The state Division of Marine Fisheries is expected to make public Friday a draft application for the use of a $13.4 million grant, earmarked by two U.S. senators for alleviating the hardship to fishermen of regulations that limit catch and days at sea.

The division has also scheduled three public meetings, including one in Gloucester — on consecutive days at the start of April — to gather additional ideas for using the earmark, which was added by Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry to a year-end budget bill laden with thousands of similar tightly targeted appropriations.

Typically of earmarks, Kennedy and Kerry's was terse, a clause in a list of appropriations to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget. It said only: "that of the funds provided (NOAA), $13,395,000 is provided for the alleviation of economic impacts associated with Framework 42 on the Massachusetts groundfishery."

But with the NOAA — the same regulatory agency that devised Framework 42 regulations — in control of the earmarked money, getting it released has become a political and policy nightmare for everyone involved.

Distributing such an earmark, intended not to underwrite a monument or fund a pet project but to keep struggling fishermen on the water and out of bankruptcy, is not easy, especially when the Democratic earmarkers and the Republican caretakers of the money disagree about the nature of the problem and the way to improve things.

The Republican fishery regulators of the Bush administration do not share Democrat Kerry and Kennedy's belief that direct grants to fishermen are the best use of the money. The text of a letter outlining NOAA's view makes this clear.

"While we understand the need for some direct payment to fishermen," wrote John Oliver, NOAA's acting assistant administrator for fisheries, to Paul Diodati, director of the state Division of Marine Fisheries last month, "we do not believe (direct grants) will benefit the fishermen in the long run."

Using the money to improve the fishery was clearly the first order of business; helping fishermen, the second.

"We need to ensure this funding leads to improvements in the groundfish fishery that we can collectively measure while also meeting the short-term needs of fishermen," was how Oliver expressed the priorities."

His preferred approach was to use as much of the earmark as possible to buy out fishermen, reduce the size of the fleet, and cull the marginal hangers-on out of the water.

The term for this is "capacity reduction," which is the description of what Framework 42 intended, with the cuts in days at sea and counting one day at sea as two days in sections of the ocean that were particularly fecund with recovered stocks of cod.

The Framework 42 regulations have compelled many fishermen and boat owners to take on new debt in order to acquire additional permits, allowing them to bring in enough fish to keep going.

"It's a little unique," Maggie Mooney-Seus, Oliver's spokeswoman, told the Times yesterday, referring to NOAA's role as interpreter of the intent of the earmarkers.

Still, she said NOAA would decide whether the application for the money by state Division of Marine Fisheries was consistent with the intended use of the $13.4 million.

NOAA gave the division guidelines to follow.

If no more than half the money goes directly to fishermen, and 40 percent to 60 percent go to "capacity reduction," then "we will be able to process (the application) quickly and ensure "funding is available ... at the earliest possible time."

Mooney-Seus agreed the converse is implied.

So, there is a good chance the state will have other ideas for the distribution of the money. Robert Keough, Diodati's spokesman, said he does not agree with the distribution formula outlined by Oliver.

State Sen. Bruce Tarr was more demonstrative, accusing NOAA of hijacking the earmark and holding it hostage.

"This is a usurpation of a clearly worded mandate," said Tarr.

"Sham" was how Gloucester boatowner and gear distributor Corrado Buccheri described the offer from NOAA to release the money quickly if the state agrees to use it as NOAA wishes.

Buccheri said he worries the NOAA approach to buy fishermen out of their boats and permits will rob the city of its heritage of a fishing fleet of small businessmen and entrepreneurs and leave a vacuum for the day when the fishery recovers.

Getting into the business, he noted, is far more expensive than surviving in it during lean times.

Tarr said the NOAA buy-out approach to capacity reduction would leave a recovered fishery vulnerable to invasion by conglomerates and factory ships — which is just what the original Magnuson Act sought to exile beyond the 200-mile limit.

"We could come full circle," he said.

The public will get a look Friday at Diodati's first effort to satisfy NOAA and remain true to the intent of the earmark by the Democratic senators.

The public will have three opportunities to influence the final draft, a week from today in New Bedford, the next day in Plymouth and the next day, April 3, at 5:30 p.m. in Gloucester, at the Division of Marine Fisheries offices at 30 Emerson Ave.

After that, Diodati will make changes and try to get his grant application in to NOAA by the April 15 deadline Oliver set in his letter.

NOAA spokeswoman Mooney-Seus wanted to make clear agreement is the goal.

"'The letter is only guidance," said noted.

Richard Gaines can be reached at rgaines@gloucestertimes.com.

To sound off

The public will have an opportunity to influence the final draft of how $13.4 million in aid to the Massachusetts groundfishery will be spent. A hearing will be held in Gloucester on April 3, at 5:30 p.m. at the Division of Marine Fisheries offices at 30 Emerson Ave.