ALERT: Sandy Hook Bay National Marine Sanctuary

[njdiver]

http://www.navesinkmaritime.org/National-Marine-Sanctuary

[njdiver]

Here are two sites that explain the process on how to create a NMS:

http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/designations.html

[bababooey]

Sorry no disrespect meant, but I fail to see how this is a good thing. As a boat owner, I can tell you that boats are inherently dirty. Even if you are careful fuel can get spilled in the water, sometimes oil leaks also. An environmentalist could even make an argument that when I am starting up my motors and warming them up that that is a form of air pollution. I am sorry but I just see this ending badly for anyone who is a boat owner up there. If there are any meetings you guys should go to them. If they tried to do this in the Barnegat Bay I know there would be so many people in the room we would be busting out the door.
in fact I'll even help you folks with a slogan:
MPAS - NO freaking way!!:2flip:

[lostatsea]

X2. I don't know as much about it as some of you guys, but after reading some of the above I do feel it will end badly. We should fight this.

[rockhopper]

mpa = tree hugger refuge

[njdiver]

Sorry no disrespect meant, but I fail to see how this is a good thing. As a boat owner, I can tell you that boats are inherently dirty. Even if you are careful fuel can get spilled in the water, sometimes oil leaks also. An environmentalist could even make an argument that when I am starting up my motors and warming them up that that is a form of air pollution. I am sorry but I just see this ending badly for anyone who is a boat owner up there. If there are any meetings you guys should go to them. If they tried to do this in the Barnegat Bay I know there would be so many people in the room we would be busting out the door.
in fact I'll even help you folks with a slogan:
MPAS - NO freaking way!!:2flip:
None taken, I am merely reporting what I saw on another forum and the bit of research I did on the process.

[cowherder]

Grabbed a schedule of upcoming meetings when I went to the site. Thanks for putting up those links.

March 13, 2016, 2 pm, Keyport Yacht Club, Keyport, NJ, hosted by Keyport Yacht Club.
March 16, 2016, 7 pm, Red Bank Library (http://redbanklibrary.org/), Red Bank, NJ, hosted by Red Bank Library.
April 4, 2016, 8pm, MBC membership meeting, Red Bank, NJ
This is the page where I found them.
http://www.navesinkmaritime.org/NMS-presentations

[surferman]

I don't live up that way or I would be attending. You guys should definitely fight this. Letting them get their way would be a be a big mistake. my .02

[storminsteve]

Sorry no disrespect meant, but I fail to see how this is a good thing.
in fact I'll even help you folks with a slogan:
MPAS - NO freaking way!!:2flip:

Totally agree. It's like letting the fox into the henhouse. Once the door is open you can never get it shut or go back to the way things were. No WAY Jose.

[dogfish]

Show up. Protest loudly, don't let it happen. my .02

[captnemo]

FYI the yacht club meeting on sun is not open to gen public per Mr van hemmen. Already getting an elitist vibe from this.

[VSdreams]

thanks for the heads up captain. Maybe red bank would be a better 1?

[cowherder]

Heads up the meeting at redbank is weds at 7pm at the library. Let's try to turn up and ask this guy some good questions! No way on the mpa as bababooey said.

[seamonkey]

I would go but it's 2 1/2 hours from me. Give em hell fellas!

[njdiver]

This just announced via email:

https://m.facebook.com/sandyhooknationalmarinesanctuary/

[storminsteve]

Thanks nj. I went and checked that group out on the internet. The mpa thing is run by one guy. ONE GUY, folks!!
You hardcore fishermen are not going to let ONE GUY take your fishing away from you, are you? Will try to be there tomorrow to check it out.

[CharlieTuna]

Once you let them establish a foothold that's it. Don't give any ground at this early stage because if it does happen you will never get them to give it back.

[jigfreak]

FYI the yacht club meeting on sun is not open to gen public per Mr van hemmen. Already getting an elitist vibe from this.

One dude is behind all this? Ill be up there tonight. Come on fellas we can't p***y out and let one tree hugger win over all of us.

[njdiver]

For the record, this is not a MPA nomination, yet.

