Weber’s Inn,
3050 Jackson Road, Ann Arbor, MI
734-769-2500
1,2 February 2001
Attendees: Members Mike Costello (OHDNR), Acting Chair Bill Culligan (NYDEC), Ken Cullis (OMNR), Tom Gorenflo (CORA), Steve Hewett (WDNR), Neil Kmiecik (GLIFWC), Dave McLeish (OMNR), Phil Ryan (OMNR), Steve Scott (MDNR), Gary Towns (MDNR), Tom Trudeau (ILDNR), Jack Wingate (MnDNR)
Others – Bob Adair (USFWS), Jack Bails (PSC), Jim Bence (MSU), Pat Bronkowski (GLFC), Gavin Christie (OMNR), Marg Dochoda (GLFC), Randy Eshenroder (GLFC), Kofi Fynn-Aikins (USFWS), John Gannon (USGS), Tracy Hill (USFWS), Mark Holey (USFWS), Chuck Krueger (GLFC), Jerry McClain (USFWS), Nancy Milton (USGS), Tom Nalepa (NOAA), Larry Schleen (DFO), Gary Whelan (MDNR)
1. Announcements, introductions
Acting Chairman Bill Culligan (NYDEC) called the meeting to order, inviting all present to introduce themselves. A presentation by Tom Nalepa (NOAA) on the
status of Diporiea was added to item 4.
2. GLFC’s method for allocating sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes (attachment)
Gavin Christie (GLFC) explained the GLFC’s method for allocating sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. In the ensuing discussion CLC members noted that
available funds and cost/sea lamprey drive decision-making rather than fish community objectives and value of fish for which there is inadequate data. As a result
there are apparent interlake anomalies in treatment effort such as: Lake Huron has more sea lamprey than Lake Michigan, but Lake Huron receives less treatment –
in part because less TFM is required to treat Lake Huron’s soft waters. CLC members noted the tradeoff questions between, for example, lake trout and lake
sturgeon rehabilitation, assessment and control, and whether to treat sturgeon once at higher TFM concentration or twice at lower levels.
3. Sport harvest (attachments)
Lake Superior – LSC Chairman Steve Scott (MDNR) reported that the central portion of Michigan waters of Lake Superior has creel census. Minnesota surveys
its entire north shore for steelhead harvest in spring, summer boat creel, winter creel every three years, and Chinook in fall, according to Jack Wingate
(MnDNR). Steve Hewett (WDNR) reported Wisconsin’s annual prediction of catch and harvest for lake trout and salmonids, walleye and bass (Chequemagon).
Lake Michigan – LMC Chair Tom Trudeau (ILDNR) reported that all four states have creel censuses, although Michigan’s does not survey tributaries. In 1985 a
task force including Jim Bence (MSU) developed a standardized approach for creel census.
Lake Huron –David McLeish(OMNR) reported that Ontario's creel strategy for North Channel and Georgian Bay includes port creels, aerial boat count, and
monitoring of derbies. Michigan has a number of index ports and has added 6 creel clerks for 2000 and 2001 in association with the 1836 treaty area negotiations.
Michigan will continue to survey index ports and possibly to survey from the air.
Lake Erie – LEC Chair Bill Culligan (NYDEC) reported that all 5 agencies conduct creel censuses, mainly on walleye and yellow perch, and contribute to
interagency databases and reports. State surveys are conducted annually.. Various methods are used. More information is needed for Detroit River and Lake St.
Clair, NY steelhead tributaries, and the upper Niagara River. Creel results are included with commercial harvest measures in catch-age models to estimate
abundance.
Lake Ontario – Bill Culligan (NYDEC) reported that the offshore fishery is comprehensively surveyed but that more attention is needed for shore, tributaries, lower
Niagara River, and St. Lawrence River.
b. Presentation on possible approaches and opportunities for standardization, aggregation of currently available creel census info (attachment)
Jim Bence (MSU) discussed possible approaches and opportunities for standardization, aggregation of currently available creel census info, recommending the
following goals:
1. enumerate total
harvest/catch and effort
2. targeted harvest / catch and effort
3. monthly and statistical district resolution
(even in winter)
4. work toward more complete coverage and less
extrapolation
5. document quality of estimates
6. consistency when possible
7. work toward age and length in database.
