Pots Off the Reefs Hearinbg 1-17-13

[Angler Paul]

Here is something I received from Reef Rescue that gives a little more detail than other posts I read. I will be there on behalf of the Berkeley Striper Club and the Jersey Coast Anglers Association. I hope to see some of you guys there too.

Paul Haertel
2nd VP JCAA

WANT COMMERCIAL GEAR OFF OUR REEFS?
SHOULDN’T REEFS BE FOR HOOK, LINE AND SPEAR ONLY?
DO YOU WANT NJ’s REEF PROGRAM BACK?
IF YOU DO ……………. YOU NEED TO ATTEND THE MAFMC
PUBLIC HEARING TOMORROW NIGHT!
The purpose of the hearing is to collect comments from New Jersey fishermen, recreational and commercial, on whether Delaware should be granted Special Management Zone (SMZ) status on their offshore reefs.
Why is this meeting so important to New Jersey anglers? Simple: if Delaware receives SMZ status there is a strong possibility that New Jersey will be granted the same. So, by supporting Delaware at tomorrow night’s meeting, you are fighting for New Jersey’s quest for SMZ status!
Background: Delaware petitioned the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) to designate five ocean artificial reef sites as SMZs in June of 2011.
The petition was made to reduce gear conflicts between recreational fishermen and pot/trap gear at those sites. If these gear conflicts continue, Delaware will likely lose its federal funding (USFW Sport Fish Restoration Funds) for its artificial reef program in federal waters (beyond 3 miles from shore). These funds are effectively Delaware’s only source of funding for its artificial reef building program.
The MAFMCouncil has been evaluating Delaware’s SMZ request and has developed a number of options to address this issue. The options primarily consist of limiting the gear used on the SMZs, for all or part of the year. The Council is seeking public comment on the proposed options (see attached).
Because New Jersey’s state government ignored the conflicts on their ocean reefs, federal funding was lost in 2012. NJ’s reef program is presently non-existent!
But, federal funding can be restored to New Jersey if recreational fishermen speak out tomorrow night.
PLEASE ATTEND! BEFORE NJ’s REEF PROGRAM IS GONE FOR GOOD!
January 17, 7:00 – 9:00 PM, Ocean County Administration Building,
101 Hooper Avenue, Room 119, Toms River, NJ
Please testify in favor of 2a, 3b, 4b, 5c)

2a. Designate reef sites 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 as SMZ (i.e., all five reef sites)

3b. Restrict fishing activities in designated SMZ sites to hook & line and spear fishing gear only.

4b. Designate SMZs year round

5c. 500 meter buffer (equivalent to 0.25 nautical miles)

[Dave A]

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you list all the options instead of just the ones you support? Also it is my understanding that NJ cannot apply for SMZ status for the artificial reefs (located in federal waters) until that happens to the 2 reefs in state waters.

[Angler Paul]

I did not post all the options because in the past I have noticed that if the posts are too lengthy they may not be accepted by certain sites. Also, it might make them too lenghty to read.
The rumor going around that NJ could not request SMZ status for reefs in federal waters prior to resolving the conflict for the reefs in state waters is false.
Below are the various options for tonights hearing:

Options for Special Management Zone Designation
of Delaware Artificial Reefs in the EEZ



1. No Action

Under this option the Council would take no action and the Delaware artificial reef sites in the EEZ would remain open to all gear types. This option would deny the Delaware request to grant SMZ status for its EEZ reef sites and allegations of gear conflicts would likely continue. Delaware could potentially lose a portion or all of its funding for maintenance and construction of artificial reef sites in the EEZ under the Wallops-Breaux Sportfish Restoration Program if no action is taken.

2. Designate some or all of the Delaware permitted artificial reef sites as SMZs

2a. Designate reef sites 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 as SMZ (i.e., all five reef sites)

Under this option all five of the Delaware reef sites would be designated as SMZs as described in Amendment 9 to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP. Provisions of Amendment 9 allow the Council to prohibit or restrain the use of specific types of fishing gear that are not compatible with the intent of the artificial reef or fish attraction device or other habitat modification within the SMZ. If the Council chooses this option, the specific gear(s) that would be prohibited would be determined by the Council under option 3 below. The degree of potential impact from this option on various fishing sectors would depend on which gears were prohibited within the SMZ and the duration of the SMZ designation.

2b. Designate reef sites 11, 13 and 14 as SMZs (only sites with documented potential for gear conflicts)

Little or no commercial fishing activity was documented in the vicinity of reef sites 9 and 10, so there appears to be little opportunity for gear conflicts to occur at these sites (especially for fixed pot/trap gear). Therefore, it would appear unnecessary to designate these sites as SMZs on the basis of amelioration of gear conflicts. However, commercial fishing activity on sites 11, 13 and 14 was documented at these sites based on VTR data, so the potential for gear conflicts exists at these sites. As noted above, the potential impact on various sectors of the fisheries would depend on the gears prohibited and the seasonal extent of the SMZ designation.