[lostatsea]

For the record, this is not a MPA nomination, yet.

Thanks. Yeah but all you need is this eco freak to get support and nj could look like california. Will try to be there tonight.

[captnemo]

For the record, this is not a MPA nomination, yet.


Thanks. Yeah but all you need is this eco freak to get support and nj could look like california. Will try to be there tonight.

Agreed, thanks for the research and the info.

[njdiver]

National Marine Sanctuary Act

(Snip)

The NMSA provides several tools for protecting designated national marine sanctuaries. For example:

The NMSA provides the program with the authority to issue regulations for each sanctuary and the system as a whole. These regulations can, among other things, specify the types of activities that can and cannot occur within the sanctuary. [See section 308 of the NMSA.]

The NMSA requires the program to prepare and periodically update management plans that guide day-to-day activities at each sanctuary. [See sections 304(a) and 304(e) of the NMSA.]

The NMSA authorizes NOAA and the program to assess civil penalties (up to $130,000 per day per violation) for violations of the NMSA or its implementing regulations and damages against people that injure sanctuary resources. [See sections 306, 307 and 312 of the NMSA.]

The NMSA requires federal agencies whose actions are ?likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource,? to consult with the program before taking the action. The program is, in these cases, required to recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives to protect sanctuary resources. [See section 304(d) of the NMSA.]

(Snip)

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/



The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) regulations are codified at 15 CFR Part 922.

Regulations have the effect and enforceability of law and are written in a specific manner. ONMS regulations prohibit specific kinds of activities, describe and define the boundaries of the designated national marine sanctuaries and set up a system of permits to allow the conduct of certain types of activities (that would otherwise not be allowed).

(Snip)

While each danctuary has its own unique set of regulations, there are some regulatory prohibitions that are typical for many sanctuaries:

Discharging material or other matter into the sanctuary;

Disturbance of, construction on or alteration of the seabed;

Disturbance of cultural resources; and

Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals (with a grandfather clause for preexisting operations).

In addition, some sanctuaries prohibit other activities, such as the disturbance of marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles, operation of aircraft in certain zones, use of personal watercraft, mineral mining and anchoring of vessels.

(Snip)

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/protect/regulations/



NOAA: Final Notice Of Fee Calculations For Special Use Permits
POSTED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2015

In accordance with a requirement of Public Law 106-513 (16 U.S.C. 1441(b)), NOAA hereby gives public notice of the methods, formulas and rationale for the calculations it will use in order to assess fees associated with special use permits (SUPs).

(From the Federal Register) ? Congress first granted NOAA the authority to issue SUPs for conducting specific activities in national marine sanctuaries in the 1988 Amendments to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (?NMSA?) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) (Pub. L. 100-627). The NMSA allows NOAA to establish categories of activities that may be subject to an SUP. The list of applicable categories of activities was last updated in 2013 (78 FR 25957). SUPs may be issued for the placement and recovery of objects on the seabed related to public or private events, or commercial filming; the continued presence of commercial submarine cables; the disposal of cremated human remains; recreational diving near the USS Monitor; the deployment of fireworks displays; or the operation of aircraft below the minimum altitude in restricted zones of national marine sanctuaries. Congress also gave NOAA the discretion to assess an SUP fee and laid out the basic components of an SUP fee (16 U.S.C. 1441 (d)).

Read the full article here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/11/19/2015-29524/final-notice-of-fee-calculations-for-special-use-permits


http://policy.oceanleadership.org/noaa-final-notal-use-permits/


(Snip)= Irrelevant material deleted.

[7deadlyplugs]

I seem to remember them trying to do something like that in the backbays of the Hamptons a few years ago but they failed. you really don't want something like this fellas. There's no benefit to anyone except for the tree huggers and hikers.

[buckethead]

On my way over there now. Let's try to give them a good showing folks.

