEC Marine Bureau must have a long-term, knowledgeable staff in order to develop inter= nal programs and projects necessary to effectively participate at national and regional councils on behalf of this state’s fishing interests.

The NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources – Shellfishe= ries Section is also responsible for testing the marine waters of New York State for their suitability for shellfish harvest. This is a federally mandated water quality testing progr= am that protects the health of consumers. In order to comply with this program= the NYSDEC Shellfisheries Section must insure that the Water Quality Testing Laboratory has the staffing necessary to comply with the FDA administered National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). Without proper testing capaci= ty, areas suitable for harvest lack the testing needed to open them for harvest, thereby causing lost income for baymen. If the staffing level drops too low, the state will be out of compliance with the NSSP and no shellfish landed i= n New York will be permitted to be s= old outside of New York State. The Shellfish Advisory Committee members are sending a letter to the Commissioner of the Departmen= t of Environmental Conservation requesting that the Automatic Exemption from hir= ing freezes be reinstated for the personnel of the NYSDEC – Shellfisheries Section, Water Quality Testing Laboratory personnel.

ACTION NEEDED: N= ew York State must support a dedicated, well-funded fisheries and shellfish unit on <= st1:place>Long Island with a knowledge of and commitment towards the b= est possible marine science; data collection; interstate influences and future = NYS management needs. W= e must also insure that the Shellfisheries Section Water Quality Testing Laboratory maintains its curre= nt fully staffed status.

<= /o:p>

ACTION NEEDED: N= ew York State must recogn= ize the recreational, commercial finfish and shellfish industries that exist in= the saltwater marine districts for both their historic cultural value and great= er than $50 billion dollar economic contribution to this state.

<= /o:p>

Harvest of Marine Resources<= /u>

            =     Once quota of managed fish stocks has been allocated to New York, we must become more efficient in ensuring t= hat all available marine resources are harvested. In three of the last four years, N= YS quota was wasted because of overly-restrictive trip limits. Although overages in harvests by b= oth the recreational and commercial sectors are ‘paid back’ the next year, unused resources are lost forever. Trip limits (the amount of fish th= at can be landed by a boat for each fishing trip it conducts) currently do not= take into account the number of boats fishing; the season being fished; the weat= her and holidays; abundance of stock ; efficiencies in operation affected by fu= el prices, shore side support and number of crew; etc.

With the recovery and abundance of many mid-Atlantic fish stocks, fishermen are being forced to discard more fish t= han they can land in a single trip. Worse still, they must do this multiple times in an attempt to get a fair share of the allocated quota. In so doing, they waste fuel, time, boat-life and dockside resources= as well as marine resources.

           &n= bsp;    For several years, some commercial sectors have advocated the development of we= ekly or cumulative trip limits. Su= ch programs already exist in several other states. In essence, a cumulative trip limit would allow a boat to land multiple days worth of quota at one time and then avoid that stock altogether for a few days by either tying up or targeting another stock.

ACTION NEEDED: The New = York State Farm Bureau supports the development of a pilot program for voluntary participation in weekly or cumulative trip limits. =

Aquaculture

Last year= Long Island Farm Bureau and the East End Marine Farmers Association were pleased= to have Bill S5984A/A10131A passed into law. This is the first step in insuring the continued growth of shellfish aquaculture on Long Island. The passage of this law enables Suffolk County to move forward to establish aquacultu= re zones in the Peconic Estuary where leases can be established for aquacultur= e. The NYSDEC, through past legislation, also has the ability to lease underwa= ter lands in other areas of the Marine District including LI Sound. Neither the State nor the County has issued new leases of underwater lands to shellfish farmers in the last twenty years. This has resulted in the loss of economic opportunity for shellfish farmers in the State of New York. We recommend that <= st1:PlaceName>New York State promote the shellfish aquaculture indu= stry by beginning the process of issuing new leases immediately. We also recomme= nd that shellfish farmers be able to cultivate species of shellfish other than oysters on leases and maintain the current right to do so on underwater “grants” and “franchises”.

~~<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>~~

Additiona= lly, the shellfish aquaculture industry is still being regulated as a wild harvest fishery and not as a farm industry. (See note below.) This has resulted in shellfish farmers being: sadd= led with unnecessary permits, unable to market product when it is ready to sell, and unsure that they will continue to have the right to use modern harvest methods for all shellfish that they cultivate. Currently, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation is the lead agency overseeing shellfish aquacult= ure activities. To promote the viability of the industry the Environmental Conservation law must be amended to allow exemptions for aquacultured shell= fish in regard to: size and season= of harvest, method of harvest and permits required by employees working on shellfish farms. Transferring the lead agency for shellfish aquaculture to = the Department of Agriculture and Markets is the only other remedy. In all states where shellfish aquaculture is thriving, the lead agency is the Department of Agriculture. =

ACTION NEEDED: Shellfish farming is sustainable, environmentally beneficial, and important to the economy of = Long Island.&nb= sp; The Long Isl= and Farm Bureau asks for your support of= the following changes to the Environmental Conservation and Agriculture and Mar= kets laws to promote the growth of shellfish farming on Long Island.&nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;                 &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

Shellfish= farms should be considered agricultural operations and given every agricultu= ral and/or aquacultural exemption as accorded other operations for cultivation and harvest. Shellfish farmers should be given aquacult= ure exemptions that will a= llow:=             &nb= sp;

1.&n= bsp;      The harvest of all species of farmed shellfish when they are marketable, regardless of size and season regulations pertaining to wi= ld harvest product.

2.      = Aquaculture exemptions for the handling of farmed product. For example, employees of shellfish farmers should not be required to have a diggers permit to cull and handle farmed shellfish.

3.      = Modern cultivation equipment should be permitted on shellfish farms as currently regulated by the NYSDEC.

The State of <= st1:place>New York and Suffolk County<= /st1:place> need to move forward on the leasing of underwater land for shellfish farming.

* * *

NOTE: New York= State Agriculture & Markets= Law Article 25AA-Agricultural Districts, §301 Definitions 2. (h.) “Aquaculture products, including fish, fish products, water plants and shellfish.”