 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association March 2000 Newsletter)
I attended the three Striped Bass hearing for Senator Bassano and there was overwhelming support for the 24-28 inch slot limit proposal. JCAA is working with the legislature to get the bill pass that is necessary to implement these regulations. Here is a brief description on how the regulations will work. Remember we had to reduce the harvest of 8 year and older fish by 14%. This new regulation shows a 36.7% of the 8 year and older fish. Much more than the addendum required. The states that have the largest striped bass harvest along the coast took conservation credit and not any real reduction this year. Here is the motion that was passed on October 7:
Move that all states be required to implement a management program in 2000 that achieves a 14% reduction in fishing mortality for age 8 and older striped bass; that the Board proceed with the preparation of a new addendum/ amendment to the plan; and that if such addendum/ amendment is not approved for 2001, that states be required in 2001 to implement an additional reductions of F to reach F= 0.31 on age 8 and older fish. The benchmark for measuring the required reductions is a two-fish daily limit and 28" minimum size. Coastal states with management measures more conservative than the benchmarks shall receive a credit against the 14%, proportionate to the reduction attributable to such conservation measures.
Under amendment 5 of the Striped Bass Fisheries Management Plan, states are allowed two fish at 28 inches recreationally along the coast. Some states have stayed more restrictive. New Hampshire allows one fish at 32 inches and Maine has a slot limit. The producing areas like Hudson River, Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay are allowed a smaller fish. There are no recreational quotas. The states that have commercial fisheries all have quotas and you must be able to monitor that quota and shut the fishery down when the quota is reached.
Under the new proposal New Jersey's anglers would get to keep two fish (three if you're participating in the Trophy or Postcard Striped Bass Programs). The regulation New Jersey will implement for 2000 is, A 24 to 28 inch fish plus one that’s at least 28 inches. In addition, if you're eligible, one Trophy or Postcard Striped Bass that’s at least 28 inches.
This is how regulation will work. The regulation, when passed, states that if you have one fish in your possession, it can be a slot limit fish of 24 to 28 inches or one 28 inches or larger. If you keep two fish you need one of each size limit. If you are in the Postcard Program you will be allowed to keep another fish and this fish needs to be 28 inches or larger. This postcard fish needs to be reported by sending in the postcard so the state can monitor the quota of 225,000 lbs. The postcard fish program is shut down when that quota is reached. This means if you are in the Postcard Program you could have three fish in your possession, one at 24-28 inches and two at 28 inches or greater.
The portion of the striped bass fishery that would have gone to the commercial sector in NJ was allocated to the Postcard Striped Bass programs and that's what allows us to take a third fish if eligible. To be eligible you must sign up for the program by contacting NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife. They will send you the postcard that you need in order to possess the third fish. You will also have to submit a log of your striped bass fishing at the end of the year.
The Postcard Striped Bass Program has a quota of 225,000 lbs. of fish a year. We have never come close to this quota. In the years from 1990 to 1998 only about 1,744 fish have been harvested out of a potential harvest of over 90,433. That means that only an average of 193 New Jersey Anglers a year decided to take an extra fish. These fish went home to feed families since they cannot be sold commercially in New Jersey. Over 800,000 New Jersey Anglers a year decided they did not need another fish under this program and did not harvest it. It was their choice. I know of no other state that voluntarily harvests such a small amount of its available commercial quota. When Oyster Creek Power Plant shut down a couple of weeks ago the plant killed more than 4,000 striped bass trapped in the hot water when it changed to cold water. More than double the number of fish were killed by thermal shock than the nine years of the postcard program. I really am getting tired of some recreational anglers outside of New Jersey taking shots at us about this program without telling the facts. Funny most of the remarks come from the states with the largest harvest of striped bass and biggest commercial quotas.
GET INVOLVED RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT'S TO LATE
Last month I wrote an editorial entitled Why People Fish in response to a survey on what motivates people to fish. You can find a copy of that article at our web-site, http://www.jcaa.org in the newspaper archives. You can get the survey and the entire report is available at the ASA web-site http://www.asafishing.org.I received a lot of comment on this article by email. Here are some of those comments.
Tom—i agree—and, in fact, have been working on a presentation for a conference on the future of fishing which says much the same thing—i.e. people need to be able to expect to catch and in fact catch fish if the sport is to have a future!
Doug Olander, SPORT FISHING Editor-in-Chief
Tom:
I have had a similar discussion with ASA. We should be careful what we say we are content with, cuz we might get it soon. Beside the resultant impact from how managers view us in light of this information, you raise some interesting points. My biggest problem is with the questions. There should be at least one qualifying question before those are asked: Would you go fishing if you had no chance of catching fish? Y N If yes, then ask the other questions. But in salt water the vast majority would say no and that ends the rest of the questions.
Rip.Cunningham , Saltwater Sportsmen
Tom, you hit the nail on the head with your thoughts on the "why people fish" survey!
George Poveromo, Saltwater Sportsmen
Why people DON'T fish? Just let me count the ways.....
By Peggy Bowen Director New Jersey Council of Diving Clubs
Because at every turn, they try to regulate the divers out of catching any Fish! Look what they tried with the Allowable fishing rules last year. We can't even TRY to catch a tuna! And they didn't even ask the NJ dive council (that had over 33 very active clubs then) for their comments in the early 90's on that issue!