[jigfreak]

Made it up there tonight. Place was packed with the line starting at the outside door. Rick van pemmen got totally owned by some of the questions that we asked him.
There was also some crazy guy running around with an efF em all shirt taking pics. wonder who that could have been LOL? Rare ds appearance, good to see you again brother.:HappyWave:

[hookset]

Looks like you were pretty accurate. This was posted earlier in the red bank green.
http://www.redbankgr...ctuary-blasted/ (http://www.redbankgreen.com/2016/03/red-bank-marine-sanctuary-blasted/)

[DarkSkies]

Yes I did make it to the meeting.:HappyWave:
After talking my way into the building, (the were a few officers at the door and throughout) I interviewed a lot of folks who were upstairs, still wanting to be part of the meeting, but shut out by space limitations.
These were people from all walks of life...
fishermen,boat guys, clammers, Charter Boat Capts, waterfowlers, hunters, and a mix of outdoorsmen.

It was good to see some of the old timers, still doing what they do best, fighting for us. Also the new blood, the younger guys full of passion and anger, and not afraid to yell a little (Actually, it did get to be too much at times as Mr VanPemmen was bombarded with logic, good questions, alternate scenarios, and righteous anger from a lot of the attendees.)

Many were local, but some friends of mine drove 100 miles from S Jersey, to be a part of this, because they understand the implications if it does get momentum. :clapping:

Also good to see so many site members there. :HappyWave:

I did not get a chance to read the prepared questions I had. Many of the issues I wanted to raise were competently addressed by retired biologist Dan Ferrigno. He did a fantastic job of dissecting the main issues and implications, and asking questions that needed to be addressed. And the beauty of this is - Dan was one of many who asked reasonable, well thought-out, and logical questions, that Mr VanPimmen either danced around, or was not fully prepared to answer.

As this became apparent, quite a few folks decided it was a waste of time, and decided to walk out, This allowed them to let some of the rest of us down to the meeting, a few at a time.

Overall, I observed an overwhelming voice of the people Against this proposal, with only 4 in the room claiming they supported Mr VanPemmen.





http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20069&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20071&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20070&stc=1

When I get a chance to go through my notes, I'll try to post here or on social media. I took a lot of pics as documentation. There were some great issues raised. I think at some point, some of the most passionate of these need to be heard and repeated, perhaps as a way of inspiring others.

Following is a short outline of what I observed. If I get more time, I'll try to come back and address some of these in detail.

**The most important point to make here, is that continued support is needed. This is not over. IF it does manage to get a hearing, we will need more support. This proposal, if enacted, will negatively affect the lives of thousands of people, and negatively impact many of those who run businesses in the area, with the exception of Mr VanPemmen and his engineering business (more on that later).




** Also, the proper term for this, as NJdiver has so kindly pointed out, is
NMS - national marine sanctuary

MPA - Marine Protected area, will "come in if the initial or subsequent management plan calls for it"
So let's try to refer to it by the proper term, if we can...... it's an NMS.
thanks!

[DarkSkies]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Red Bank Library NMS proposal meeting 3.16.16

As mentioned, it was extremely crowded, with an estimated attendance of between 250-300 people. Many turned away, left, or were BSing outside if they couldn't get in. I managed to talk my way inside and down to the main meeting area after interviewing some of the most vocal opponents.


Some of the meeting highlights/ issues raised, as I observed them:
1. Is this just about trash and folks not picking it up?
2. Who is financially supporting this NMS proposal group? Just Mr VanHemmen?
3. Where is the science to show that this is necessary?
4. What about the hundreds of businesses, and families, that will be negatively impacted financially if this were to come true?
5. Is there a conflict of interest, with Mr VanPemmen's environmental cleanup firm, if such a proposal comes about?
6. Why can't some of the problems being mentioned get addressed on a State level, or with community involvement?
7. What happens every time the Federal gov't becomes involved? Is it more effective in the long run?
8. Does this NMS proposal offer better solutions than the ones we already have available?



http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20074&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20072&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20073&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20075&stc=1






I observed that he had not anticipated the educated questions and logical fallout about:
a. The implications and consequences of what NMS /MPAs entail - the consequences to those who live in the areas.
b. The myriad jungle of bureaucracy they always produce,
c. The unfair financial burden they place on working class citizens who live in the area or make their living on or from the water,
d. The simple fact that even if these have public reps appointed to the boards, in all MPA cases thus far, the civilian appointee is a figurehead with no real ability to affect policy decisions.
e. The complete lack of understanding of fisheries management re: migratory speces, or what has ultimately played out with fishing and outdoor recreational opportunities in other MPA areas.

