Fisheries Management & Legislative Report

The original Associated Press story on drugs in drinking water convinced many localities to test their water to determine what drugs were in their drinking water. The results convinced people that the problem is more wide spread than originally believed. Please read the article included below. Just imagine what is going down the drain before water is treated and tested. The animal and fish who are consuming non-treated water are getting a larger dose of everything. We are still waiting for a date for the Congressional Hearing on how drugs are impacting on fish and wildlife.

As you noticed in the President’s Column, JCAA is advertising for an operations manager. This does not mean that I am going anywhere at this time. But we need to plan for the future. JCAA has been in existence for 28 years. For about 26 of those years I have represented JCAA in a variety of ways. To guarantee that JCAA is in existence for at least another 28 years, we need to give some of our responsibilities to a paid manager. There is more that we could be doing with our existing volunteers and a paid manager could begin to fill some of that void. We have been fortunate to operate as a primarily volunteer organization for a long time but, realistically, this needs to change. Many of our most active members don’t have the luxury of putting in many unpaid hours.

The New Jersey Legislature will be back in session soon and, after the Congressional elections, there will be a lame duck session and then new people representing some of our districts in Washington. There are many bills that need to be moved through the NJ Legislature in the next few months. Among the bills are Hooked on Fishing Not on Drugs and Pots Off the Reef. At the federal level we need to keep an eye on the lame duck session to make sure there are no surprises. There will be a legislative agenda discussed at the September 30th meeting. We will be coordinating our State and federal efforts with other NJ groups.

We also need to focus on both the federal and state budgets for fisheries and environmental issues. Both levels will have budgets that are very short on funds and we need to keep a watchful eye.

JCAA is frequently asked to sign on to letters written by other organizations. We have ongoing discussions with other groups about the difficulty of calling for stricter enforcement of the management plans that are based on questionable science. Summer flounder is a perfect example of how a little scientific scrutiny from outside made a big difference. The only reason we were effective was because we had information available and we could identify the problems with existing data. Some of the stock assessments for management plans are based on non-existent science. Without the information available it is difficult to accurately evaluate the assumptions made. Many of us banded together to raise the money to pay for the scientists to attend the NMFS stock assessment. It is ludicrous that we should have to do that. NMFS should have provided the outside peer review as part of their responsibility in developing management plans. It is their job to gather information on the health and strength of the stocks. That job was given to them by Congress under the Magnusson Stevens Act. The President and Congress have failed to fund this mandate. As a fishing community we are suffering needlessly because of this lack of funding. Nationwide this has a negative impact on the quality of life of tens of millions of anglers and the industries that serve them. We are destroying the historic recreational and commercial industry of the United States needlessly. It is amazing how many billions of dollars are funding other industries that do not generate the economic income or the quality of life benefits. We need to hold our federal and state legislatures, the President and Governors responsible. We’re tired of being treated as second class citizens and you need to make sure they know you’re not putting up with this any longer.

AP Enterprise, 9/12/2008

Map locates cites in the U.S. where pharmaceuticals have been detected in drinking waters...

Testing prompted by an Associated Press story that revealed trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies has shown that more Americans are affected by the problem than previously thought — at least 46 million. That's up from 41 million people reported by the AP in March as part of an investigation into the presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation's waterways.

The AP stories prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in at least 27 additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water. Positive tests were reported in 17 cases, including Reno, Nev., Savannah, Ga., Colorado Springs, Colo., and Huntsville, Ala. Results are pending in three others.

The test results, added to data from communities and water utilities that bowed to pressure to disclose earlier test results, produce the new total of Americans known to be exposed to drug-contaminated drinking water supplies.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. cities have not tested drinking water while eight cities — including Boston, Phoenix and Seattle — were relieved that tests showed no detections.

"We didn't think we'd find anything because our water comes from a pristine source, but after the AP stories we wanted to make sure and reassure our customers," said Andy Ryan, spokesman for Seattle Public Utilities.

The substances detected in the latest tests mirrored those cited in the earlier AP report. Chicago, for example, found a cholesterol medication and a nicotine derivative. Many cities found the anti-convulsant carbamazepine. Officials in one of those communities, Colorado Springs, say they detected five pharmaceuticals in all, including a tranquilizer and a hormone. "This is obviously an emerging issue and after the AP stories came out we felt it was the responsible thing for us to do, as a utility, to find out where we stand. We believe that at these levels, based on current science, that the water is completely safe for our customers," said Colorado Springs spokesman Steve Berry. "We don't want to create unnecessary alarm, but at the same time we have a responsibility as a municipal utility to communicate with our customers and let them know."