With regard to process he recommended
1. bring
together analysts and creel survey managers
2. document
3. establish common goals
4. recommend changes
5. take ‘little bites’ and stay in for the
long haul
6. don’t count on ‘silver bullets’
7. invest in data management
c. Discussion: New cost-effective approaches are needed to provide information on sport harvest in a comprehensive, standard fashion, e.g., mid-dayflyovers in coordination with DFO and USFWS hunting and fishing surveys.
Acknowledging that the above approach is time-consuming, Bence stated that it would give results in 3-5 years with limited resources. He thought that annual
reports are needed in the Great Lakes, not the in-season info neded for management of the Chesapeake striped bass fishery.
Action: LMC Chair Tom Trudeau will provide a copy of the 1985 LMC report on lakewide creel efforts to Marg Dochoda who will forward to CLC
members.
4. Food web issues
Tom Nalepa (NOAA) reported on the decline of Diporeia in Lake Michigan, although there have been some local improvements in 2000 in upwelling areas where
zebra mussels are present. (Muskegon populations also exhibited a partial recovery before collapsing.) Sculpins are now rare in the St. Joseph area where
Diporeia disappeared. NOAA scientists are examining dated sediment cores and a microlayer of anoxia in areas colonized by zebra mussels: Diporeia appear to
avoid sediments from areas where the species has disappeared. Diporeia disappeared most rapidly where there is most sedimentation, so it seemed that zebra
mussels were ‘adding something’ to the water. Disappearance is unrelated to distance from a tributary. Some Diporeia exhibited fat masses four months before
disappearing. There are no causal patterns suggesting pathogens. Sediments are not laden with toxics. Microsystis toxins are being investigated. Diporeia
appeared to be declining before Echinogammarus arrived. The disappearance did not seem to be part of some natural pattern of fluctuation. (Unfortunately,
Nalepa did not think Echinogammarus could fill the Diporiea niche since the former is more associated with zebra mussels and is not as high in lipids as Diporeia.)
He is looking at pathogens, food quality, and fat tumor. Because declines in 3 lakes are correlated with the arrival of zebra and quagga mussel arrival, his hypotheses
all implicate dreissenid mussels.
a. Findings of BOTE white paper on exotics’ impacts (attachment)
Randy Eshenroder (GLFC) explained the BOTE task area on exotics’ impacts. A product will be a research prospectus and prospective funding partners are being
approached with hope that they will seek to fund research priorities identified in the prospectus. Eshenroder explained that the impacts of existing invaders can be
used to predict effect of future invaders inhabiting similar niches.
b. LEC’s percid management strategy
Phil Ryan (OMNR) described Lake Erie’s percid management strategy in support of rehabilitation of Lake Erie perch and walleye.
c. Discussion: Opportunities and needs in restructuring fish communities.
David McLeish (OMNR) reported that he was proposing to the LHC a whitefish (possibly coregonid) workshop to examine declines in growth and fecundity and
how they relate to production, perhaps in late 2001 or early 2002. Tom Nalepa had suggested that the whitefish workshop be held in conjunction with a Diporeia
workshop also being planned.
CLC members were supportive of such a workshop, especially if it included other coregonids such as deepwater ciscoes and food web interactions with such
species as Diporeia and Mysis. It is important for fish and lower trophic biologists to work together.
5. Preventing aquaculture invasions
5.a. Feedback on environmental assessment tool, including Midwest F&W symposium ‘Environmental Strategies for Aquaculture
(attachment)
Jack Wingate (GLFC) reported that MN would utilize the environmental assessment tool statewide, not just in the Great Lakes, since the same principles apply.
Bill Horns (WDNR) provided a copy to CLC of his draft paper from the Midwest Symposium, asking if the CLC were comfortable with his efforts on their behalf.
(Illinois comment received just after the meeting is attached.)
5.b. Presentation on managing the aquaculture vector (attachment)
Marg Dochoda (GLFC) provided some thoughts on strategies to minimize invasions from aquaculture activities in Great Lakes (including baitfish) and connected
ecosystems. Her intent was to provoke discussion and she was not looking for action at this time.
