When money from Maine’s 2005 Red Tide Disaster Relief Fund was disbursed by mail recently, some shellfish harvesters say they got a surprise in their envelope instead of a relief check. A number of harvesters were reportedly under the impression that because they were issued an application, they were eligible to apply for compensation. Instead, they received a denial letter.

Harrington resident Carolyn Engels expressed frustration at the fact that some shellfish harvesters were sent applications but later were told that they were ineligible for the funds because they were licensed in a town not affected by red tide. She estimates that her husband, David, was unable to harvest clams for between 40 and 60 days during 2005. Engels claims that when she called one of the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) offices in 2005, she was told that the area where her husband planned to harvest was closed due to red tide. She reports that some buyers also believed that. However, she says that her husband later received a denial letter stating that the area had been closed due to “flooding” rather than red tide.

“If they want to call it `flooding,’ why can’t they give `flood’ victims anything?” she asked.

The deputy DMR commissioner explained in February that an application was sent out to everyone who held a state license for commercial shellfish harvesting. Deputy commissioner David Etnier said that shellfish harvesters may be licensed to dig in towns other than their town of residence. He noted that the state does not have that information in its database. So applications were sent to each commercial harvester licensed with the state, and those harvesters were asked to indicate on the application in which towns they were licensed. He clarified that the information submitted on the application was then used to determine whether each harvester qualified for relief (depending upon whether they were licensed to harvest in a town that had been closed down during the 2005 red tide outbreak).

“They could theoretically hold a number of licenses,” commented Etnier. “We had to have the applications sent back to check the town records [to verify in which town(s) they were licensed]. It had to be done after the fact because we don’t have knowledge of who has town licenses.”

Etnier added that the letter, which accompanied the application, was very clear regarding the fact that the fund was designated for red tide.

“It definitely stated in three places in the application that it [the fund] was for red tide,” continued Etnier.

The deputy commissioner said that some confusion regarding the reason for closures may have stemmed from the fact that the DMR hotline (which harvesters call to check on open and closed areas for harvesting) is commonly referred to as the “Red Tide Hotline.” He said that the DMR’s website clearly states, however, that “the name of the hotline is the Maine Red Tide And Shellfish Sanitation Hotline.” Harvesting areas may be closed for either red tide or bacterial contaminants (which may be present in some flats after heavy rainfall.)

Togue Brawn, who served as administrator for the Red Tide Disaster Relief program, reported that $1,194,205 from the fund was sent out to commercial shellfish harvesters. She added that $155,430 went to primary buyers; another $85,000 was disbursed to mussel harvesters and $78,000 to mahogany quahog harvesters, as well as $47,100 to aquaculturists.

Brawn said that approximately $350,000 was designated for research programs designed to reduce the economic impact of future red tide events and the remaining funds were used to cover costs involved in administering the program. She reported that harvesters in the Casco Bay area were very pleased with the results of the previous fine scale monitoring in that bay and expressed their desire for the monitoring program to continue.

“We hope that harvesters will receive a positive return on their investment,” stated Brawn, who added that, in the long run, “fine scale monitoring will likely result in far more than $350,000 in the pockets of harvesters who would otherwise not have been able to harvest.”