ALERT: Sandy Hook Bay National Marine Sanctuary

[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/arti...al-use-permits


http://policy.oceanleadership.org/no...l-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.

[hookset]

Looks like you were pretty accurate. This was posted earlier in the red bank green.
http://www.redbankgr...ctuary-blasted/

[DarkSkies]

Yes I did make it to the meeting.
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.

Also good to see so many site members there.

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.







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?










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.
Thanks for reading.

[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.
Thanks for reading.

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]

**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.

[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-n...ail_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!

"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.