5.c. Discussion.
While some Governors wish to support small business, it is the CLC’s responsibility to identify issues and advocate measures that protect Great Lakes fisheries. The
CLC could 1. work with the Great Lakes Commission or Council of Great Lakes Governors; 2. it could invite Agriculture to sign on to an annex to SGLFMP
(option dismissed as inappropriate to include agencies not primarily focused on welfare of the resource), or 3. it could provide guidance as with the environmental
assessment tool and fish disease model program.
The Fish Health Committee has invited to their meetings aquaculture regulators from agriculture departments of WI, MI, and PA, but could not invite them to full
membership as agriculture departments are not signatory to SGLFMP. This year ag departments declined the invitation in favor of their own meetings.
Action – The CLC thanked Bill Horns for drafting the aquaculture paper on its behalf. Members liked the tone of the working draft, and welcomed the
opportunity to review and help with future drafts.
6. Water levels
a. Agency experiences and positions on water levels (attachment)
Lake Ontario – Bill Culligan (NYDEC) reported that Lake Ontario was not so low in 2000.
Lake Erie – Erie waters were lower and NY, which had few dredging inquiries, handled them on an individual basis. Mike Costello (OhDNR) reported many
private requests for dredging etc.. Ohio established a task force on low water levels, and was waiting to see if levels came up in 2001. In Ontario there had been
lots more dredging, an activity now regulated by Fisheries and Oceans.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Larry Schleen (DFO) reported that DFO had developed an operational statement to expedite commercial dredging, including an
emergency cost to help with costs. A new statement is being developed for 2001.
Michigan waters of the Great Lakes -- Gary Towns (MDNR) distributed ‘Dredging guidelines for Michigan waters of the Upper Great Lakes’ which had proven
helpful in dealing with the many dredging requests received in 2000. Steve Scott added that Michigan tried to hold the line on new dredging permits, and that low
levels are expected again in 2001 for Lakes Huron and Michigan.
Lake Huron – Dave McLeish (OMNR) reported lots of dredging activity on Lake Huron, including a citizen concern that control structure was planned for the St.
Clair River. Lake Huron - Dave McLeish (OMNR) reported lots of dredging activity on Lake Huron. , including a citizen concerned that a controlstructure was
planned for the St. Clair River.
Lake Michigan – Steve Hewett (WDNR) reported many requests to dredge in Green Bay. There were a number of well publicized citations for illegal dredging.
Lake Superior -- Jack Wingate (MnDNR) reported that Minnesota did not experience much difference in the number of dredging permit requests in 2000.
b. Discussion: Water levels issues in 2000, preparing for 2001 (attachment)
Disposal of dredge materials – John Gannon (USGS) suggested that mapping of substrates would assist with permits in future. In NY dredge disposal is taking
place offshore with sands deposited onshore for ‘beach enrichment’. In MN and MI dredge materials are deposited onshore, at least in part because of
contaminants concerns.
Michigan’s dredging guidelines helped head off political action in 2000, but if low water conditions continue there could yet be legislation in 2001.
In Phil Ryan’s opinion, policy was needed calling for consideration of overall impacts of these many local decisions. Also, soft engineering of shorelines was needed
to accommodate the shifts in water levels. (GLFC has water levels and habitat policies. Also there is link to a soft engineering report, including HAB’s Incidental
Habitat and Access Workshop at http://www.glfc.org.)
Margaret Dochoda (GLFC) suggested that navigation and landowners’ interests might be in conflict with fisheries in connecting channels if low levels persist. In
order to maintain levels, flows and levels in connecting channels might be engineered; certainly Niagara Falls and the St. Marys Rapids can already be controlled.
The Secretariat has prompted a proposal on probable impacts on fish communities and productivity with such a scenario. Such information could be used to inform
water diversion & consumption initiatives of the Great Lakes Commission, International Joint Commission, and Council of Great Lakes Governors (Annex 2001).