The dive council still is not on a list to get the press releases for all fisheries meetings. (We do get the Atlantic Fisheries Focus but that comes very
late and most of the meetings are over.) Don't think any of the divers were sampled during this survey - do you? And if they were, what can they catch? Not much.....
And some of the mailed information 'is for boat permit holders' or so I have been told so I don't get it. So I am 'damned' for that too. (I don't own a boat that can go more than 5 feet from a bank this month. - I have a 12 foot row boat and a canoe right now.)
If I can't fish for 'bay' fish (and make it worthwhile), why should I buy a new boat motor? And then I am subject to the 'I am bigger than you' boat owners wakes and their lack of rules of the road. Add to that the personal watercraft's actions on the water in places. It isn't a good experience much of the time. I won't even talk about some of the commercial guys attitudes about divers!
OK, so I just got a new 4x4 so I can take it out on the beach (because I have difficulty walking in sand). I buy a permit for Island Beach State Park but that is the only place I can go. To the tip of Sandy Hook - forget it (no access for me). To beaches in Monmouth County - where do they allow me to park (let alone have access to a bathroom)!
So I try and fish from the river bank - no access anymore. Monmouth County said no fishing from bridges over creeks. BIG houses have taken over the marshy places that were for years a way to get to the river. But they won't even let you park there either so why even look for a way to the water.
I drag my pole and bait to the beach -- I had better have a ruler too! And don't forget the Calendar so I know what 'season' it is! And the latest fish rules that aren't even available without a fax! Now I need the board of health advisory to see if I can eat the fish! Now the beach police come -- I don't have the "proper tag" to be on the beach. Doesn't matter anyway because the fish that were living on the groins and things are gone - beach sand replenishment!
Ask me why I don't fish more again!
Peggy Bowen
Comments by Joe Fletcher of Fletcher's Boat Basin Washington DC
Tom,
My thoughts on this issue are almost word for word as you have stated in your article. One could go one step farther and look at all the small boat rental and bait- tackle places that have gone out of business in the last 30 years due to the reasons you stated plus one only needs to look at some of the old newspaper photos on fishing 30 to 40 years ago to compare with today’s lack of fishing in most places.
In the late 1950’s my dad had over 100 small fishing boats for rent on the Potomac River here in Washington D.C. and we had a wait on all weekends/holidays during the runs of anadromous fish to rent them. Now we have just over 50 boats and there’s not much of a wait, if any, due to the loss of all anadromous species here in this part of the Potomac. Along with the loss of boat rentals goes the loss of bait, tackle, fishing licensee fees, food sales and sale’s tax.
I also find this survey to be in fault as I’m sure it wasn’t made available to the growing number of new people ( most speak very little English if any) now fishing whom have just come to the United States in the last 10 to 20 years. In a few this growing population of anglers is going to represent most of the fishing public. I have expressed this to ASA a few times in hopes that they would pass this on to their tackle manufactures and try to get a handle on these people’s fishing wants and views. The fishing public seems to have forgotten that our government is there to represent us and our needs as citizens of this country. On the other side sometimes I don’t think that our representatives forget to take into view that it's people and not fish who vote. If there were a way to get the fishing people to act as one whole unit then they would have a more powerful say in the sport and things would get done. Until then as long as we quarrel amongst ourselves over different issues the fishery will go downhill as it has over time. We will keep losing bait shops, boat rentals, tackle shops and our fish stock as has been the trend over last 30 years and of course our recreational fishing people.
Comments from Gary Caputi , Big Game Fishing Journal
Very well thought out article and a great take on the "Why People Fish" survey. You should try and get ASA to run your article in their newsletter.
From the survey results, I would imagine the overwhelming majority of the anglers surveyed were freshwater fishermen. If they did a similar survey exclusively for saltwater anglers, I bet the percentage that fish with the objective of bringing home some fish for the table would be five to ten times higher.
A perfect example of the attraction of catching some fish to eat among the "average" saltwater angler can be found in the species that attracts the most participants in the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern states. It's not the glamorous striped bass, as many might believe, but the summer flounder. If the fish managers ever tried to make this species catch and release, or reduce the bag limit much below the 8 fish per person current limit, the fishery would be abandoned because people fish for flounder for enjoyment, relaxation and a few fish dinners! For most, take away the fish dinners and they will find other things to do. The summer flounder fishery accounts for huge expenditures of recreational dollars in shore areas and is a staple for the tackle and bait dealers, wholesalers and right on up the line. But you'd never know it from the survey of most of the stuff ASA gets involved in. In it's rush to show recreational fishing is conservation oriented and the legitimate harvest of some of the fish caught is becoming a thing of the past, they do a great disservice to many segments of the sport and the industry. While harvest is not the end all-be all in saltwater fishing, it is still an important part of the fishing experience.
Even the elitists among us take home an occasional striped bass, a limit of fluke or a few yellowfin tuna to enjoy eating from time to time. I know I make numerous trips each season with the express purpose of catching some fish to eat. My family loves 'em and so do I. The inability to harvest from these public resources would severely inhibit my participation, and hence, the money I spend to go fishing.
