 |
BULLETIN |
|
15 April 1999
|
Volume VIII, No. 3
|
|
BULLETIN |
|
15 April 1999
|
Volume VIII, No. 3
|
Provisions. This bill requires certain marinas to install sewage pumpout facilities and authorizes DEC to prepare public educational materials describing the benefits of using pumpout stations, as well as their locations in the Marine and Coastal District. It authorizes the Department to make grants to marinas and towns to install pumpouts.
Discussion. This bill was supported by the Council during the previous legislative session.
Action. By acclamation, the Council reaffirmed its support for this bill.
Provisions. This bill extends DEC’s current regulatory authority to manage scup (porgy) and black sea bass through 31 December 2001.
Discussion. The Council had earlier supported DEC Program Bill DEC 22R-99, which provided for an extension of current DEC regulatory authority over all marine finfish species for which it presently has such authority (including scup and black sea bass) through 31 December 2003.
Action. By acclamation, the Council opposed A1141, as written, and recommends to the sponsors that regulatory authority for these two species be extended through 31 December 2003.
Provisions. This bill prohibits DEC from approving/implementing any fishery management plan or regulation that allows for the transfer of a marine fishery-related license.
Discussion. The final DEC proposal for the ocean surf clam management plan does not allow the transfer of licenses. State law currently allows the transfer of commercial foodfish, lobster, and crab licenses between immediate family members. The prohibition in this bill is absolute and is inconsistent with this provision of law. The Council opposed earlier proposals for management of the state’s ocean surf clam resource because they contained transferable ITQ’s (Individual Transferable Quotas). Some provision for license transferability (such as to immediate family members) is desirable. This should be communicated to the sponsor.
Action. The Council adopted a motion opposing A.1142, 13 in favor; 0 opposed; and 0 abstentions. The Council would welcome an opportunity to review an amended version of the bill that allows at least the transfers presently allowed in the Environmental Conservation Law for commercial foodfish, lobster, and crab licenses.
Provisions. Directs DEC to conduct a study of the materials used in commercial fishing nets used in state waters, including the problem of lost nets and the levels of fish mortality they cause, and alternative net materials that might reduce inadvertent fish mortality from lost nets, including biodegradable net materials. It also establishes a minimum mesh size for gill and trammel nets used in New York’s Marine and Coastal District of 4.5" stretched mesh, except for gill nets set by commercial lobster fishermen in Long Island Sound to catch menhaden for use as lobster bait.
Discussion. The problem of lost or "ghost" gill nets in New York’s marine waters is the subject of much speculation but little information and this bill is precipitous in increasing the minimum mesh of gill and trammel nets used in non-directed fisheries to 4.5". When detached from their anchors, gill nets typically foul rapidly with seaweed and other growth and sink in a pile to the bottom, where they do not readily catch fish. There is no funding provided by this bill for the DEC study of net materials. The Council is already conducting a comprehensive assessment of the by-catch problem in New York’s marine fisheries. The sponsor should await the completion of the study report and its recommendations before moving forward with proposals for greater restrictions on gill netting.
Action. The Council adopted a motion to oppose A.1143. The vote was 11 in favor; 0 opposed; 3 abstaining.
Provisions. Prohibits DEC from granting an applicant a tidal wetland permit if the activity so permitted adversely affects public access to or use of lands for the use for which they were intended. It also provides for a revocation of a permit if such an adverse impact occurs.
Discussion. Providing public access to public lands in the coastal region should be a high priority for New York State. The Council supported this bill in the previous legislative session.
Action. By acclamation, the Council moved to reiterate its support for this legislation.
Provisions. This bill would prohibit the disposal in the waters of the Marine and Coastal District of any dredged material containing toxic pollutants as defined in Section 17-0501 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
Discussion. It is appropriate to ban the disposal of contaminated dredged material into New York State’s marine waters. Section 17-0501 of the Environmental Conservation Law does not define what substances are "toxic pollutants." Virtually all dredged material contains substances (heavy metals, pesticides, insecticides, industrial pollutants) that might be termed "toxic pollutants." Banning all material that has any amount of these substances, even in minute concentrations, is not necessary and would likely interfere with relatively innocuous practices, such as the use of sand dredged from offshore waters to replenish eroded beaches. The language of this bill is too general and should be tightened up to give a clearer explication of the specific toxic substances that are to be prohibited and/or their maximum allowable concentrations in the material to be disposed. The objective of the bill sponsors is laudable, but better bill crafting is needed.