Gary Towns (MDNR) and Larry Schleen (DFO) introduced the question of how to deal with landowners’ management of vegetation uncovered by low water levels
– cutting, mowing, and even spraying of pesticides. (Yellow perch eggs are wound around cattails.) CLC thought there was a common need to educate landowners
on ecology and appropriate management of changing water levels. Marg Dochoda (GLFC) suggested that CLC might want to consider proposing a Restoration
Act or Coordination Activities educational initiative such as the GLFC was now developing for sea lamprey – an educational, interactive CD on water levels that
each agency could use with its landowners. CLC members would need to supply photos and work on common messages.
Phil Ryan (OMNR) suggested that to foster research on water levels and implications, a statement is needed similar to that being developed by the Council of GL
Fishery Agencies for ballast.
Action—CLC requested an opportunity to view GLFC CD on sea lamprey.
7. GLU resolution to restore native fish to the Great Lakes (attachment)
Bill Culligan conveyed Bob Lange’s (NYDEC) proposal that the CLC respond to the GLU letter and resolution on restoring native fish to the Great Lakes. The
CLC viewed a response as an opportunity to encourage diverse input to fish community objectives and to mutual education of the various interest groups and
stakeholders. Dave McLeish (OMNR) drafted a response for CLC consideration.
Action – By 1 March CLC members will send comments on the draft reply to GLU to Marg Dochoda who will revise accordingly for signature by CLC
Vice Chairman / Acting Chairman Bob Lange.
8. Draft CGLFA position on ballast (attachments)
Marg Dochoda (GLFC) reviewed the Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies’ discussion draft of points to make when advocating or responding to proposals for
ballast management, which the CLC supported in principle.
The CLC also discussed Bill Horns’ proposal that WDNR advocate for a formal U.S. Canadian Great Lakes Ballast Commission. While not completely ruled out,
it did seem unlikely that the two countries would give the IJC a substantive reference on ballast. The GLC is a creature of the U.S., although there are Canadian
participants and it serves the U.S. Great Lakes ANS Panel. The GLFC could extend its ‘study and advise’ mandate to ballast, if so instructed by the two countries
(perhaps through exchange of diplomatic notes). Adding a ‘minimize and eradicate’ operational duty for ballast would, however, require an addendum to the
Convention.
Action – 1. The CLC supports in principle the draft CLGLFA reference points on ballast, and will forward individual comments to Marg Dochoda and
thus to CGLFA Ballast work Group. 2. Likewise CLC members will send comments to Bill Horns on his proposed Great Lakes Ballast Commission.
9. Cormorant Issues
Bill Culligan conveyed a query from Bob Lange (NYDEC) whether CLC wished to take a position on the USFWS environmental impact statement on cormorants.
Michigan and Ontario are developing positions and might not be able to sign onto a CLC position at this time. CLC has a 5-year plan to test control methods and
assess impacts; means of control not yet decided. While concerns remain there do not appear to be predation impacts on bass in Lake Manitou. Michigan is
concerned for inland lakes such as Lake Cheneaux as there are no species like gizzard shad to buffer impacts, according to Steve Scott (MDNR).
Bill Culligan reported that NY is oiling eggs, rducing some Lake Ontario populations by 90%. (Smallmouth bass are a small component of cormorant diet, but still
impacted.) In Lake Oneida, managers harass cormorants to protect perch and walleye.
Bob Adair (USFWS) reported that the draft cormorant EIS had been transferred from regional to Washington office of the USFWS, and would be available for
comment sometime in the spring.
Action – Bob Adair (USFWS) will advise in April on opportunities to comment on the USFWS cormorant environmental impact statement.
10. Other business
a. Wild fish health
Deferred pending GL Fish Health Committee March 20001 workshop.
b. Habitat Committee update (attachment)
Marg Dochoda (GLFC) reported on the status of the new Great Lakes Fish Habitat Conservation Committee, urging CLC members to participate in organizational
meetings, and to take advantage of opportunities to work with habitat Committee to secure needed help in delivering environmental objectives.
CLC members hoped HabCom could develop issue or background papers, e.g., help address water level questions. They also noted that Nancy Auer (Michigan
Technological University) is working on sturgeon habitat and Casey Huckins, a PhD candidate at Michigan Technological University, is documenting habitat needs of
coaster brook trout.
c. Minutes production (attachment)
Gavin Christie (GLFC) conveyed a proposal from the administrative staff of the GLFC that Lake Committees endeavour to provide minutes within 90 days of a
meeting and they would compile and distribute 90 days later.