Another great example is the offshore fishery. Sure billfish are the glamour species and everyone loves to catch and release these great gamefish. But most of the private boat owners and people who charter boats I know along the eastern seaboard and in the Gulf will tell you it's the tuna, mahi or wahoo they take home for the table that keeps them coming back, spending the money and staying involved in the sport. The relaxation, comradery and time on the water adds to it to make it a more gratifying experience overall, but without being able to take some fish to eat, a great percentage of those people would spend their recreational dollars elsewhere. I'm still amazed that ASA can't seem to get this through their bureaucratic head. It's important to the sport, the industry, and the jobs of tens of thousands of people involved in recreational fishing in saltwater.
We have to remember that any survey's results are very much influenced by the way the questions are worded, the order in which they are presented, and the population sample responding. I would not be a bit surprised if the survey by ASA has very little relevance to trends in saltwater fishing, which, by the way, is the fastest growing segment of the industry in recent years. And guess why it's growing so fast...because there are fish to catch, and even some to take home and eat, again.
NJ Marine Fisheries Council ReportPatrick F Donnelly DMD - Councilman, NJMFC
On March 2, 2000, the New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council will meet at the Galloway Township Public Library, at 4:00pm. The agenda will include several items which be of interest to recreational anglers.
These issues and more, will be discussed in detail at the meeting. Public input is requested and welcomed. This is your last chance to have your feelings heard. If you cannot attend the meeting, please send your written comments to:
New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council
Division of Fish, Game & Wildlife
P.O. Box 400
Trenton, NJ 08625-0400
Atlantic Menhaden Management Board – February 8
Meeting Summary
Due to concerns raised by a number of states and members of the public, the Menhaden Board recommended that the ISFMP Policy Board invite all of the states/jurisdictions that have a declared interest in the species to participate in the development of Amendment 1. This action would remain in effect through the development and adoption of Amendment 1 and would go into effect at the next meeting of the Menhaden Board during the Commission’s April meeting week. The final structure of the Menhaden Board would be determined by Amendment 1.
The Board also reviewed the first draft of Amendment 1 and provided advice to the PDT. The Board requested that the PDT, in consultation with the Technical Committee and the ad hoc Stock Assessment Subcommittee, prepare additional technical information in order to evaluate the options provided for the overfishing definition. The Board also expressed its desire to have one or more members of the stock assessment subcommittee present at the next Board meeting to answer questions and provide technical advice. This is particularly important since there will be new members sitting at the table who may not be familiar with the menhaden assessment and/or past management.
Striped Bass Management Board – February 7
ASMFC Approves State Striped Bass Management Proposals for 2000: New England and Mid-Atlantic Proposals Approved
Alexandria, Virginia -- Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Striped Bass Management Board today approved the year 2000 striped bass management proposals for Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. State plans for Delaware, Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Virginia, and North Carolina were approved in November 1999, since their fisheries began in early January and their management programs need to be in place by January 1, 2000. All approved programs are designed to implement at least a 14 percent reduction in fishing mortality on age 8 and older fish, as specified by Addendum IV to Amendment 5 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.
Addendum IV, which was approved in early October, was developed to address concerns raised by the most recent stock assessment that indicated that the fishing mortality on striped bass exceeded the target established in Amendment 5. Specifically, the fishing mortality on age 8 and older fish was in excess of the overfishing definition. As such, Addendum IV calls for all states and jurisdictions to reduce fishing mortality on older fish by 14 percent.
The Board also reiterated its commitment to developing an amendment during the year 2000 to ensure equity among user groups and the continued health of the striped bass resource. The Board reviewed an initial draft of the Public Information Document (PID) for Amendment 6, which contained a comprehensive list of issues on the future management of striped bass on the Atlantic coast. This list was first developed last year as a result of a Commission Striped Bass Workshop that brought together state and federal fisheries managers, and striped bass fishermen to discuss current and future management of striped bass. The PID is currently being finalized and will be available to the public in early spring. The amendment is scheduled to be approved at the Commission’s Annual Meeting in October of year 2000, with implementation in year 2001.
Copies of Addendum IV can be obtained either by contacting Robert Beal, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400, or via the Commission’s webpage on its NEWS page at www.asmfc.org. For more information, please contact Robert Beal, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400, ext. 318.
Motions passed by Striped Bass Board
Move to approve option 2 for the state of Maine for the 2000 fishing year; with a one fish creel limit in either the 20-26" slot limit or 40"+, eliminating the seasonal closure
Motion passes with 12 in favor, 1 against and 2 abstentions.
Move to approve status quo for the state of New Hampshire for the 2000 fishing year
Motion passes with 15 in favor.
Move to approve status quo for the state of Massachusetts for the 2000 fishing year.
Motion passes 12 in favor, 2 against, 1 null and 1 abstention.
Move approval of all the Rhode Island options with the exception of option 2 for the commercial hook and line fishery (options 1-3 for the recreational fishery; options 1-2 for the commercial trap fishery; and options 1-3 for commercial hook and line fishery).
Motion passes 12 in favor, 1 against, and 2 abstentions.
Move to approve the Connecticut slot limit proposal for the 2000 fishing season.
Motion passes with 15 in favor,
Move to approve NY proposal for 2000 fishing season, (status quo).
Motion passes 12-2-1-1 (in favor-opposed-null-abstentions).
Move to approve the Pennsylvania proposal for status quo of 2000, including a 28" minimum size, 2 fish/day bag limit and the season and area closures.
Motion passes 15-0-0 with 2 abstentions.
Move to approve the 2000 fishing season proposals for the state of New Jersey (recreational fishery options 1, 2, and 4).
Motion fails with 5 in favor, 8 in opposition, and 3 abstentions.