2c. Designate reef sites 9, 10, 13 and 14 as SMZs but not site 11

During the original permit process for reef sites 9, 10 and 11, the Council opposed the granting of a permit for reef site 11 by the COE because there were indications that considerable commercial fishing activity took place at this location. Therefore, the Council could designate reef sites 9, 10, 13, and 14 as SMZs but not site 11 based on the argument that it would remain consistent with that historical position. However, site 11 appears to be the area that has the greatest potential for gear conflicts between hook & line gear and fixed pot/trap gear and, therefore, the Council would not be addressing the primary justification given by the state of Delaware for the SMZ designation request (i.e., amelioration of gear conflicts).

3. Gear Restrictions

3a. Prohibit use of fixed pot/trap gear on sites designated as SMZs

Under this alternative, the Council would prohibit the use of fixed pot/trap gear on reef sites designated as SMZs. This gear restriction would apply during the time periods associated with the options under alternative set 4 below. This option responds to the basis for Delaware's SMZ request which was to ameloriate gear conflicts on its artificial reef sites between hook & line and fixed pot/trap gear.
3b. Restrict fishing activities in designated SMZ sites to hook & line and spear fishing gear only.

Under this alternative, the Council would prohibit the use all fishing gear on reef sites designated as SMZs, except hook & line and spear-fishing gear (during periods of SMZ designation as per the option chosen under alternative set 4) . Under this alternative, the use of commercial hook & line fishing gear within the designated boundaries of SMZs would still be permitted, however the use of all other commercial fishing gears would be prohibited (i.e., gill nets, long lines, etc.).

4. Seasonal SMZ Restrictions

4a. Designate SMZs during periods when recreational fishery for black sea bass is open

The original request by Delaware for SMZ designation was based on the stated need to reduce gear conflicts between hook & line and fixed pot/trap gear on its EEZ reef sites under provisions of Amendment 9 (black sea bass FMP amendment). Since the rational for the SMZ request is related to the black sea bass fishery and its management, the Council could designate all or some of the Delaware EEZ reef sites as SMZs when the recreational season for black sea bass is open.

4b. Designate SMZs year round

Under this alternative the SMZ designation for any or all of the five artificial reefs would be in effect for the entire calendar year.

4c. Designate SMZs during periods peak recreational fishing effort (e.g., Memorial Day to Labor Day)

The purpose of this alternative to be to attempt to reduce gear conflicts of Delaware reefs sites by designating SMZs during periods when the chance of gear conflicts would be expected to be at a maximum (i.e., during periods of peak recreational fishing activity).

5. SMZ Buffer

5a. no buffer

5b. 1000 yard buffer (equivalent to 0.5 nautical miles)

Law enforcement personnel indicated that any SMZ designations by the Council should include a buffer around the boundaries of the artificial reef to allow for adequate enforcement. Under this alternative, the areas designated as SMZs would include the area within the published boundaries of the reef included in the COE permit plus a buffer of 1000 yards (0.5 nautical miles). This buffer was specifically recommended by personnel from the US Coast Guard and NMFS Office of Law Enforcement.

5c. 500 meter buffer (equivalent to 0.25 nautical miles)

Law enforcement personnel have indicated that any SMZ designations by the Council should include a buffer around the boundaries of the artificial reef to allow for adequate enforcement. Under this alternative, the areas designated as SMZs would include the area within the published boundaries of the reef included in the COE permit plus a buffer of 500 meters (0.25 nautical miles). The SMZ designations in the South Atlantic include a 500 meter buffer around the reef site boundaries.

6. Divide each reef site in half and establish SMZ for 50% of reef site area
If the USCG recommendation for a buffer 0.5 nautical miles were adopted, this option appears impractical/infeasible.

[Dave A]

Thanks for posting all of the options Paul.

[njdiver]

The rumor going around that NJ could not request SMZ status for reefs in federal waters prior to resolving the conflict for the reefs in state waters is false.
MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
800 North State Street, Suite 201
Dover, Delaware 19901-3910
COUNCIL MEETING
14 April 2011
at
Historic Inns of Annapolis
58 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011

(Snip)

Page 164

13 EUGENE KRAY: But my understanding of
14 the process was that the state would have to put those
15 regulations on their inshore reefs and then petition the
16 Council for the same regulations in the EEZ.
17 When our committee looked at that,
18 again, three, maybe four years ago, and I can recall
19 having specific discussions with Ed Goldman about that
20 issue, and that's what they would have to do in terms
21 of meeting with the provisions of the summer flounder,
22 scup, black sea bass plan.

(Snip)

http://www.mafmc.org/actions/2011/Council%20Minutes%20April%2014%202011.pdf

[njdiver]

MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
800 North State Street, Suite 201
Dover, Delaware 19901-3910
COUNCIL MEETING
17-18 OCTOBER 2012
at
Ocean Place Resort
One Ocean Blvd.
Long Branch, NJ 07740
(Morning Session)
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 17, 2012

117

(Snip)

16 JEFFREY TINSMAN: On that subject, I
17 think Amendment 9 to the Black Sea Bass Plan
18 requires that a state seeking SMZ status for ocean
19 sites have previously addressed conflict
20 situations in state site reefs, which Delaware has
21 done, and New Jersey has attempted to do but has
22 not yet been successful in doing. So that step
23 would be a necessary first step for them, as I
24 understand it.

(Snip)


http://www.mafmc.org/actions/2012/Council_Minutes_October_17-18_2012.pdf