Lake Committee members found producing minutes burdensome and asked if help could be made available. Randy Eshenroder noted that today’s Power Point
presentations, while high quality, too often do not provide enough information. Minutes and attached reports continue to be valuable references (Eshenroder, Bence,
LC members, Dochoda).
Action -- The CLC approved the following approach for the 2001 meetings. 1. Before meetings, lake committee chairs will request that presenters
provide reports, or at least speaking notes for Power Point presentations. 2. Executive summaries prepared for the CLC and GLFC by Marg Dochoda
will be substituted for minutes. If Marg is not available, a Lake Committee Chairman will arrange for a summary to be written. 3. The Chairman will
ensure that a complete set of reports is provided to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will attempt to collect a complete set of reports as well. 4. The
Secretariat will publish and distribute executive summary and reports within 180 days of the meeting.
d. Partnership funding for the RV Sturgeon (attachment)
John Gannon (USGS) alerted CLC members to a letter he would be sending to fish chiefs and tribes for input. It is a draft response to an Interior Appropriations
Committee query whether ‘partners’ are willing to assume operational costs for the RV Sturgeon. The CLC regarded the response as an opportunity to educate on
USGS and other agencies’ respective and complementary contributions, e.g., RV Steelhead assumption of Sturgeon assessment while Sturgeon down, stocking,
assessment, analysis of data. The CLC could thank Congress for monies to retrofit Sturgeon, and cite the Peck-Schneider study as evidence of their own short
funds for vessel support.
Bob Adair (USFWS) marveled at the request for operational support. Traditionally it has been difficult for states to give monies for federal work – the state must
write letter specifically asking for a work to be done, asserting that the state cannot do the needed task.
Action – CLC members recommended that John Gannon call only Indiana DNR re the letter, as IN had no representatives at this meeting. Other agency
reps now knew background and could brief their respective fish chiefs when the letter arrived.
11. Restoration Act and Coordination Activities Program, 2001
a. 2001 funding
Bob Adair (USFWS) reported that Congress had made available $398,000 and the USFWS had contributed $75,000 from its base for Restoration Act grants in
2001.
Marg Dochoda (GLFC) reported that in 2001 $300,000 was available for Coordination Activities, $200,000 from the Sportfish Restoration Act and $100,000
from the GLFC’s own budget (previously $40,000). In response to Steve Scott (MDNR), she replied that the $200,000 will be available annually and that the
Commission will likely make available through CAP as long as good proposals sre forthcoming. The $100,000 is subject to vagaries of GLFC budgets, receipt of
good proposals, and other program needs such as sea lamprey control.
b. Brainstorm CLC information and program needs, plans to encourage 2001 proposals (attachment)
The CLC could sponsor or encourage proposals, e.g., educational outreach on changing water levels.
c. Restoration Act RFP (attachments)
Jack Wingate (MnDNR) reviewed the Restoration Act RFP for 2001, and suggested that PIs work with Lake Committees in developing their proposals. He asked
CLC approval for selection criteria used by the Review Committee. He asked that proposals be supplied to LCs ASAP after the 1 March due date and that LCs
report to the Review Committee on preferences by 1 April. Jack Bails (PSC) suggested posting proposals for review on a webpage with a password, rather than
distributing the ‘mother of all e-mails’.
Action – 1. The CLC approved the selection criteria as guidelines for Review Committee recommendations. 2. Marg Dochoda will distribute the
proposals to LCs, with copy to Jack Bails for coordination with Great Lakes Fishery Trust, as soon as possible after 1 March due date, hopefully on
secure web page. 3. LCs will identify their priorities by 1 April to Marg Dochoda and Jack Wingate.
d. Coordination Activities Program RFP (attachment)
e. Administration issues (attachment)
Bob Adair recommended that in Restoration Act reauthorization two years hence it will be important to show good use of grant monies and the information thus
secured. There is a little carryover, and some uncertainty as administrations change whether there will be allowance for some carryover in future. There was some
delay in release of funds – up to 30 September for USFWS and longer when the GLFC helped with subsequent administration of certain projects. He noted that
USFWS can’t charge overhead under the legislation, but others can. (Review Committee is reluctant to recommend proposals with more than 5% overhead. The
GLFC does not charge overhead for its assistance in administering certain proposals.) He requested that 2001 proposals detail matching funds and the study
recommendation being addressed. He would bring an administrative person to the April meeting.