Fargo's water director, Bruce Grubb, said the concentrations of three drugs detected there were so incredibly minute — parts per trillion — that he sent them to the local health officer to figure out how to interpret the information for the community. "We plan to put this into some kind of context other than just scientific nomenclature, so folks can get some level of understanding about what it means," said Grubb.

The drug residues detected in water supplies are generally flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion. Many of the pharmaceuticals are known to slip through sewage and drinking water treatment plants.

While the comprehensive risks are still unclear, researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild and impair the workings of human cells in the laboratory.

And while the new survey expands the known extent of the problem, the overwhelming majority of U.S. communities have yet to test, including the single largest water provider in the country, New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

In April, New York City council members insisted during an emergency hearing that their drinking water be tested. But DEP officials subsequently declared that "the testing of finished tap water is not warranted at this time."

By Brian Rothschild, 9/5/2008

Dr. Brian Rothschild is chair of New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang's Ocean and Fisheries Council, Montgomery charter professor of marine science at UMass Dartmouth, and former dean of the UMass School for Marine Science and Technology.

The fishery management system in New England is in a crisis. Sectors of the New England fishing industry are about to be obliterated by new management measures that will severely curtail the catch. Taking note of the magnitude of the anticipated measures, Senators Snowe, Collins, Kennedy and Kerry wrote the assistant administrator of NOAA on May 16, requesting a delay in implementing the restrictions. Expressing further concern, Representatives Frank, Tierney, Courtney, McGovern, and Capuano wrote the administrator on July 25 to request freezing regulations at the status quo for one year, until the management regime could be improved by eliminating wasteful management practices.

They noted that the very regulations designed to protect fish and ensure optimum yield have resulted in 1) throwing overboard hundreds of thousands of pounds of valuable cod (and other species) as bycatch, and 2) limiting the catch of several underfished species so optimum yield could not be taken. (Catches of haddock have been limited to about 10 percent of the optimum yield even though its population is so large that the growth of fish has become stunted.)

On Aug. 4, our Legislature, marshaled by Rep. John Quinn, adopted a resolution supporting the sense of congressional concerns. Senators Snowe et al. wrote the inspector general of the Department of Commerce on Aug. 29 to request an independent review of NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service stock assessments. The senators expressed concerns regarding the assessments and the determination of rebuilding targets. Both conservation groups and the fishing industry concur on the state of crisis, but not entirely on the remedies. Some conservation groups evidently believe categorically that of the 19 stocks fished in New England, 13 evidence depletion and need to be rebuilt to former maximum levels of abundance. To do that, significant reductions in fishing need to take place. It is reasoned that if these reductions take place, then each stock will rebuild to its maximum historical level of abundance. In other words, when the stocks are rebuilt, all stocks will simultaneously be at their maximum level of abundance. The problem is this is a goal most ecologists feel is scientifically unachievable.

We need to ask whether the right questions are being addressed. The fact of the matter is ratcheting down of fishing mortality via reduced catch limits and the creation of huge closed areas to improve habitat has not resulted in a noticeable improvement of stocks. The argument that bottom-tending gear has destroyed habitat must be re-examined given that 30 percent of the U.S. portion of Georges Bank has been closed to fishing for 15 years, and we still have depleted stocks. It is generally acknowledged that the closed areas have concentrated bottom-tending gear in the open areas and that significant quantities of valuable scallops are wasted in the closed areas.

The argument for continuing decades of ratcheting down of fishing mortality must be considered in a new light when 13 of 19 stocks continue to be classified as depleted. While it is right to be concerned about overfishing, it must be recognized that the definition of overfishing is very fuzzy. Two reputable scientists can easily differ in judgment as to whether the same stock is overfished. Recent stock assessment reports clearly identify this uncertainty. While science has the capability to determine whether a stock is generally abundant or generally not abundant, it is not capable of resolving the exact magnitude of mortality with high precision.

A big part of the problem is overfishing definitions are sometimes arbitrary and overly precise. For example, if an overfishing threshold is defined at 0.20 and the fishing mortality rate is estimated to be 0.21, then the stock is declared to be overfished, even though it is impossible to statistically distinguish between 0.20 and 0.21. There are some that believe that the uncertainties in fishery management should induce a high degree of caution in setting management restrictions. This is a seemingly good idea. However, if this strategy was adopted, catches of species would be regulated using criteria that have nothing to do with the abundance of stocks. From a stock assessment point of view, there is virtually nothing known about the black sea bass. Does this mean that the fishery for black sea bass should be closed? We need to think of other approaches.