Action. By a vote of 12 in favor, 2 opposed, 0 abstentions, the Council adopted a motion to oppose A.2033. The Council encourages the bill’s sponsors to revise the bill as outlined in the above discussion.
Provisions. Prohibits the sale and use of lead split-shot sinkers in New York State.
Discussion. Split-shot sinkers are not a problem in the Marine and Coastal District in terms of their consumption by birds. Fish physiology differs from that of warm-blooded birds, and there is no evidence that consumption of split-shot sinkers is causing a problem in marine finfish. This ban might be extended to larger lead sinkers and/or lead-headed fishing jigs, which would seriously interfere with marine recreational fishing. Lead cannot be used as a bottom covering for vessels anymore. The definition of "split-shot sinker" is open to wide interpretation.
Action. By a vote of 11 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstention, the Council adopted a motion opposing A.2952.
Provisions. This bill clarifies that the term "shark" in the Environmental Conservation Law would include chimaeras, rays, and all sharks including smooth and spiny dogfish.
Discussion. This bill was introduced last year to address the problem of the "finning" of smooth and spiny dogfish, i.e., the removal of just the fins from these species and the return of the fish to the water. However, by defining rays, skates, and chimaeras as sharks, this bill would prohibit a number of widespread and currently acceptable fishing practices, especially the use of the fins of certain skates. The fins are the only part of skates that are eaten. The Council took no action on this bill last year, advising the sponsor on how to revise the language of the bill to more properly address the problem. Earlier in this meeting, the Council voted its approval of DEC Program Bill 27-99, which would provide DEC with regulatory authority over sharks. The problems addressed by A.3539 would fall within the regulatory purview of the Department if the provisions of 27-99 are signed into law.
Action. The Council took no position on A.3539.
Provisions. Restricts the taking and possession of fish from the waters of the state’s Marine and Coastal District to those possessing a commercial foodfish license. Raises the fines levied against those convicted of illegal harvesting/possession of marine finfish.
Discussion. This bill was before the Legislature in the previous session, at which time the Council strongly opposed it. On the face of it, the bill would eliminate marine recreational fishing in New York. Assuming that such a sweeping measure is not the sponsor’s intent, the Council Chairman has been in touch with the sponsor’s office trying to clarify the exact intent, thus far with no success. The Council supports increasing fees for violations of marine fishery regulations and laws.
Action. By acclamation, the Council moved to retain its opposition to this bill, as it is presently worded. The Council Chairman will continue to work with the sponsor’s office to clarify the basic purpose of this bill and to suggest wording that would better effect that purpose.
Provisions. This bill removes from the Environmental Conservation Law mandatory language requiring the revocation of commercial shellfish and lobster licenses for violations of a serious nature and provides for hearings on such permit revocation before an administrative law judge. It retains mandatory revocation of licenses for violations affecting public health and safety.
Discussion. This is not the time to weaken the measures enforcing New York’s marine fishery laws and regulations nor to relax the penalties for violating them. This discussion should be tabled until the Council has a better sense of which violations would no longer trigger a mandatory license violation. This bill is a step in the wrong direction.
Action. The Council adopted a motion opposing A.4792. The vote was 9 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention.
Provisions. Expands the area of eastern Long Island Sound in which commercial trawls cannot be used, defined as the "essential fish habitat zone".
Discussion. A similar bill discussed by the Council during the prior legislative session was not commented upon by the Council because the objectives of the bill at that time were not clear. The present bill’s reference to an essential fish habitat protection zone does not describe an area that has been officially or uniquely designated as such by the DEC or any other state agency. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has revised all regional fishery management plans to identify essential fish habitat for each species covered by these plans. It is likely that most of New York’s Marine and Coastal District (and probably all of state waters in Long Island Sound) have been judged as essential for one or more species. The nearshore waters along the North Shore of Long Island shoreward of the revised trawl exclusion line are probably essential habitat for one or more species, but so, likely, are the waters seaward of this line, for the same or some other species. The New York Sportfishing Federation indicated that the intent of the bill was to prevent habitat destruction by trawls of nearshore areas along the North Shore of Long Island. Excluding trawlers from more extensive areas forces them to concentrate and fish harder in the few remaining areas that are open to them.
Action. The Council voted to table further discussion of A.5090, pending provision of information by the sponsor of the objective of the bill and how the particular redrawing of the trawl exclusion line supports that objective. The vote was 10 in favor, 1 opposed, 0 abstentions.