It seemed to me Rick originally thought he was well-prepared.....
but instead of an angry mob (yes there was some righteous indignation) he was peppered with some well-reasoned questions, that he simply could not answer, or carefully danced around. He may have started this with good intentions, as a lot of us said, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But -- he has a certain naivete about this..... that is unacceptable to me and others who tried to understand his position--
**He appears to believe that his way would be better, no matter what the consequences to the hundreds and thousands who could be impacted negatively if he does get his way.
** He appears to not have fully considered the many alternative paths that could solve most of his grievances more effectively without the Feds being involved.
** He has not fully considered there would be questions about conflict of interest and his true agenda, given what he does for a living.
** He doesn't have a broad knowledge base about other NMS /MPA areas and how they have impacted people and businesses in those areas.

Those are my thoughts and observations.
If any of you others feel differently or would like to add, please do so.
This board is the sum total of your thoughts and actions, not mine.

Any energy I have left..... will concentrate on this and other fishing access issues.
Please don't dismiss Mr VanPemmen or his drive or initiative. That would be a strategic mistake.
We need continued support here.

Good to see some of ya's again, and thanks to all who made the effort.

Special thanks to NJDiver who continues to try to raise awareness by posting these things for our benefit. :clapping::clapping:
Thanks for reading. :thumbsup:

[buckethead]

e. The complete lack of understanding of fisheries management re: migratory speces, or what has ultimately played out with fishing and outdoor recreational opportunities in other MPA areas.

It seemed to me Rick originally thought he was well-prepared.....
but instead of an angry mob (yes there was some righteous indignation) he was peppered with some well-reasoned questions, that he simply could not answer, or carefully danced around. He may have started this with good intentions, as a lot of us said, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But -- he has a certain naivete about this..... that is unacceptable.
**He appears to believe that his way would be better, no matter what the consequences to the hundreds and thousands who could be impacted negatively if he does get his way.
** He appears to not have fully considered the many alternative paths that could solve most of his grievances more effectively without the Feds being involved.
** He has not fully considered there would be questions about conflict of interest and his true agenda, given what he does for a living.

Those are my thoughts and observations.
If any of you others feel differently or would like to add, please do so.
This board is the sum total of your thoughts and actions, not mine.

Any energy I have left..... will concentrate on this and other fishing access issues.
Please don't dismiss Mr VanPemmen or his drive or initiative. That would be a strategic mistake.
We need continued support here.

Good to see some of ya's again, and thanks to all who made the effort.


I agree when the biologist asked him the question about science he moved away from it. He really hasn't thought this through. That's why a lot of guys walked out on him. Rich it was great meeting you at last. Thanks for the effort and the pics. We have to keep this pressure up.
Hoping more fishermen groups will get involved.



Special thanks to NJDiver who continues to try to raise awareness by posting these things for our benefit. :clapping::clapping:
Thanks for reading. :thumbsup:

Thank you for all you do njdiver.

[njdiver]

Putting out information on issues for individuals and groups to research and make their informed decisions. It's what I do.

[lostatsea]

Thanks guys for the reporting and the updates. Please let us know if there are any more public meetings.
One question I had hope its not too stupid - does anyone know if the RFA and the state agencies will be at any of these meetings? thanks

[cowherder]

ds great pics sorry I wasn't able to make it.

njdiver thank you as well. I see your posts on many sites. You guys really help keep us informed. As las said plse let us know if there are any more public meetings would like to attend and see this guy for myself.

[captnemo]

http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20069&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20071&stc=1http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20070&stc=1



**The most important point to make here, is that continued support is needed. This is not over. IF it does manage to get a hearing, we will need more support. This proposal, if enacted, will negatively affect the lives of thousands of people, and negatively impact many of those who run businesses in the area, with the exception of Mr VanPemmen and his engineering business (more on that later).