Marg Dochoda (GLFC) advised that 2/3of the Coordination Activities program came with a U.S.-only constraint. The GLFC would track that internally but CLC
members would want to keep constraint in mind when formulating proposals. GLFC is asking for letters from the chairmen of sponsoring committees, and that the
chairmen be sure to seek concurrence of fellow members. Because the Secretariat is administering the CAP program (and certain Restoration Act contracts) at no
charge and with no addional staff, we ask for consideration in contracting (e.g., one contract per proposal if at all possible, careful documentation of deliverables.)
Also, because committees sponsor proposals there was some misunderstanding re the GLFC role: while we want committee approval of research completion
reports, final payment requires GLFC approval. In a few years, it would be useful for the committees to document project contributions to realization of fish
community objectives.
12. Sturgeon rehabilitation
a. Presentation on Great Lakes Fishery Trust’s June workshop on information needs (attachments)
Jack Bails (PSC) described the Great Lakes Fishery Trust (http://www.glft.org), a settlement with many litigants, for fish entrained and destroyed in the Ludington
Pump Storage Facility. He explained the Lake Michigan bias in terms of the damage incurred by that lake, stating that projects outside Lake Michigan needed
support of a super-majority as well as some applicability to Lake Michigan. Monies would be spent by the end of the FERC licence in 2019, in order to
demonstrate that money had been used to mitigate during period of licence.
Mark Holey (USFWS) referred CLC to a full report on research and assessment needs to restore lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes (www.glft.org/new_info.html).
The report addresses four major impediments to effective rehabilitation of sturgeon in the Great Lakes: 1. lack of information on status and distribution of sturgeon
populations in the entire Great Lakes, 2. lack of understanding re habitat constrainyts on the life cycle of sturgeon populations and re the role of habitat regulation of
sturgeon population structure, 3. need to to develop adequate fish passage technologies for lake sturgeon for areas where dams form barriers to upstream and
downstream movement and where removal is unlikely, and 4. lack of cost-effective artificial propagation techniques and associated strategies to use stocking to
mitigate or accelerate recovery of sturgeon populations. Holey explained to Steve Scott that connecting channel populations were not a high priority at this time
because they are not thought to particularly benefit Lake Michigan. Jack Wingate (MNDNR) suggested that the Trust and Restoration Act Review Committee
might strategize re proposals to be funded and possibly share peer reviewers. (Jack Bails will be included on the 1 March distribution of Restoration Act proposals
for review.)
b. Presentation on USFWS initiatives (attachment)
Tracy Hill (USFWS) described activities of Fishery Resource Offices in support of lake sturgeon. In response to Steve Scott he explained that the Alpena office
coordinates tag collections and the database.
Gary Towns (MDNR), noting that Lake St. Clair regulations are very different, asked if regulations are documented and was told no, although Bob Adair
(USFWS) reported that such an assessment is part of the status assessment in an EIS for endangered species. Phil Ryan (OMNR) quoted fish community
objectives that favored preservation of rare and endangered species over anything else, and thus would support reduction of exploitation.
Jack Wingate (MnDNR) reported that Minnesota and Ontario are working on Hudson Bay drainage population of sturgeon, which supports subsistence and sport
fisheries.
Jack Wingate thought basinwide assessment such as that of the USFWS might be very beneficial in evaluating sturgeon proposals.
c. Presentation on Michigan DNR rehabilitation plan, the pattern for LHC’s plan (attachment)
Gary Whelan (MDNR) reported on MDNR’s 1997 lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan which is on the web at http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/www/ifr/ifrlibra/special.htm
He mentioned the need for more information on YOY and juvenile habitat needs, which is also a focus of the Great Lakes Fish Habitat Conservation Committee.
d. Wisconsin’s Sturgeon Intitiatives
Asked why WI never listed sturgeon, Steve Hewett (WDNR) reported that there is a very healthy population in the Winnebago System, which includes Lake
Winnebago, the Wolf and Fox Rivers, and a couple of other upriver lakes...
