Letter From JCAA to Bill Figley, Reef Coordinator, Div Fish & Wildlife

Nov 30th 2004

By Tom Siciliano

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association February 2005 Newsletter)

Dear Bill:

The Jersey Coast Anglers Association is an organization of 75 fishing clubs representing over 30,000 anglers who fish the waters off New Jersey.  We have been a strong supporter of the New Jersey Artificial Reef Management Program since its inception.  We have provided financial support to building artificial reefs and promoting their use by recreational anglers in New Jersey.

The New Jersey Artificial Reef Program is one of the best in the country and we applaud the Division of Fish & Wildlife for its efforts to put together an Artificial Reef Management Plan to insure that New Jersey continues to lead the country.  We have an overall concern that the State of New Jersey does not budget sufficient funds to cover the cost of the program.  Nearly all of the funding for reef building comes from private sources.  There are instances in this document where funding is required with no indication that funds will be available.  These are noted as specific examples in our comments. 

We are especially concerned about the mention of No Harvest Artificial Reefs and have provided detailed comment opposing their inclusion in this document.

The JCAA submits the following comments and suggestions:

Page XI – paragraph 2 line 10 This plan outlines future reef monitoring surveys. 

We are very concerned about funding for these surveys.  The Division of Fish and Wildlife does not receive adequate funding from the State Treasury now.  Provisions must be made to obtain the proper funding without taking money away from other Division of Fish and Wildlife expenses. 

Page 2 – paragraph 2 line 6 – “DEP is committed and establishes reasonable standards . . . ) 

Not all the standards put forth in this document are reasonable and they should be stricken from the document. 

Rationale:  The requirement in Appendix A that “any new artificial reef materials, with the exception of the proposed study on subway cars, must meet a standard of “retaining a minimum of 90 percent of original structural integrity for 30 or more years.”” is clearly not a reasonable standard.  In addition there are no test methods available to accurately determine if a material will in fact last that long.  The National Standard does not even use time as criteria because of the difficulty in making the proper measurements.  Instead it requires that a material be durable and be resistant to deterioration and present no risk to the environment.  If a period of time must be mentioned a more realistic requirement for an artificial reef would be that it be durable and it provides habitat for marine organisms for a period of 10 years. 

Page 10 2.0 paragraph 2 line 5,6 – “sand mining is mentioned”  This section needs to put forth a more forceful and definitive position such as. 

Mining of ocean sand ridges for beach nourishment shall not be allowed where is threatens to destroy productive ocean habitat such as ridges or bury inshore wrecks and groins.

Rationale:  Numerous inshore wrecks and groins have been destroyed by beach nourishment and no effort has been made to replace them with suitable habitat.  This document should take a stand and require that where beach nourishment buries a groin a new groin should be built in its place at a suitable location to be determined by the Division of Fish & Wildlife.  In no instance should an inshore wreck be buried, as these are irreplaceable.

Page 14 – 2.2.1 paragraph 2 uses 8-year-old data on number of fishermen and money spent. 

More recent data is readily available and it should be used and it should also include the sales and fuel taxes generated and total effect on the State’s economy.

Page 15 uses 6-year-old commercial data. 

Commercial data that is more recent and relevant should be used.  Newer information is available as are the latest fishery management plans.

Page 26 – paragraph 2 line 10 – typo  The date is wrong.

Page 29 paragraph 5 money spent by fishermen

The figure of $15 million in 2000 is very low.  A more accurate number should be used to more fairly represent the impact of reefs to the States economy.  To use this low figure is to minimize the economic impact of reefs to the State of New Jersey.

Page 34 Section 3.2.1 Biological Risks are listed. 