While some have attributed discrepancies in the assessments to the ocean environment, we must understand it is plausible that the sources of environmental change are actually induced by management practices intended to protect fish. Noteworthy is the closing of the dogfish shark fishery in New England and the mid-Atlantic in order to protect the larger female dogfish. The closure has resulted in a biomass of dogfish sharks that appears to exceed by more than 10 times the next most abundant fish species! This significant management-induced, shark-dominated ecosystem could very well prevent other stocks from increasing in abundance.

Clearly we have been addressing the wrong questions. There is no need to rush to snap judgments that irreversibly affect the economic integrity of the fishing industry. Rash decisions are unsustainable for the fishing industry and unsustainable relative to obtaining optimum yield for each stock. The direction of fishery management is not consistent with the National Standards articulated in our fishery laws. We need to step back, take a deep breath, determine where we are, and take positive steps towards improved management. Some of the changes that need to be made include modernizing the archaic fishery data recording system in use now, bringing a scientific focus to managing fish as ecosystem components, and developing innovative common sense approaches to make sure society reaps maximum sustainable benefits from its fishery resources. Conservation groups need to shift from a narrow focus on hard-to-define overfishing to the broader problem of the quality of management and push hard to ensure the fish stocks are managed for the good of society. Senators Snowe, Collins, Kennedy and Kerry and Representatives Frank, Tierney, Courtney, McGovern and Capuano have it right.

By Kevin Post, The Press of Atlantic City, 9/10/2008

ATLANTIC CITY - New Jersey will restart its solar rebate program and subsidize residential solar energy projects through 2011, a spokesman for the state Office of Clean Energy told a home energy conference here Tuesday.

Larry Barth said that "in a couple of days," the state Board of Public Utilities also would announce an additional $50 million would be made available this year to fund rebates for 440 solar projects already completed.

The BPU stopped accepting applications for solar rebates Dec. 20, 2007, after interest in the program exceeded funding. Solar energy systems, which reduce electricity bills and usually produce excess power that is sold to the utility, also are routinely eligible for tax credits.

Barth said that after the rebates and tax credits, the cost of installing a kilowatt of solar capacity would be between $3,000 and $4,000. About 100 square feet of solar panels is needed to produce one kilowatt of electricity, he said.

In addition to the 440 projects already on the list waiting for rebates, there are hundreds more waiting on a supplemental queue for rebate consideration, he said. The state will probably provide rebates to people on that list as part of next year's funding, he said. However, those projects may be required to reapply to the program.

Barth said the state plans to end rebates for residential solar installations in 2012. "At some point, we take the training wheels off the market and it proceeds on its own," he said. At that point or soon thereafter, the state believes, solar power will be competitive with other forms of electricity generation. He said that in three to five years, there may be parity between the cost of solar power and that of other electricity on the grid.

Barth outlined the return of the residential solar rebate program to the ACI New Jersey Home Performance Conference at the Sheraton Convention Center Hotel, which brought together contractors, builders and others in home energy industries.

He offered no timetable for when the state would begin accepting applications again for solar rebates, but various people in the industry thought it would resume this fall.

Solar installers were delighted with the announcement. Lisa Worrell, program director for Energy Enterprises Inc. in Mays Landing, called it "great news. Anything with a rebate is great news, as long as we have one." Energy Enterprises has installed nearly 300 systems in its eight years, and some of those customers are on the BPU list waiting for rebates, she said. "Some were worried. We'd get phone calls, people wanting to know what's going on," Worrell said, adding she had been fairly confident the state would take care of those on the list. She said many people expressed interest in solar but were waiting to see if the state was going to reopen the rebate program. "This is a good thing because solar is a good thing," she said.

Mike Cafiero, owner/operator of LBI Solar, said the rebate queue includes customers who bought systems 15 months ago. Others who tried to enter after the BPU closed the program had their applications simply thrown out. "Now I've got people on the fence, waiting to see if the program starts up," Cafiero said. Whether many go solar will depend on the size of the rebate, said Cafiero, whose company installs systems from Long Beach Island to Atlantic City, and also works in Florida. Before the program ended last year, the rebate was equal to about $3.80 for each watt of solar capacity installed, he said. Four years ago, rebates were worth about $5.50 per watt. "If it goes back to $4 a watt, that will be almost half off the cost, and customers are going to jump on it," Cafiero said.

The state previously paid about $200 million in solar rebates and as late as July had said all of the rebate money for 2008 already had been allocated. The state has backed a system in which solar energy would receive credits that could be sold to utilities and others in an open market to offset their carbon emissions.