** Also, the proper term for this, as NJdiver has so kindly pointed out, is
NMS - national marine sanctuary

MPA - Marine Protected area, will "come in if the initial or subsequent management plan calls for it"
So let's try to refer to it by the proper term, if we can...... it's an NMS.
thanks!

Good job. I could not get downstairs and left after signing the petition saying whether we were for or against the proposal. BTW it looks like you got Capt Al's pic in the middle one of your post above.

Capt Al wrote about it in today's NJ.com report.
"There was an overflow crowd Wednesday night at the Red Bank Library for a presentation by the Navesink River Heritage Association about their push for a Sandy Hook Bay National Marine Sanctuary that would involve about 12,500 acres including the Shrewsbury, Navesink and Swimming rivers plus part of Raritan Bay. The room wasn't big enough to handle the crowd, and I didn't hear anything but opposition to turning over control of state waters from a fisherman-friendly and efficient NJ DEP to the federal government. As Jim Donofrio of the Recreational Fishing Alliance noted "This is a solution looking for a problem." Marine sanctuaries sound nice, but fishermen in California and Florida have had very bad experiences with them. I'll have more about this in future columns and my daily blog at nj.com/shore/blogs/fishing.

[bababooey]

That's definitely Al Ristori in the middle. Good job gents.:thumbsup:

[njdiver]

One question I had hope its not too stupid - does anyone know if the RFA and the state agencies will be at any of these meetings? thanks
Jim Donofrio was there and made a statement. Yes, I recognized a DEP Official in the back of the room. He is the same Official we "negotiated" with during the stakeholder meetings on Public Access during the Christie Administration rewrite of those now invalidated regulations. Can't remember his name.

[cowherder]

Thanks that's good to hear. At least they are paying attention.

[njdiver]

Petition opposing the Sandy Hook National Marine Sanctuary nomination:


https://www.change.org/p/sanctuary-nominations-noaa-gov-oppose-sandy-hook-bay-and-twin-rivers-marine-sanctuary-designation?recruiter=277674041&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

[dogfish]

Good job fellas.

[plugcrazy]

Heads up this guy rik hemmen is a NUT!!!!!! Look at some of the e-mails he has been sending out. If the guy thinks he has 150,000 suporters he is DELUSIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Living on the planet of denial!:kooky:

"rik hemmen -At this stage I am between a rock and a hard place to further the discussion on the subject. It appears that, for the time being, I will have to take the discussion of the proposal out of the public sphere. Too many supporting stakeholders feel restrained in speaking out on this matter, and that results in an asymmetric debate. This bums me out because I believe that vigorous but courteous public debate allows faster progress than back room sausage making, but it appears that public debate has been forced off the table by a small group of very vocal opponents of the idea. I suspect that from now on we will need to have smaller working groups, with policy positions for various stake holders, etc.

This is frustrating. The truly discourteous opponents are a very small minority, but they have chosen to destroy their opportunity to be engaged in this effort. For the time being, the discourteous opponents will be exempted from the discussion and I hope the courteous opponents will fairly and ably represent them. At this stage, my personal count indicates that the proponents of the concept outweigh the sum of courteous and discourteous opponents. However, I would certainly note that the opponents appear to have a stronger aversion than the strength of the attraction of the concept shown by the proponents. This, by itself, introduces an interesting dynamic. Do 150,000 moderately positive votes balance against 50,000 strongly negative votes?

Meanwhile, I have also received so much feedback at this stage that I probably need to engage in a swampdrain to develop NMS V2.0 at which time we can run another test."

[storminsteve]

He's fruitier than fruity pebbles cereal if he thinks that.

[captnemo]

Heads up this guy rik hemmen is a NUT!!!!!! Look at some of the e-mails he has been sending out. If the guy thinks he has 150,000 suporters he is DELUSIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Living on the planet of denial!:kooky:

"rik hemmen -At this stage I am between a rock and a hard place to further the discussion on the subject. It appears that, for the time being, I will have to take the discussion of the proposal out of the public sphere. Too many supporting stakeholders feel restrained in speaking out on this matter, and that results in an asymmetric debate. This bums me out because I believe that vigorous but courteous public debate allows faster progress than back room sausage making, but it appears that public debate has been forced off the table by a small group of very vocal opponents of the idea. I suspect that from now on we will need to have smaller working groups, with policy positions for various stake holders, etc.

