 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association December 2004 Newsletter)
Environment and Drugs
ASA Meeting
ASMFC Meeting - Policy Board
Summer Flounder
ISFMP Policy Board November 11th 2004 Meeting Summary
Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management
Board Meeting Summary
Last month we included an article in the JCAA newspaper from the Denver Post entitled “Mutant Fish Prompt Concern.” This month we have included an article from the Washington Post entitled “ Male Bass in the Potomac Producing Eggs.” These articles confirm JCAA’s growing concern about drugs, both prescription and nonprescription, entering the environment. We have known for some time about the impact of PCBs, dioxin and mercury on wildlife and humans. We are seeing increasing evidence that drugs have a similar and possibly a more disastrous impact on all of us. These two studies represent the tip of the iceberg. Ongoing studies worldwide are showing similar results. Wherever fisheries management is discussed, this topic is included. This issue was the subject of discussion at the ASA meeting, at the ASMFC meeting, NJ DEP, Federal EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service. The scary part is that these drugs may not only kill wildlife but may also be responsible for mutations.
We know how to keep PCBs, mercury and dioxin out of the environment. We now have a plan to end or diminish the impact of the release of these chemicals into the environment. Right now we don’t even know the source of all of these drugs. We don’t know if they are antibiotics fed to chickens, hormones given to cattle, or the medications we take. In order to grow the food necessary to feed the earth’s growing population, it is expedient to feed our livestock increasing amounts of drugs so they can be housed in confined spaces and grow at faster rates. Even if we work to lessen the amount of drugs that enter the environment through agriculture, there would still be many drugs that enter the environment because of human consumption. No one is suggesting that we should not take drugs to enhance and extend human life. But we need to look at the impact of these drugs, find out exactly how and where they are entering the environment and investigate if there is anything that can be done to protect the ecosystem.
We really don’t have all the information we need to make long-term decisions. In addition, we lack the technology to deal with drugs that enter the environment in minute parts per trillion through the sewage system. The one thing I think we can do right now is minimize the impact of expired drugs that are either flushed or put in the landfill. We need to look at a recycling program like the existing program for expired batteries. Some of the drug chains could serve as collection points for expired or unused drugs. This would keep at least these drugs out of the environment while we continue to investigate other options. This is a worldwide problem but we need to start in our own backyard. JCAA is looking to form a coalition to pursue these issues and solutions. If you have any suggestions or comments or would like to help work on this issue, please contact us.
In the last month I attended the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) Board meeting and its 2004 Sportfishing Summit. The 2004 Sportfishing Summit was the most successful membership meeting held by ASA. ASA reported that approximately 30 percent of our attendees provided evaluations and of those 30 percent, 67 percent rated the overall Summit as “excellent.” According to ASA Board Chairman, Dave Pfeiffer (Shimano American Corporation), a significant number of people commented to him emphasizing how well the event was organized and that the topics and speakers provided information that was both intriguing and relevant to their business interests. Scores of representatives from every sector of the sportfishing community came together for thought-provoking sessions and spirited debate on topics ranging from the state of manufacturing to marketing and brand identity to examining the elements of establishing a new community-wide advocacy campaign to protect and promote recreational angling. Look for a full reporting on special speakers, sessions and committee activities in the next issue of American Sportfishing which will arrive in December and is available at the at <http://www.asafishing.org>. ASA had more than 155 representatives from 95 different companies and organizations, including 73 member companies. With speakers and ASA staff, over 170 people attended the meeting. I will share some additional information at the next JCAA meeting.
The other meeting I attended was the ASMFC Annual Meeting. As always, this meeting was full of controversy. I have included some of the meeting summaries below. I will discuss the policy board meeting, summer flounder, scup, seabass and striped bass. The complete summary of the ASMFC meeting is posted at the JCAA webpage.