Move to approve options 1 and 2 for New Jersey as approved by the Technical Committee.
Motion passes with 10 in favor, 2 against, 1 null vote and 2 abstentions.
Move to approve the Delaware proposal for 2000 (similar to approved proposals for NJ).
Motion passes 14 in favor 0 against and 1 abstention.
Move to accept the Maryland proposal for 2000 (change in fishing season).
Motion passes 14 in favor,and 1 abstention.
February 8, 2000
Three Longline Bills Posted In Congress-
NMFS Proposes Unilateral Closures Without Buyouts And Recreational Permits
by Gary Caputi
The rush to post bills aimed at curbing longlining reached a fever pitch with a total of three bills submitted in the last few weeks. They vary in their ability to reduce longlining effort, reduce bycatch and provide real conservation benefits. They also vary by who gets saddled with shouldering the financial burden for the actions they propose.
The Senate bill sponsored by Senator John Breaux (LA) and Olympia Snow (ME), both champions of commercial fishing, contains the controversial measures negotiated between the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the Billfish Foundation (TBF), the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and the longliners lobbyists from the Blue Water Fisherman’s Association (BWFA). It includes extensive area closures in the Gulf of Mexico and the south Atlantic and a controversial "voluntary" buyout of longline vessels with the financial burden to be shouldered by taxpayers; seafood consumers in the form of a tariff on all swordfish sold; and recreational fishermen in the form of a new pelagic fishing permit for anyone venturing into the closed areas. It contains no reduction in quota or overall fishing effort on the longliners that remain in the fishery. The remaining boats, which comprise about 75% of the existing fleet if the buyout indeed removes 60 boats, will be the beneficiaries of greatly reduced competition and increased quota share as a result. It’s a great deal for them. The government is going to buy out a big chunk of their competition, have taxpayers, consumer and recreational fishermen foot the bill to do it, and they get a greater share of the existing quota which is not reduced by the legislation. In effect, the government and you and I are going to make the remaining boats in the longline industry more profitable and, not surprisingly, politically powerful. And the bill will put a four-year moratorium on any additional measures, should those in the bill fail to provide sufficient conservation benefits.
The second bill, sponsored by Congressman James Saxton (NJ), chairman of the House Committee on Sustainable Fisheries, Oceans and Wildlife, mirrors the Breaux/Snow bill, but it draws a correlation in quota reduction for each boat purchased through the buyout. However, the quota reduction only comes into play for boats fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area. The concern is that the Breaux/Snow bill, while having some conservation benefits in the Gulf and South Atlantic, will create a massive shift in fishing effort from the closed areas to the canyons and Gulf Stream in the Mid-Atlantic and further north into New England. This effort shift is all but guaranteed by the legislation because the boats that will "volunteer" for the buyout money will most certainly be the least profitable and least mobile in the fleet. Boats that are only marginally in business at this point in time, if not already sitting idly at the dock. The remaining 75% of the fleet will consist of larger, more modern vessels capable of traveling great distances or shifting their base of operations into the mid-Atlantic region. They will be increasing operations in an area of the greatest concentration of recreational fishing boats, the states between North Carolina and New York, where grounds conflicts are sure to arise. In addition, the effort shift will place far greater pressure in areas where seasonal concentrations of white marlin are still found in U.S. waters. White marlin is the most endangered and over-fished of the billfish species and is in that precarious state due to longline bycatch over the past twenty plus years.
The third bill, introduced by Congressman (SC) calls for the complete session of longlining in all U.S. EEZ waters. This is the strongest bill and offers the greatest conservation benefit, yet it is given little chance of advancing through the house with such powerhouse senior congressmen and senators promoting the far weaker bills. This is unfortunate.
With all these legislative efforts underway, the National Marine Fisheries Service, in an announcement this week, detailed specifications for a proposed rule that would institute major time and area closures in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico through the regulatory power granted them by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The use of time and area closures to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish and billfish was the highlight of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan unveiled by NMFS last year after two years of development time. The time and area closures portion of the FMP was postponed while NMFS could further study longline logbooks to determine where such areas should be located to be effective. The time and area closure portion of the FMP was strongly supported by none other than the Billfish Foundation, which has now shifted it support to a legislative approach with a costly buyout instead of NMFS regulation.
After completely their review, and with the added pressure of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Marine Conservation holding their feet to the fire to do implement the closures called for in the FMP, here is what NMFS included in their proposed rule. A total closure of the south Atlantic coastal region from South Carolina through the Straights of Florida year-round; and a seasonal closure of the entire western Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican border through Louisiana from March 1 through September 30. It would close these areas to all longlining including targeting dolphinfish and wahoo. NMFS is requesting public comment on the closure areas and timing and is scheduling public hearings for January and February. The comment deadline is February 11, 2000. Once comments are reviewed, the final rule will be developed and implementation could be in place for the 2001-fishing year.
The beauty of accomplishing the time and area closures through NMFS regulation, actually the correct venue for such management measures, is that no buyout is necessary and the taxpayer and recreational fishermen. They are not obligated to pay for the sins of the longline industry that has decimate these fisheries causing great disruptions to the recreational fisheries as well. Further, provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act allow the longline industry to buyout boats effected by the closure through a special, low interest government loan program that would not burden taxpayers and recreational fishermen and that would be paid back through the sale of fish products caught by the remaining boats. No legislative buyout is necessary, period!