This is frustrating. The truly discourteous opponents are a very small minority, but they have chosen to destroy their opportunity to be engaged in this effort. For the time being, the discourteous opponents will be exempted from the discussion and I hope the courteous opponents will fairly and ably represent them. At this stage, my personal count indicates that the proponents of the concept outweigh the sum of courteous and discourteous opponents. However, I would certainly note that the opponents appear to have a stronger aversion than the strength of the attraction of the concept shown by the proponents. This, by itself, introduces an interesting dynamic. Do 150,000 moderately positive votes balance against 50,000 strongly negative votes?

Meanwhile, I have also received so much feedback at this stage that I probably need to engage in a swampdrain to develop NMS V2.0 at which time we can run another test."


He's fruitier than fruity pebbles cereal if he thinks that.


I agree he's got no real support base. There is no way he even has 150 supporters right now. Let alone 150 thousand.

[captnemo]

Capt Al wrote about it in yesterday's blog. From www.nj.com/ristori report

Jersey Shore Fishing: Sandy Hook Bay Sanctuary sparks strong opposition
By Al Ristori
on March 24, 2016 at 7:17 PM

Anglers are up in arms about the proposal by the Navesink Maritime Heritage Association to seek a Sandy Hook Bay National Marine Sanctuary designation that would encompass not only that Bay but also the rivers flowing into it plus a portion of Raritan Bay.

There was overwhelming opposition to that proposal at last week's meeting in the Red Bank Library, which wasn't large enough to hold the crowd that arrived. Rik Van Hammen seemed to be sincere as he spoke about his vision, but never presented any problem that would justify turning over control of the area to the federal government.

On the other hand, anglers in Florida and California can testify why this is the last thing we would want to do. The April issue of Salt Water Sportsman states that proposals there would eliminate fishing in up to 30 percent of the reefs covered, and may be followed up by making the entire southeast Florida reef track a National Marine Sanctuary. The magazine notes that "While anglers have supported a number of spawning-season area closures throughout the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, most consider MPAs a last resort only imperative for the survival or restoration of a fishery. The Coastal Conservation Association calls the proposed creation of a marine sanctuary an unnecessary delegation o a federal agency of a state's authority over its waters. Florida has an excellent record of managing its fisheries."

The same applies to New Jersey. Our fisheries are controlled by the state in cooperation with regulations developed for migratory species by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. No one at the meeting was complaining about the quality of the fisheries or management by the state -- and if they aren't satisfied there's plenty of opportunity to seek change on the state level.

It was only three years ago that President Obama closed the national parks in a battle with Congress over the national debt. That just didn't involve facilities, but also the public's right to use lands that required no facilities, as money was found to pay rangers to keep anglers from walking the beach at Sandy Hook. At least the waters weren't involved up here, but charter captains in the Florida Keys, along with the rest of the public, weren't allowed to fish their traditional waters in Everglades National Park. Giving up state control to the federal government for no apparent benefit makes no sense at all.

[njdiver]

(Snip)


Reed Bohne, the Northeast and Great Lakes regions director of national sanctuaries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


(Snip)


"A state’s governor could alter the designation, which would then again be reviewed by NOAA, or outrightly end the process, he said. "


http://tworivertimes.com/marine-sanctuary-proposal-is-floated-and-stakeholders-take-sides/

[captnemo]

Hutch mentioned it in his weekly fishing report as well. around the 5 minute mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8PUdr7Xaw

[bababooey]

Sorry don't mean to derail the thread but the guy sounds like a crackpot. His new move is to eliminate the public meetings and try to target a tree hugger audience. Can you say crazy birders?:kooky:

[njdiver]

NJOA and JCAA both reached consensus this week, to oppose the SHNMS.