At the policy board meeting, New Jersey presented an appeal on losing the producing status for the Delaware and Hudson River systems. New Jersey put together a comprehensive appeal on what was wrong with the process and how it should be corrected. The policy board decided it would only consider one point under the appeals process. They decided to look at whether the public process of Amendment 6 was clear when it was released to the public for comments. The debate took almost 90 minutes and I would have been surprised if we had gotten what I would have considered a fair and reasonable decision. We have been discussing this issue for a year and a half and the same people keep stating that they didn’t make any mistakes in the process. They stood by their decision and refused to consider the three other points New Jersey raised in the appeal. What was truly disheartening is that I asked many people if they had read New Jersey’s appeal before the meeting began. They admitted they had not. What was also upsetting was that the staff went through and looked for positions or statements that would support their original decisions while skipping any contrary information included in the appeal. They didn’t go through the appeal document for the board which would have helped make this a more equitable process and brought all the attendees up to speed on the appeal. The problem is that the people who were making the decision whether or not to consider any information included in the appeal are the same people who have a vested interest in protecting their original negative votes. I think this process needs to include people who do not have a vested interest in the final decision as part of any appeal. Also, the people who have been involved for a period of time have positions that are set in stone. There is no way they are capable of an unbiased view. The three commissioners from New Jersey will be reviewing the board’s decision and deciding on the next course of action. As a commissioner, I believe our only course of action is to sue the ASMFC if we want to protect the producing status of the Hudson and Delaware Rivers and all that entails.
The summer flounder meeting was no better. The states that had the largest quota were forced by a vote to give up some of their quota to other states. The full explanation for this decision is included in the summary below. This means that New Jersey commercial fishermen, who had already planned with the quota established in August at the joint meeting of ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, are now forced by ASMFC to give up some of that existing quota. I understand the Mid-Atlantic Council believes this is illegal. What really concerned me about this vote is that the “have nots” who outnumbered the “haves” could force this decision.
It seems that ASMFC meetings represent less cooperation and more alliances that use their power in a negative way. When I first joined ASMFC I found a real effort was being made to work cooperatively. States would try to find solutions to other state problems without resorting to negative punishments. As an example, New Jersey gave up a seabass quota to try to address the concerns of other states. It appears these days are gone and power politics is alive and well at ASMFC. The decisions on summer flounder, unfortunately, confirmed my worst expectations. I never thought I would see the day some states ganged up to take away fish already allocated by a long-term process. There have been many workshops held to discuss ways to deal with summer flounder allocations. New Jersey commercial fishermen attended a recent workshop to try to develop a solution to quota reallocation. The commercial fishermen from New Jersey were looking for a process that would be helpful to their fellow commercial fishermen in other states. However, the New Jersey commercial fishermen were also looking for some guidelines to help solve the problems that were created by the quotas. What they got was an old-fashioned fish grab. I will suggest Governor Codey not transfer this quota and challenge the legality of the ASMFC decision. The three ASMFC commissioners will be meeting to come up with a plan of action.
The winter flounder management board is going to public hearing with an addendum to the management plan. You really need to attend these public hearings. New Jersey and New York have the highest recreational catch on winter flounder. But when it comes to overall catch, the catch is small by comparison to other states. What I suggested is that any considered cutback should be based on a percentage of a state’s total catch, not just the recreational catch. The proposals that are being sent to public hearing would cause a 38 – 68 % reduction of the recreational catch in New Jersey and would not have the same dramatic effect in states with a large commercial catch. We’re not even sure that reducing the catch in New Jersey would help the problems with the New England winter flounder fishery. But this will certainly make the recreational anglers from New Jersey suffer. The dates for the hearings are not posted yet. New Jersey is asking for dates in January. Because of the huge impact on New Jersey and New York’s anglers, we have also requested that the management board meet somewhere in the New York metropolitan area. An email request went out and the response from Connecticut and north was dramatically opposed even though New Jersey and New York are the most impacted by the proposals.
In the past ASMFC has been responsible for many positive changes and has worked hard at finding solutions without resorting or forcing states to resort to legal measures. Commissioners would attempt to see problems from many points of view and put themselves in the shoes of their colleagues from other states. Unfortunately today a “drop dead” attitude prevails. ASMFC has a new chairman and vice chairman. A change in leadership could produce a change in the process. I am hopeful that the new chairman and vice chairman will use their authority to make sure that staff has an attitude adjustment. The staff needs to focus on solutions and to use their skills to produce more mediation and less confrontation. This could go a long way in changing the negative atmosphere at the ASMFC meetings. With changes in staff and commissioners in the past few years, I fear we have lost touch with our own history and the federal compact that brought us together.
The Interstate Fishery Management Program Policy Board met to address a number of issues as well as hear reports from the ASMFC Committees.
The first issue that the Policy Board addressed was an appeal by the State of New Jersey regarding the Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. New Jersey submitted a request for an appeal at the end of September. This request included six issues that New Jersey was asking for reconsideration by the Policy Board. As outlined in the ASMFC Appeals Process, the ASMFC Chair, Vice-Chair, and immediate past Chair (Chairs) reviewed the request to determine if it met the appeal criteria and warranted further consideration by the Policy Board. The Chairs determined that two of the issues met the appeal criteria and did warrant further consideration. Specifically, the Chairs agreed that the Policy Board should determine if the proper procedure and public comment opportunity were upheld in the support of the decision to remove the “producer area” designation in Amendment 6.