            While the list of risks are possible some of those listed are so improbable that is questionable that they should be mentioned.  Only those risks that have a reasonable possibility of having more than a de minimus impact should be mentioned in this section.  Therefore delete:

mortality of marine life due to an oil spill resulting from a vessel sinking;

Rationale:  The provisions to clean vessels clearly eliminate this as a viable concern.

displacement of species that do no inhabit reefs by reef structures;

Rationale:  There is no indication that this is a risk.

introduction of non-endemic marine life species;

Rationale:  This may be a consideration in some parts of the country but not off the coast of New Jersey.

mortality of fish when using explosives to scuttle ships.

Rationale:  This possibility is so remote and its effects would be de minimus so it does not deserve mention.

Page 35 section 3.2.2 Socio-economic Risks

Some of the risks mentioned seem improbable at best.  Is it really necessary to delineate all perceived risks, even the most remote?  There appears that a lot of effort is expended for section 6.1, 5.5, 4.0 to address questionable concerns.  The use of a failure analysis would put the concerns into perspective.   Therefore delete:

lack of public interest in using reefs;

Rationale:  There is no demonstrated lack of interest in the NJ Reef Program.  In fact anglers interested in improving marine habitat are the primary financers of the reef program.

excessive materials and construction costs that may not bring the expected return on investments.

Rationale:  Again the cost of the program is financed by interested parties with the only expected return is that they will be able to use the resource and allow others to also use it.

Page 42 section 4.2.2 – Potential Reef Types

Delete “Refuge, no-fishing, reefs;”

They should not be included in this document.  There is no justification to allow their use nor is there money available.  The inclusion of no-fishing reefs is a sure way to dry up the exiting funding from fishing and diving groups.

Page 42 section 4.2.2 Research reefs

Delete.  See comments on section 4.2.2.2

Page 45 section 4.2.2.1

Eliminate this section totally from the document. 

Page 9 section 1.4 puts forth the DEP goal.  “In meeting the objectives of the Reef Program, DEP’s goal in both constructing and managing reefs is to spread the benefits of the reefs among as many people as possible.  To accomplish this goal, DEP may have to restrict or discourage uses of reefs that foster an inequitable share of either the fisheries resource or access to the resource being taken or dominated by a small group of people.”

Clearly a “no-fishing” reef is counter to the stated goal of the DEP.

No-harvest reefs are similar to “no hunting – wildlife refuges”.  The theory is that if you protect wildlife in the refuge areas the populations created on the refuges will spread out to the areas away from the refuge where they could be hunted.  The research data that has been generated regarding the effect of “no hunting” refuge areas has documented the fact the refuges do little or nothing for the surrounding areas and that wildlife is a product of its habitat and the only way to increase populations is to improve the habitat on the area involved.  Protecting refuge areas for upland game species in an effort to improve wildlife populations on surrounding area proved to be a total failure and the “refuge” idea was soon abandoned.  The same is true for “no-fishing” reefs. 

There are no definitive studies available that indicate that “no fishing” areas have any positive affects on improving overall fish populations.  The information that is available clearly demonstrates that proper fishery management such as closed seasons; size and bag limits have the desired positive effect of improving fish populations.  These tools are in place therefore there is no need place some reefs off limits!  In fact Policy Directive 2003-02 states in its opening paragraph that:  “Artificial reefs, if properly designed of appropriate materials, can provide significant benefits to the marine environment and to commercial and recreational users of our ocean resources.”  The directive acknowledges that reefs are designed for the users of the resource.  To prevent these users from using the reef is a clear contradiction of this directive.

New Jersey spends almost nothing on artificial reefs or anything else dealing with marine fisheries.  Most of the funding support for New Jersey’s artificial reef program comes from angler’s donations.   It does not make sense to spend whatever little money NJ spends on creating areas that we cannot fish.  This is a lot different than having certain restricted access areas that prohibits certain type of gear or closing an area during a spawning season to protect a fishery.  The South Atlantic Reefs are completely different that those in New Jersey since the fish on those reefs do not migrate off or go there to spawn.  

Page 45 section 4.2.2.2

Eliminate this section from the document.

Any designated Research or no fishing reef proposal must go through the public process and should include input from the Marine Fisheries Council. 