[voyager35]

Good news, thanks.

[njdiver]

More info:


PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED


While we have made great improvements in issues such as water quality, wildlife and public access in the NMS waters, there continue to be issues that are detrimental to optimal man/nature interaction and general enjoyment of the waters included in the NMS.


Some issues are non-contentious and have almost universal support, but simply are not making meaningful headway, while other issues, on the face of it, may be contentious. Often, even the issues that may appear to be contentious still have a common goal, but there is disagreement about the methods.


Contentious debate is unpleasant and therefore the debate is often avoided, but this does not make the issue go away. Only debate and analysis in a proper forum provides the chance that optimal solutions will be developed.


At present no such forum exists. A structure like an NMS makes it more difficult for the issue of concern to be ignored, and by keeping it on the table over a long period of time, adjustments can be made. Very often the issue does not need to be regulated, but instead improved education resolves the issue.


This is a list of issues that have been raised by various stake holders. These issues have not been vetted as right or wrong, they are simply concerns that have been raised and that, if resolved, will result in improvements that benefit everybody.


Lack of general boater courtesy
Lack of awareness with regard to river and bay wildlife and river quality issues
Lack of awareness with regard to NMS recreational and commercial opportunities
Reductions in recreational boating interest
Storm runoff water quality issues
Lack of native oysters
Lack of spartina grasses
Lack of edible species awareness
Clamming restrictions (check out the neat graphic)
Dissolved oxygen deficiencies
Ineffective bulkheading
Ineffective river scaping
Poor land side trash management
Bridge replacements issues
Land side impervious surface issues
Lack of dredging
Limits in NMS access
Inadequate ecosystem man/nature sustainable education
Lack of protection of culturally significant NMS activities such as boat racing, hunting, fishing and port facilities
Overall poor and non-optimized fisheries yield
Local fish to table inadequacies
Poor feeder creek conditions
Fertilizer overloading
Poor insecticide practices
PCB's and other industrial residue
River and bay bottom degradation
Silting
Lack of existing regulation (law) enforcement


This is a long list and is sure to grow, but if a mechanism can be developed where, as a local community, we make slow headway on most of them, the future will be much brighter. The vast majority of these issues do not need a huge investment to achieve improvements, but they do require general awareness by all stake holders and constant attention.


An NMS will provide a forum. None of this can be solved through special interest pressure, it can only be solved if the bay and rivers are presented as a valid common stake holder.


DISCOVER ENGAGE SUSTAIN


http://www.navesinkmaritime.org/Problems-that-need-to-be-addressed

[njdiver]

And more:


http://www.app.com/story/news/local/land-environment/2016/04/08/sandy-hook-bay-national-marine-sanctuary/82610356/

[hookset]

This guy is delusional and must be stopped. Here's more:
http://tworivertimes...-claypit-creek/ (http://tworivertimes.com/comments-sought-on-claypit-creek/)

http://patch.com/new...pit-creek-plans

(http://patch.com/new-jersey/middletown-nj/middletown-residents-opposed-claypit-creek-plans)
The following speakers have been confirmed for Thursday night's meeting:
• Middletown town administrator Anthony Mercantante
• Rik Van Hemmen, VP of the Navesink Maritime Heritage Association
• Capt. Alek Modjeski, Habitat Restoration Program Director for the American Littoral Society
• Joe Sardonia, Supervising Landscape Architect for the Monmouth County Park System

(http://patch.com/new-jersey/middletown-nj/middletown-residents-opposed-claypit-creek-plans)

[VSdreams]

And more:
http://www.app.com/story/news/local/land-environment/2016/04/08/sandy-hook-bay-national-marine-sanctuary/82610356/



"Cindy Zipf, who runs Clean Ocean Action (http://www.app.com/search/clean%20ocean%20action/), said in an email that her group "has no position on the proposal to designate the Sandy Hook Bay a National Marine Sanctuary."