Staff presented the Policy Board with a timeline and summary of events that led up to the approval and implementation of Amendment 6. New Jersey then presented their rationale and background to support their request. After considerable deliberations the Policy Board determined that the proper procedure and public comment opportunity were upheld in the development and approval of Amendment 6. Following this determination, the Policy Board briefly discussed if further action to address New Jersey’s concerns was necessary. New Jersey agreed to continue to discuss their concerns further at a subsequent Striped Bass Management Board meeting.
Move that the ISFMP Policy Board direct the Striped Bass Management Board to begin an Addendum to establish criteria for defining spawning and nursery areas as well as describing these areas for the purpose of the Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan. Further, the Addendum should set out necessary action to protect these areas and consideration for states taking such action.
Motion by Mr. Freeman, second by Mr. Kray. Motion perfected with the subsequent motion.
Move the ISFMP Policy Board direct the Striped Bass Management Board to review the producer area status of the Delaware/Hudson Estuaries with regards to the Amendment 6 process.
Motion by Mr. Freeman, second by Mr. Kray. Motion tabled time certain.
Motion to table the previous motion.
Motion by Mr. Pate, second by Mr. Lapointe. Motion passes.
Move that the Policy Board find the Striped Bass Management Board followed proper procedure in adopting Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass FMP in removing producer area designation.
Motion by Mr. Pate, second by Mr. Abbott. Motion passes.
Move that the previously tabled motion be brought back to the Board for consideration.
Motion by Mr. Pate, second by Mr. R. White. Motion passes.
Move the ISFMP Policy Board direct the Striped Bass Management Board to review the producer area status of the Delaware/Hudson Estuaries.
Motion by Mr. Freeman, second by Mr. Kray. Motion amended.
Move to amend the motion to remove the word “Hudson.”
Motion by Mr. Colvin, second by Mr. Lapointe. Motion passes.
Move the ISFMP Policy Board direct the Striped Bass Management Board to review the producer area status of the Delaware Estuaries.
Motion by Mr. Freeman, second by Mr. Kray.
Move to table this motion.
Motion by Mr. Freeman, second by Mr. Frillici. Motion passes unanimously.
The Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management Board approved Addendum XV to the Management Plan. Addendum XV establishes an allocation program for the increase of approximately 1.3 million pounds in the 2005, and 1.6 million pounds in the 2006 commercial summer flounder fisheries. The Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Board approved the increase in total allowable landings in August based on stock improvements and increases in available biomass.
The 2005 quota increase will be divided as follows. Approximately 980,000 pounds will be distributed according to the historic state share. Approximately 320,000 pounds will be distributed to the following states: 75,000 pounds each to MA, CT, NY, and MD; 15,000 pounds to DE; 5,000 pounds to ME; and 90 pounds to NH. Table 1 presents approximate state shares for 2005.
The 2006 quota increase will be divided as follows. Approximately 1,280,000 pounds will be distributed according to the historic state share. Approximately 320,000 pounds will be distributed as such: MA, CT, NY, and MD will each receive 75,000 lbs; DE will receive 15,000 lbs; ME will receive 5,000 lbs; and NH will receive 90 lbs. Table 2 presents approximate state shares for 2006. Note, research set aside quota has not been taken out of state shares in 2006. Up to three percent of the total coastwide quota can be taken for research set aside.
After discussion and review of public comment on Addendum XVI, the Board decided to delay final approval until the Addendum’s options could be further clarified. The Draft Addendum XVI intends to address the impacts of delayed implementation of fishery management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Draft Addendum introduces a suite of management options, including commercial and recreational measures, and notification periods for the Commission and the states. These options aim to discourage delayed state implementation by requiring a “penalty” determined by the benefits that a state gained as a result of late compliance with an interstate fishery management plan. The Board will review the Draft Addendum for approval at its next meeting.
The Board approved Frank Folb, a recreational fishermen from North Carolina, to the Summer Flounder Advisory Panel. Frank looks forward to working on the AP to work toward sound fishery management.