The entire concept of boat buyouts to reduce fleet size, and, ostensibly, fishing effort is highly questionable when one looks at what has happened in New England in the past few years. The government has spent over $23 million to purchase 79 commercial trawlers, $7 million in so-called disaster relief for remaining fishermen who can’t still can’t fish, and now an additional $15 million is being spend on questionable scientific research to be conducted by idle commercial fishing vessels. With over 45 million in taxpayer dollars spent already, the fisheries off New England are still in terrible shape and little, if any, reduction in fishing effort has been realized. Whose to say the results of a longliner buyout, which is actually a subsidy for the remaining boats in the fleet as well, will have any better results.
The CCA just released comments condemning NMFS for doing its job by publishing the proposed rule for time and area closures. This was not unexpected. It appears that CCA is more concerned with taking credit for weak legislation than they are in seeing the fishery management system in place do its job and regulate the fisheries they were charged with conserving. We expect the next salvo will come from TBF, railing against the very fishery management plan they worked to help develop with NMFS. The bottom line is, the NMFS proposed rule accomplish the time and area closures through the proper channels. It closes areas that longline industry representatives involved in the development of the HMS-FMP agreed had to be closed, but stops short of spending millions of dollars to compensate longliners for their economic loss, even though they are the cause of that loss in the first place. In the case of Senators Breaux and Snow, any legislation that gets commercial fishermen off the hook is fine by them and I am not surprised in the least that they volunteered to be the political champions of the "big deal". It’s a real win/win for the longline industry.
It’s time to take a step back and look at the motives of all the groups involved and the benefits and downside of each approach being put forward. Then we should put all our heads together and do what is best for the resource without taking punitive action against the recreational fishermen who is being used as a pawn in this entire process. The largest number of recreational groups have agreed that the proper venue for time and area closures is through the regulatory body charged by law with doing it...the National Marine Fisheries Service. The mechanism already exists in the law and in the HMS-FMP. While NMFS has a less than stellar track record in the past, the agency appears poised to do the right thing without congress getting in the way.
JERSEY COAST ANGLERS ASSOCIATION and
NEW JERSEY STATE FEDERATION OF SPORTSMEN’S CLUBS
Tuesday February 22, 2000
My name is Thomas Fote. I am here today representing Jersey Coast Anglers Association and New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. These two organizations are comprised of 150,000 concerned sportsmen and women throughout New Jersey. In this role I speak for the citizens of New Jersey who harvest or consume fish from the ocean.
I would like to thank Congressman Saxton and Pallone. Two of the most prominent soldiers protecting the ocean and marine ecosystem. Before I begin my testimony, however, I want to deal briefly with the hearing held on Monday, January 25, 2000 at Fort Monmouth. This hearing was held under the auspices of the Army Corp of Engineers and was advertised as an opportunity for all citizens to express their views about the Brooklyn Marine Terminal and Castle Astoria Oil Terminal Dredging Project. Unfortunately, the democratic process was totally undermined by the inappropriate actions of the International Brotherhood of Longshoremen and the inaction by Colonel Pearce of the Army Corp of Engineers. I have enclosed in my written testimony a letter and a press release that deal with this issue in greater depth. In twenty-five years, I have never been at a hearing that was as poorly run or as out of control as this hearing. Colonel Pearce was either incapable or unwilling to exercise any authority over the longshoremen. Please read the attached letter and press release.
I am not a scientist but I know the difference between pure, clean capping material and the dredge spoils from the Brooklyn Marine Terminal and Castle Astoria Oil Terminal Dredging Project scheduled for dumping at the mud dump site. The EPA can call this stuff anything it likes. That won't make it clean. The Mud Dump should be treated like any land based Superfund Site. Any remedial efforts should be held to the same strict criteria. To call contaminated material that contains petrochemicals and PCB's remediation is a lie. You can dress it up any way you want, but it's still a lie.
Why are the people who harvest and consume fish from the ocean so concerned about this issue? All you need to do is read the New Jersey Fishing Digest. You will find advisories on bluefish, striped bass, swordfish, mako sharks, eels, lobsters, crabs and most other inshore and offshore species native to the New York Bight. We were promised, with the passage of the Clean Water Act, actions to clean up the ocean would, in time, result in safe fish. We were promised that eventually these fish would again be safe for human consumption. New Jersey and the Federal Government, through our tax dollars, have spent billions of dollars to eliminate further contamination of the ocean. We have eliminated the disposal of raw sewage or sewage sludge in the ocean. We have closed all the chemical dumps off our shores. We have eliminated pipelines from chemical factories and other industries into the ocean or its tributaries. We have been willing to spend the money and make the sacrifices necessary to make a cleaner ocean a reality.
When Governor Christine Todd Whitman was running for office, she promised that contaminated dredge material from New Jersey would no longer be dumped into the ocean. JCAA and the NJSFSC has heard many politicians make promises they had no intention to keep. But Governor Whitman set up a task force to deal with these issues and made the personal and monetary commitment to keep her promise. New Jersey's anglers and environmentalists have been part of this process and any material disposed of in the ocean since Governor Whitman took office has passed our exacting standards. We did not wait for the EPA to develop criteria. New Jersey took the lead and set high standards to protest the marine environment and all of our citizens.
Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani have made no serious efforts to do the same. They have made no efforts to find alternatives to dumping New York's contaminated material in the ocean and have been unwilling to make the same monetary commitment to finding appropriate alternatives. Instead they have made phony suggestions and proposed totally useless alternatives with the hope that they could continue to use our ocean as their garbage dump. Could it be that New York's elected officials have failed to reach out to their fishing or environmental communities? Do they not want them to be part of the process? Are they afraid of what citizens might find if they are invited to the table to discuss these issues? Could it be that New York's emperors are wearing no clothes?
I have no party loyalties when it comes to this issue. My only loyalty is to the ocean. So in a spirit of bipartisanship, let me mention Vice-President Al Gore. The Vice-President was the mediator of the original 1996 agreement that closed the mud dump. I'm not sure where he is these days but it certainly isn't in New Jersey. If he were campaigning here, he would realize how serious we are about protecting the ocean. He would need to provide more than lip service to maintain his environmental credentials. If he truly meant what he said when the mud dump closed, he would use his considerable political clout to pressure the EPA to develop criteria for category one material that is acceptable to both anglers and environmentalists. Could it be that there is a method to their madness? As long as the EPA doesn't have criteria that we can accept, they can continue to allow the dumping of contaminated material.
Admittedly, few of us are big supporters of the Army Corp of Engineers or the Port Authority. However, what little trust we could muster was totally wiped out on Super Bowl Sunday. Using a legal permit, which they gained with our support, the Army Corp of Engineers proceeded to allow the dredgers to work on the Kill Van Kull site during the spawning season for winter flounder. They conveniently failed to follow procedure and clear dredging with NMFS to avoid spawning seasons and further destroyed the anglers trust.
The sportsmen of New Jersey also go to work. Many of our members work at the ports or depend on the ports for their livelihood. Many of our members belong to unions. We are tired of being blamed when someone's job is at stake. We don't want to put anyone out of work. We are fed up with lazy bureaucrats and self-serving politicians trying to pit environmentalists against the unions. We simply want New York to act responsibly and find a safe, appropriate alternative to dumping in the ocean. New Jersey has done it. We are tired of their whining and procrastinating. They need to do the research and spend the money. We will accept nothing less. Congressman Saxton has taken a bold move and introduced legislation that would prohibit all dumping at the mud dumpsite. At this time JCAA and NJSFSC support this bill. We have lost our trust in any governmental agency deciding what makes appropriate capping material. Until they can regain our trust by acting responsibly, we want all dumping to stop.
I usually try to mend fences rather than knock them down. I like to maintain a good working relationship with all of our government officials, elected and otherwise. I understand how difficult if is to do the right thing and create the right compromises. But I have had enough. JCAA and the NJSFSC have had enough. This is not about who gets to catch the fish; it's about having fish that are safe to eat. This is about our health, the health of the marine environment, the health of our children and their children. We don't care any more who gets angry and who gets named. We demand the EPA do their job and establish current safe criteria for category one materiel and not use the old outdated standard that allows for hazardous material to enter the food chain and contaminate ocean's fish. This has got to stop.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Fote
Legislative Chairman JCAA & NJSFSC
22 Cruiser Court, Toms River NJ, 08753
732-270-9102 Fax 732-506-6409
Email tfote@jcaa.org
The Army Corp Of Engineers Got What It Wanted. Shutdown Of Fort Monmouth Mud Dump Hearing On January 24, 2000 Before The Citizens Of New Jersey Spoke
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
The Army Corp of Engineers got what it wanted. On Monday, January 25, 2000, I attended the Mud Dump Hearing at Fort Monmouth. I have probably attended hundreds of public hearings, many of them on very controversial issues. I have never experienced such lack of leadership from the podium to control the meeting. As a former Army Corp of Engineers officer, I was embarrassed and ashamed that Colonel William Pearce demonstrated such poor leadership. Either he doesn't belong in a leadership position, particularly when he represents the Army Corp to the public, or he deliberately sabotaged the hearing by allowing the longshoremen present to run roughshod over the proceedings inside and out. This was a military base. There should have been some crowd control in place. Instead, Colonel Pearce allowed the longshoremen to attempt to intimidate the public citizens, representatives of various organizations and elected officials who were in attendance. Shame on them! But more clearly, shame on the Army Corp of Engineers. Congressman Frank Pallone, the first speaker in the afternoon session, was continuously harassed from the audience by the longshoreman. Once the Colonel allowed that to happen, it was clear who was in charge. We should have expected a lack of respect for our position from the Army Corp of Engineers. They didn't want this hearing and violated every rule possible to avoid it. But we didn't expect them to allow such a potentially dangerous situation to continue throughout the day.