Wisconsin Sturgeon Management Plan can be found at:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/sturgeon/index.htm
Steve Hewett (WDNR) reported that “Our sturgeon management plan has been provided to the Natural Resources Board and we are working to implement many
of the recommendations.”
For many years, Wisconsin has had a prohibition on the raising or culturing of lake sturgeon by private aquaculture. The management plan calls for some
coordination with the aquaculture industry on finding a role for them within the raising of sturgeon for restoration projects. Wisconsin DATCP report on sturgeon
regulatory options for aquaculture: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/sturgeon/index.htm This report suggests a number of options for creating
opportunities for the private aquaculture industry to raise sturgeon for profit...
The 4th International Symposium on Sturgeon will be in Oshkosh Wisconsin from July 8-13, 2001. Information is on the web
at www.sturgeonsymposium.org.
e. Discussion: CLC agencies need common basis for approaching sturgeon rehabilitation issues (attachment)
Gary Towns hoped the agencies could work toward a common basis for sturgeon rehabilitation, such as quotas based on abundance. David McLeish (OMNR)
reported that Ontario's quotas were based on past performance and that there have been no changes since the fishery was modernized in the mid-1980s. The recent
tagging studies will provide an opportunity to see quotas based on population numbers. .McLeish welcomed the opportunity to review the Michigan plan for possible
adoption in Ontario.
Chuck Krueger (GLFC) reminded participants that they may have to address tradeoffs between sturgeon and beneficiaries of sea lamprey control (which relies
primarily.on TFM and barriers.)
Gary Towns urged people who needed a copy of the sturgeon videotape to contact him.
13. Summary of CLC actions
CLC-01-02-3. Creel surveys: LMC Chair Tom Trudeau will provide a copy of the 1985 LMC report on lakewide creel efforts to Marg Dochoda who will
forward to CLC members.
CLC-01-02-5. Aquaculture vector: The CLC thanked Bill Horns for drafting the aquaculture paper on its behalf. Members liked the tone of the working
draft, and welcomed the opportunity to review and help with future drafts.
CLC-01-02-6. Water levels: CLC requested an opportunity to view GLFC CD on sea lamprey.
CLC-01-02-7. GLU resolution & letter: By 1 March CLC members will send comments on the draft reply to GLU to Marg Dochoda who will revise
accordingly for signature by CLC Vice Chairman / Acting Chairman Bob Lange.
CLC-01-02-8. Ballast vector: 1. The CLC supports in principle the draft CLGLFA reference points on ballast, and will forward individual comments to
Marg Dochoda and thus to CGLFA Ballast work Group. 2. Likewise CLC members will send comments to Bill Horns on his proposed Great Lakes
Ballast Commission.
CLC-01-02-9. Cormorants: Bob Adair (USFWS) will advise in April on opportunities to comment on the USFWS cormorant environmental impact
statement.
CLC-01-02-10.c. Minutes production: The CLC approved the following approach for the 2001 meetings. 1. Before meetings, lake committee chairs will
request that presenters provide reports, or at least speaking notes for Power Point presentations. 2. Executive summaries prepared for the CLC and
GLFC by Marg Dochoda will be substituted for minutes. If Marg is not available, a Lake Committee Chairman will arrange for a summary to be
written. 3. The Chairman will ensure that a complete set of reports is provided to the Secretariat. 4. The Secretariat will publish and distribute executive
summary and reports within 180 days of the meeting.
CLC-01-02-10.d. RV Sturgeon: – CLC members recommended that John Gannon call only Indiana DNR re the letter, as IN had no representatives at
this meeting. Other agency reps now knew background and could brief their respective fish chiefs when the letter arrived.
CLC-01-02-11.d. Restoration Act. 1. The CLC approved the selection criteria as guidelines for Review Committee recommendations. 2. Marg Dochoda
will distribute the proposals to LCs, with copy to Jack Bails for coordination with Great Lakes Fishery Trust, as soon as possible after 1 March due date,
hopefully on secure web page. 3. LCs will identify their priorities by 1 April.