The Board indicated that January 2, 2005 will be the start date for Winter I commercial scup trip limits. The trip limit, approved at the August joint Board and Council meeting, are as follows: Federal possession limit in Winter I to 30,000 pounds for Scup, with states implementing a two week landing limit of 30,000 pounds. When 80% of TAC is reached, the possession limit will drop to 1000 pounds per day.
The Commission and Council jointly manage summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, meeting annually to establish commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits. The Commission’s actions regarding Addendum XV are taken exclusively under the states’ management authority. Addendum XV can be obtained via the Commission’s website at www.asmfc.org under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission office at (202) 289-6400. For more information, please contact Toni Kerns, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400, ext. 330 or tkerns@asmfc.org.
Move to adopt an adjusted alternative Option 4a with the modification that MA, CT, NY, and MD will each receive 75,000 lbs, DE will receive 15,000 lbs, ME will receive 5,000 lbs, and NH will receive 90 lbs. The remainder of the 2005 and/or 2006 commercial quota increase will be allocated using the state shares as adjusted in the discussion document.
Motion by Mr. Smith, second by Mr. Colvin. Motion carries (7 in favor, 3 opposed, 2 abstentions).
Motion to substitute to remain status quo for 2005 and 2006.
Motion by Mr. Fote, second by Mr. Gibson. Motion fails (4 in favor, 6 opposed, 2 abstentions).
Move to implement re-allocation for 2005 and 2006.
Motion by Mr. Smith, second by Mr. Augustine. Motion carries (7 in favor, 3 opposed, 2 abstentions).
WINTER FLOUNDER MANAGEMENT BOARD (November 10, 2004)
Press Release
ASMFC Seeks Public Comment on Winter Flounder Recreational
& Commercial Management Measures
New Castle, NH – The Commission’s Winter Flounder Management Board has identified its preferred recreational and commercial management measures for inclusion in Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder. The Commission and the states seek public input on these measures prior to final approval of the plan, scheduled for early 2005. It is anticipated that most of the states from Maine through Delaware will be conducting hearings in late November and early December 2004. The details of those hearings will be announced once they are available.
In August 2004, the Board selected biological reference points for the Gulf of Maine and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stocks of winter flounder and directed the Technical Committee to develop a suite of recreational and commercial management measures on a stockwide basis to meet these benchmarks. The current draft of the Amendment includes several options for management of commercial and recreational fisheries for both stocks, with preferred options identified by the Winter Flounder Management Board.
Throughout July and August of 2004, the Commission and the states received extensive public comment on all other sections of the plan. Sections included in the July/August comment period were the goals and objectives of the Amendment, definition of management units, stock rebuilding targets and schedules, and de minimis guidelines. The Winter Flounder Management Board reviewed the earlier comments and finalized these sections at its meeting in August 2004.
Fishermen and other interested groups are encouraged to provide input on ONLY the recreational and commercial management measures contained in the Draft Amendment (Sections 4.1 and 4.2), either by attending public hearings or providing written comments. Copies of the Draft Amendment will be available on November 15 via the Commission’s website at www.asmfc.org under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission at (202) 289-6400.
Public comment will be accepted until mid-December 2004, and should be forwarded to Lydia Munger, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, 1444 Eye Street, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 289-6051 (FAX) or at <comments@asmfc.org>. For more information, please contact Lydia Munger at (202) 289-6400 or lmunger@asmfc.org
Move to accept the FMP Review.
Motion by E. Smith, second by Mr. Lapointe. Motion carries.
Move to adopt option 2 for the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock and option 1 for the Gulf of Maine stock.
Motion by Dr. Pierce, second by Mr. Lapointe. (Replaced by Substitute Motion)
Move to substitute that the Board identify as preferred options -- option 1 or 2 (co-preferred) for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic and option 1 for the Gulf of Maine stock and bring these options to the public before the February Board meeting.
Motion by Mr. Lapointe, second by Mr. Nelson. Motion carries.
Substitute Motion: Move that the Board identify as preferred options -- option 1 or 2 (co-preferred) for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic and option 1 for the Gulf of Maine stock and bring these options to the public before the February Board meeting.
Motion by Mr. Lapointe, second by Mr. Nelson. Motion carries.
Move to adopt option 1B as the preferred alternative for the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock for Section 4.2.
Motion by Dr. Pierce, second by Mr. Gibson. Motion carries.
Move to adopt option 1 as the preferred alternative for Gulf of Maine stock for Section 4.2. Motion by Mr. Lapointe, second by Mr. Nelson. Motion carries.