As the evening session opened, the crowd was clearly out of control. Congressman Pallone attempted to make another statement and was continuously harassed. Colonel Pearce again allowed this behavior without a word. He then allowed a representative of Mayor Giuliani to speak. This man ignited the union crowd, attacked New Jersey's representatives and promoted the dumping of toxic materials into the ocean. His remarks pandered to the Brooklyn longshoremen in the most negative fashion. I guess Mayor Giuliani has no desire to get the vote of the 800,000 saltwater anglers who live in New York State. Can we expect any more from the mayor who wanted to dump raw sewage into the Hudson River? I have never seen Mayor Giuliani as an environmentalist but this statement was hostile and mean spirited to the citizens, anglers, environmentalists and New Jersey's elected officials, both Republicans and Democrats. Ocean Gate Mayor Peter Terranova insisted, "I will not be shouted down by a mob from New York City. I will not be intimidated by a mob or union officials. If these (spoils) are so harmless, why not let us speak?" At that point, Colonel Pearce called a recess in a much-delayed attempt to control the meeting. He met only with union officials. In the meantime, I spoke with Congressman Pallone and Lillian Borrone, director of the Port Commerce Department of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We agreed to speak to the group together but needed a union official's support. I asked Albert Cernades, executive vice president of the Longshoremen's Union to join us in an effort to continue the hearing in a more civil manner. Albert was unwilling to speak to the crowd with Congressman Pallone, guaranteeing that we would not be successful. He made a veiled attempt to exercise some control but the agenda was clear. When one audience member interrupted him, he threatened to have the longshoremen turn the hearing "into a warehouse." At that point, Colonel Pearce should have sent all the union members packing. Instead he sent us all home by closing the hearing and, in truth, getting what he wanted in the first place.
There is blame to share for this fiasco. Although Colonel Pearce is clearly responsible for his lack of leadership, the Port Authority and the Longshoremen's Union set out to disrupt this hearing from the beginning. They didn't need 40 busloads of longshoremen to guarantee their right to testify. The majority of the people who signed up to testify represented the public interest and the environmental community. The purpose of the union presence was without a doubt to harass and intimidate. Since Colonel Pearce indicated there were only 100 people signed up to testify and I know at least 70 of them represented groups and individuals opposed to this plan, no more than 30 of the longshoremen came to testify. The rest came to disrupt. The Port Authority and the union officials worked together to guarantee an audience that would be hostile and potentially violent. For them to pretend that this wasn't their purpose is ludicrous.
On a personal note, my dad was a union man and I was working to get my union card when I was drafted. My Grandfather and uncles were union organizers in early days of the New York Newspaper Deliveryman's Union. My family has a long history of union support and membership. I have always defended the unions, even when we disagreed on this issue. I always saw the unions as supporting the working man and woman. I am never upset when people set out to represent their own self-interest and speak out publicly in opposition to my ideas. But this performance was just plain stupid. All the longshoremen and their officials did was reinforce the public perception that they are only out for themselves and that they have no respect for the rights or opinions of others. Union officials only discourage union membership when they allow their members to be portrayed as being in opposition to free speech and being willing to intimidate and harass people who disagree with them. They may win the short-term battle. They closed the hearing. They may actually get to dump this toxic material in the ocean. But they certainly lost the public relations battle yesterday. We are not opposed to dredging. We are not out to take their jobs. We simply want a safe way to dispose of the material. If the union had any sense, they would see that treating this toxic material might actually result in more jobs, not less. And finding new, improved ways to deal with the toxic material might allow even more dredging in the future. At best their behavior was shortsighted. At worst, it was bullying.
In a day of many disappointments, I have one more. Early in the afternoon, when no fishermen had been allowed to speak, I approached Colonel Pearce and asked for his help. I was assured that fishermen would be represented among the speakers. The politicians spoke, the union officials spoke, the port spoke, the bureaucrats, the environmental groups spoke, even the garden club spoke. But no commercial or recreational fishermen were allowed to testify. We are among the working men and women of both New York and New Jersey who contribute to the economy of both states through fishing. Some of us are union members. All of us care about the ocean. We are the harvesters and consumers of the ocean and are most directly affected by its contamination. To close a hearing without allowing us to speak proves the Army Corp of Engineers doesn't really care about anything but protecting the Port Authority. They have no interest in protecting or even hearing from the people who make their living or spend their lives on the ocean
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Fote
Legislative Chairman JCAA & NJSFSC
I am really not involved in the Delaware River Project and saw JB Kaspar's article and thought you might like to read it.
by J.B. Kasper Trenton Times Tuesday, February 15, 2000
The Delaware River, despite some of its ongoing problems, is one of the cleanest rivers along the east coast. At one time one of the most polluted rivers along the Atlantic coast, one has to go no further then its excellent fisheries for proof of the great strides we have made in cleaning up the water quality in the river. I have lived on the river for most of my life and have been able to witness this recovery first hand. Once over run by industrial and municipal waste, it now possesses the clean water that supports a thriving ecosystem, however, because of excessive development along its shores, it remains a very fragile river.
Now the river faces another man made threat. The Army Corps of Engineers wants to dredge the lower river as far north as Philadelphia down to a depth of 50 feet. This so that larger ships (freighters and oil tankers) can come up the river to the Port of Philadelphia. We are told this is necessary so that the Port of Philadelphia (the fourth busiest port in the country) can compete with other ports along he Atlantic Coast. Here is some of the things I have found about the dredging and its possible effect on the river its inhabitants.
The first thing that has to be considered has to be whether or not the dredging is needed. This past year there were several oil spills from smaller tankers. An oil spill from a smaller ship is one thing, however, just think about the repercussions of a spill from one of these larger ships. The recent spill of thousands of gallons of oil from a broken pipe line in the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge proves the oil companies themselves don’t have a spotless record of environmental safety.
Another thing to consider is this: if the channel dredging allows larger ships to come up river, are the oil companies going to dredge the water from the channel to their docks so that the ships can off load their oil directly, instead of off loading it to a barge (known as lightering). So far not one oil company has made a commitment to deepen the water from the channel to their docks. The same holds true for cargo ships. Will the water between the channel and their docks also have to be deepened. If this be the case, who is going to foot the bill for the dredging and the disposal of the dredge spoils?