Provisions. This bill creates a Marine and Coastal District Commercial Bait Dealer’s License ($35 annual fee) and directs DEC to prepare a list of marine species that would be considered bait species, stipulating several species that would be so considered. It sets a 20’ limit on cast nets used to take certain species intended solely for sale as bait and authorizes the DEC to require bait dealers to report catches, fishing effort, etc. It further stipulates conditions under which said license would be revoked after multiple violations of the license requirements.
Discussion. The Council discussed A.6044 and the bait dealers license section of DEC 27-99 (see above) together. The language of the two bills differ considerably in some aspects, although they share the same origin and general purpose. Most marine finfish species are designated in state law as foodfish. Thus, a bait & tackle store operator wishing to catch & sell species of finfish, even solely for use as bait (a fairly common practice), must have a commercial foodfish license. Under the current moratorium on the issuance of commercial foodfish licenses, any such bait & tackle store operator could not get a foodfish license if he/she did not already possess one. The special bait dealers license is designed to address this quandary. DEC 27-99 identifies only menhaden, killifish, and silversides as bait fish under the proposed new license, while A.6044 includes several other species, several of which (e.g., squid, American eel, butterfish, mullet) are also important foodfish. The gear allowable under a bait dealers license should not include gear that requires a commercial foodfish license (i.e., restrict it to small seines, nets, etc.). Bait & tackle operators buying fish species listed in state law as foodfish and then reselling these fish as bait must have a commercial seafood shippers and dealers license. This need would remain regardless of whether A.6044 or DEC 27-99 were enacted. Some bait & tackle operators felt that any bait dealers license should automatically convey a seafood shippers and dealers license. The bait dealers license should be available only to bona fide bait & tackle shop operators, not anybody with the money to buy the license.
Action. The Council voted its support--14 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstaining--for the bait dealers license language contained in DEC 27-99 with the following changes: add American sand lance to the finfish species covered by a bait dealers license and increase the maximum size of seines that can be used with this license to 100’ (total length, including ropes). The Council recommends that the sponsors of A.6044 revise their present bill to be consistent with Section 5 of DEC 27-99, with these two modifications.
Provisions. This bill directs DEC to conduct an educational campaign with anglers on the negative ecological impacts of using lead fishing sinkers. If the campaign fails to reduce the incidence of the use of said sinkers, DEC is authorized and directed to promulgate regulations banning their use, although these regulations would not apply to the waters of New York’s Marine and Coastal District. The bill also makes it illegal to willfully dispose of monofilament fishing line other than in proper receptacles.
Discussion. Lead split-shot sinkers are not widely used in the waters of the state’s Marine and Coastal District. This bill is not really applicable to the Marine and Coastal District; it applies more to freshwater bodies. There is no appropriation of funds associated with the educational program mandated by the bill. DEC’s freshwater fisheries unit is already conducting educational activities on the ingestion by birds of lead split-shot sinkers; it might be possible to fold the mandated study into these on-going efforts. This would appear to apply to any and all sinkers, regardless of size; only very small sinkers pose a threat to wildlife by being ingested by waterbirds.
Action. The Council approved a motion opposing A.6455; the vote was 11 in favor; 0 opposed; 1 abstention.
Provisions. This bill would prohibit the taking of striped bass from the Hudson River for commercial purposes. Fishermen using nets in the Hudson River would be presumed to be taking striped bass except if they were using the following gear: 1) seine nets not more than 30’ long or 4’ deep; 2) lift nets with an area not larger than 16 ft2; 3) bait traps less than 30" long; or 4) angling.
Discussion. In prohibiting much commercial fishing gear from being used in the Hudson River, this legislation would eliminate several commercial fisheries that take few, if any striped bass, either in the directed fishery or as by-catch (e.g., herring scoop net fishery), in addition to the commercial shad fishery. This would disrupt the economy and life-style of fishermen and the riverside communities where they typically live. The bill does not define the Hudson River in geographic terms; thus, its area of application is unclear.
Action. The Council voted (14 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstaining) to take no position on A.7322 and to solicit from the sponsor information on the other fisheries in the Hudson River that might be impacted by this legislation, aside from the shad gill net fishery (what fisheries, # individuals involved, etc.). The need to specify the area of applicability of this legislation (i.e., define the Hudson River) will also be brought to the sponsor’s attention.