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 15, 2004; Page A01
MOOREFIELD, W.Va. -- The South Branch of the Potomac River is as clear as bottled water here, where it rolls over a bed of smooth stones about 230 miles upstream from Washington. But there is a mystery beneath this glassy surface.
Many of the river's male bass are producing eggs. Scientists believe this inversion of nature is being caused by pollution in the water. But they say the exact culprit is still unknown: It might be chicken estrogen left over in poultry manure, or perhaps human hormones dumped in the river with processed sewage. Chances are, it is not something that federal and state inspectors regularly test for in local waters.
The discovery has made the South Branch the latest example of an emerging national problem: Hormones, drugs and other man-made pollutants appear to be interfering with the chemical signals that make fish grow and reproduce.
While researchers look for answers in West Virginia, other scientists are testing Rock Creek, and another group is seeking financial support to test the rest of the Potomac to see whether they can find the same troubling effects downstream.
"Whatever's doing this to the fish may be the canary in the mineshaft," said Margaret Janes, a West Virginia activist with the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment.
Scientists say it's still too early to tell what these findings will mean for the bass population in the South Branch; they aren't sure whether the affected males are still able to reproduce. And no one is aware of any effects on human health in the Potomac watershed. But scientists believe that fish might be the first to absorb any dangerous chemicals that might later affect humans. "They're likely to be hit first," said Mike Focazio, a researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey. "We look there, and it seems to be happening."
The situation in West Virginia was discovered by accident, when scientists from the state and the geological survey were called in to investigate reports that fish in the South Branch were developing lesions and dying en masse. They dissected dozens of bass caught last summer, mainly smallmouth bass. They found no obvious cause for the lesions or deaths, but did discover that 42 percent of the male bass had developed eggs inside their sex organs.
The study surprised scientists. Though the South Branch has been cited for problems with bacteria from poultry manure, state officials said it did well on most aspects of water-quality testing. "We always have, and still do, look at this as one of our highest-quality fisheries," said Patrick Campbell of the state Department of Environmental Protection. "It's counter-intuitive to think we would have this type of problem out there."
But the problem is there: A follow-up survey in the spring found even higher rates of "intersex" bass -- as the affected males are called. A study of 66 male smallmouths from the South Branch found that about 79 percent showed such symptoms, according to U.S. Geological Survey data.
The scientists are now analyzing water samples from the South Branch and the Cacapon River -- a nearby Potomac tributary where intersex bass were also found. The chemicals they're looking for now are not the well-known pollutants that the state already tests for, such as nitrogen and phosphorus from manure and metals from mine runoff. Instead, the culprit is probably in a class called "emerging contaminants," which includes everything from caffeine and prescription drugs to hormones excreted by livestock or humans.
Some of these pollutants have been linked to developmental problems in wildlife. Scientists believe that fish, especially, absorb hormones from other animals, as well as other chemicals that their bodies mistake for hormones.
One recent study near sewage plants in Colorado found male fish whose bodies were trying to produce eggs and some females whose reproductive systems were out of sync. Other studies have found similar effects from the hormones in cow manure and from chemicals from a wood-pulp plant. "It is certainly an alarming situation that we're seeing more and more gross effects," said David O. Norris, a professor who worked on the Colorado study.
These emerging contaminants were hard to detect without the finely tuned equipment developed recently. The first nationwide survey, conducted in 1999 and 2000, found hormones in about 37 percent of the streams surveyed and caffeine in more than half.
The only testing in the Potomac, done in Washington in 2002, found low levels of caffeine, plus the insecticide DEET and chemicals produced when a body breaks down nicotine. There were also a few suspected endocrine disruptors, including chemicals found in hand soap and household cleaners.
As of now, little is done to test for these chemicals -- either in river water or in drinking water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not set standards, saying more research is needed to determine which contaminants are harmful and what levels are unsafe.
West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and the District do not test river water regularly for drugs or hormones. The same goes for drinking water after it is processed by the Washington Aqueduct, supplying the District, Arlington County and Falls Church, and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
Still, the West Virginia study has spurred scientists to look for more information. Researchers at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are seeking money for a much larger study across the Potomac watershed. They want to look for intersex bass and potentially disruptive chemicals in sites including the Blue Plains sewage plant in Southwest Washington.
Another federal study is underway in Rock Creek, looking for intersex symptoms and other health problems in a species of fish called white suckers.
Scientists across the region stressed that their work is just beginning. "We really don't know what's going on," said Vicki S. Blazer, a researcher for the geological survey in West Virginia.