That brings us to the dredge spoils themselves. We have all seen how efficiently the dredge spoils from Newark Bay are being handled. The recent spill in Ambrose Channel by an over loaded barge is proof that once again the Army Corps of Engineers has failed in its responsibility to the public and the environment as well. We have been told that the dredge spoils from the Delaware River are not toxic, yet fish that live in the river have higher the normal levels of mercury, PCB and other toxins. The amount of toxicity is also be disputed. An independent review of the corps’ data by Richard Greene of the Delaware Division of Natural Resources and Environmental Control disputes the use of mean levels of toxins as being scientifically improper. Examination of the individual data shows unacceptably high concentrations of heavy metals in some samples and significantly elevated levels in others. By using a mean level of toxins which averages out the levels of the toxins throughout the dredge site, the Corps takes the emphasis off the areas that are most toxic. Two of the areas that show high levels of toxins are the channel bend at the confluence of the Schuylkill and the Delaware and the bend north of Pea Patch Island.
I’ve heard several different versions on how the dredge spoils will be disposed of. One plan being considered is to dump the spoils in abandoned mines as fill. Although this is one of the best plans being considered, is carries a price tag in excess of $280,000,000. Another part of the plan calls for the larger and heavier grains of sand to be used for beach replenishment on New Jersey and Delaware beaches along the bay. There will also be several designated dredge spoil dump sites, all of which, as of this story are locate on the New Jersey side of the river. Once again New Jersey is to be used as a dumping ground despite the fact that the Port of Philadelphia will be the chief beneficiary of the dredging. These dredge spoil sites will also be a source of pollution for the river. According Chris Roberts, a spokesman for the DRBC, the DRBC is not for or against the project and is trying to resolve the problems and concerns involved with the project. A report by Thomas Fikslin, a scientist with the Delaware River Basin Commission, the run off from existing dredge disposal sites is a significant source of river pollution.
Another part of the dredging project that sends up some red flags is the widening of the channel in a couple of places. In order to handle the larger ships, the channel not only has to be deepened, but also widened in some areas. A good part of the cutting into the river bed for this widening will be done mechanically (with a dredge), however, a certain amount of the bed rock will have to be blasted. It goes without saying that this poses a threat to fish in the area. Aquifers run under the river and there is no guarantee that the dredging, and/or the blasting, will not cut into these aquifers. This could cause pollution problems in the aquifers which are used by communities on both sides of the river for drinking water.
Last but not least one has to question whether or not the dredging will actually increase jobs and income as per proponent claims. The project will cost tax payers $300 million (200 million from the Federal Government and $100 million from the Delaware River Port Authority {DRPA}). The Port Authority share will be made of $15 million each from N.J. and PA, $2 million form Delaware and $68 million from the Port Authority. The DRPA is proposing to raise bridge tolls and PATCO fares to pay for the project.
Oil companies would have to spend between $21 and $50 million to dredge their terminals to handle the larger ships. Most of the refineries at Marcus Hook are operating at their peak and would have to expand to handle more oil. As we have mentioned, to date no companies have made a commitment to dredge the water to their docks.
According to Army Corps of Engineers figures the dredging project would save the big oil companies and cargo companies $40 million dollars a year. Should the tax payer foot the bill for the dredging so that the big companies can make more money. To my way of thinking the only way this should be done is if the dredging would bring a significant amount of jobs into the area. No where in any of the Army Corps data do they offer any information as to how many jobs the dredging would create.
Work done on the dredging project will be give on a bid basis and there is no guarantee that companies from the Delaware Valley will get the contracts. Regardless of who does the dredging, the jobs connected with it will only be temporary.
There is too much wrong with the plans to depend the lower Delaware River Channel. The economic value of the project is based on projections that can be substantiated; the amount of toxins in the river silt and the science used to determine them is being disputed and the effects of the dredging on river life and the lower river ecosystem system is a big unknown. Why then, when we have a recovering river, growing fisheries and a strengthening ecosystem are we so willing to put all the gains of the last two decades in jeopardy by tampering with Mother Nature? Once again dollars & cents are ruling over common sense!
You can reach us with your fishing or hunting reports, comments or questions by fax at (215) 295-0902; by E-Mail at
J.B.Kasper@worldnet.att.net; or by mail at J.B. Kasper c/o The
Times, 500 Perry St., Trenton, NJ 08605.%lf%et
Four years ago JCAA testified at a Congressional Hearing on sand mining. At that time we were opposed to any sand mining in the ocean for private profit. Our position has not changed. Along with other organizations, we were successful in getting the proposal killed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. However, it appears that the ocean is at risk again. Amboy Aggregates of South Amboy is again requesting permission to sand mine about 100 square miles from just north of Long Branch to just south of Belmar. This is a smaller proposal than the previous one but our objections are just as valid. The Mineral Management Service of the Department of Interior will hold information meetings on the proposal from 7 to 10 p.m. Feb. 28 at Bradley Beach Borough Hall and from 7 to 10 p.m. Feb. 29 at the Holiday Inn in Carteret. It is important that people attend this hearing and make their objections known. If you are unable to attend you can send in your comments. My testimony from August 6, 1996 and the federal register notice are posted at our web page
|
|
|
|
|