The sanctuary would not include the Belford Seafood Co-op as van Hemmen is proposing it, primarily because he said he does not think he can get the support of one of the most active seafood cooperatives on the Atlantic Coast.
"It's not necessary. That's what I told the guy. We have a lot of different fishermen who depend on those waters. We have a lot of history back there. We don't need the government anymore involved than it already is. We don't need any more government regulations than we already have," said Roy Deihl, president of the Belford Seafood Co-Op.
The co-op is comprised of otter trawler fishermen, gill netters, lobster boats and purse seiners.
Van Hemmen expects to finalize and submit the nomination by October.
After that, Bohne said it takes 90 days or so for the NOAA to vet a nomination. If it is approved, then the Sandy Hook Bay sanctuary would be added to a list that then requires numerous public hearings. It can take several years to complete, according to the NOAA."


So apparently Clean Ocean Action, and the Belford Co-Op, 2 groups that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, neither one feels the need for this! Good luck Rick Van P you are going nowhere.

[njdiver]

Zoning the Oceans: Using the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Antiquities Act to Establish Marine Protection Areas and Marine Reserves in America


(Snip)


The National Marine Sanctuaries Act appears to represent the best option for consolidating these management regimes and establishing a new, unified system of marine protected areas in the United States. The Act is clearly flawed-there are too many ways to derail proposed designations and far too little money and legal authority to properly police existing sanctuaries. As discussed above, however, the NMSA at least provides a structure for creating MPAs, a process for receiving and incorporating public comment, and a designation term- sanctuary-that invokes something more powerful, more dignified, and more important than "marine park" or "marine protected area." Executive Order 13158 and the federal government's renewed funding for the marine sanctuary program represent important first steps in the effort to better designate and manage MPAs. If the federal government continues to prioritize the sanctuary program, and amends the NMSA in the few key ways discussed above, it will be possible to create and effectively protect an enviable system of United States marine sanctuaries.


(Snip)


http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=elq

[jigfreak]

Thanks for the info.

[ledhead36]

Great job on keeping us informed. One of the places I fish waaaaaay in the back is closed off. They say environmentally fragile on the signs but it is just mud and rocks. No heavy metals, no poison, no nothing. Some tree hugger decided to put a fence there and if you get caught trespassing you get fined. This could happen at sandy hook if you guys let it. Be vigilant.

[buckethead]

The NMS in the news today.
http://www.app.com/story/news/local/land-environment/2016/04/08/sandy-hook-bay-national-marine-sanctuary/82610356/

[VSdreams]

Dude is a nutty tree hugger if there ever was such a thing as hugging trees.

[captnemo]

Update from the RFA
RFA National Headquarters and the RFA New Jersey Chapter have been working hard to put the sanctuary proposal to a well deserved death.

We have had high level meetings with elected officials and have not found one who supports the sanctuary proposal. We are rolling out a process to obtain resolutions in opposition to the sanctuary designation from the 17 municipalities affected, as well as Monmouth County.

Two local municipalities have recently been accused of contributing to polluted water. Our Executive Director, Jim Donofrio, has met with a local environmental organization to partner with them and address those concerns. After all, we do want clean water.

The NJ Chapter board members are volunteers. But National HQ has full-time paid employees. The RFA needs your financial support. If you are not an RFA member, please go to the RFA website and join - JoinRFA.org. If you are already a member, get your buddies to join. And member or not, sign up for the cod trip April 30th. You can find that on this board.

The individual proposing the sanctuary has an October target date for filing with the Federal Government. We need to stop it before then.

Jim Krauss
RFA NJ Chapter Chair
jkrfanj@gmail.com

[buckethead]

Good news thanks. We really need all the fishermen PACS to get behind this. All the fishing clubs should come out with a support statement too.

[buckethead]

I think we are finally going to be able to put this to bed. This nutcase guy Van Hemmen is backing down.
The Two River Times | Marine Sanctuary Proposal Quietly Recedes
http://tworivertimes.com/marine-sanctuary-proposal-quietly-recedes/

[basshunter]

I went to that meeting. He seemed like a self-righteous, sanctimonious kook. scary to think that could have happened though.

[7deadlyplugs]

Great news, I couldn't go but read about it. You can't give people like that an inch because they will dig in and take everything.