The concept of a research reef appears to be sound.  However research can be conducted on any of the currently established reefs in New Jersey. Funding of research is a concern since New Jersey spends almost nothing on artificial reefs or anything else dealing with marine fisheries.  Most of the funding support for New Jersey’s artificial reef program comes from angler’s donations.   It does not make sense to spend whatever little money NJ spends on creating areas that we cannot fish.

There are many areas of concern in establishing a research reef that are not addressed in this document.  These questions must be answered through the public hearing process.  The questions include:

How many research reefs could be constructed?

Will they be close to existing reefs?

Would they be built in estuaries?  Where?  How many?

Would they have the potential to block or even destroy major fishing spots?

How big would the areas be?

Would there be a protected perimeter around the research reef?

How would an angler know about the area?

How would it be patrolled?

What kind of enforcement would there be?

Who would have oversight of the research reefs?

If reef species are to be protected will trolling be allowed in the area?

If research is to be allowed the criteria for that research must be listed and explained in this document.  There must be specific purposes and limits established with proper public comment.  To do less would give Carte Blanc to any research project that could be conceived.

The fish on New Jersey’s reefs are migratory so the fish population varies constantly.  It is difficult if not impossible to devise a research project that can adequately assess the populations of mobile species. 

In no case should an existing reef be declared off limits to anglers.

Page 46 section 4.2.2.4 –paragraph 3 line 5

End the second sentence after the word harvested. 

Page 8 states the rationale for the construction of artificial reefs.  “Reefs in marine waters are public resources that are beneficial to the State’s fishing industries, the sport diving community and to the marine ecosystem as a whole.”

Page 56 – 5.6 Mitigation

The DEP must take a stronger position on Mitigation and insist that mitigation be a requirement of any beach replenishment project.  The sand replenishment projects have buried the underwater habitat of numerous jetties and shipwrecks along the coast.  The habitat that has been lost was the home of many species of fish.  The lost habitat must be replaced with suitable nearby habitat.  The JCAA agrees with the NJ Council of Diving Clubs position on this subject.  Beach replenishment will continue but the DEP can insist that the habitat that is lost be replaced as part of the approval process.

Page 66 – paragraph 2, line 1 reefs no expected to last forever

We couldn’t agree more that reef structures are not expected to last forever.  The question becomes: What is a reasonable length of time for an artificial reef to remain viable?  Line 10 states that the expected life of reef balls is 20 – 35 years.  Why should subway cars or any other potential reef material be any different?  A more realistic requirement for an artificial reef should be that the reef material provide sufficient habitat such that it remains a viable environment for fish and other marine creatures for a reasonable amount of time.

Page 68 Section 6.2.5 paragraph 2. 

The policy directive should not be a part of this document.  The entire appendix should be stricken from plan

Page 71 section 6.2.8

There is no reasonable justification for the requirement that reef material must maintain a 90% or original structural integrity for 30 years or more.  The current federal standard recognizes this in the National Plan and requires that material must be resistant to deterioration and breakup.  This is a much more reasonable and common sense approach.  Even this document mentions that reef balls might have an expected life of as little as 20 years. In fact it could be argued that if a reef ball were to settle such that only ¾ of it remains above the sea floor it would it fail the 90% criteria.  A much more reasonable requirement would be that the reef material provide sufficient habitat such that if remains a viable environment for fish and other marine creatures.  There are no approved test methods to determine what would constitute 90% integrity and the measurement would be a very arbitrary determination.  Also how would one determine if a new material would last 30 years before it is placed into the ocean?  This would be someone’s guess.

P89 – 92 appendix A – Policy directive

There is no need to include this separate document as a part of the NJ Reef Plan.  The important parts of the directive are already a part of the reef plan.  There is nothing of value in Appendix A that is not already covered in the Reef Plan itself. 

Sincerely,

Thomas Siciliano, President

Jersey Coast Anglers Association

[News Contents] [Top]