COUNCIL OF LAKE COMMITTEES
Detroit Airport Marriott Inn
Romulus, Michigan
19 April 1994
Attendees:
Beecher concluded that the GLFC will need to discuss at its June meeting whether to
permit access to the chemical inventory, equipment, and personnel that the Commission
supports for sea lamprey control and research. Others noted that the USFWS holds TFM
registration and could with adequate funding contain ruffe without GLFC permission.
15.d. Ecosystem Charter
Members -- Chairman Doug Jester (MDNR), Vice Chairman Ron Desjardine (OMNR), Tom Gorenflo
(COTFMA), Bob Lange (OMNR), Neil Kmiecik (GLIFWC), Ken Paxton (ODNR), John Schrouder
(MDNR), Phil Smith (OMNR), Jack Skrypek (MnDNR), Mike Talbot (WDNR), Bob Thomson
(OMNR), John Trimberger (MDNR), Tom Trudeau (IDOC), Bernie Ylkanen (MDNR)
Fish Chiefs -- Mike Conlin (IDOC), Art Holder (OMNR), Gary Isbell (ODNR), Lee Kernen
(WDNR), John Robertson (MDNR), Jack Skrypek (MnDNR)
Others -- Bob Beecher (GLFC), Carol Bohan (USFWS), Dale Burkett (USFWS), Dieter Busch
(USFWS), Tom Busiahn (USFWS), John Christian (USFWS), Bill Culligan (NYDEC), Marg Dochoda
(GLFC), Doug Dodge (HAB/OMNR), Paola Ferrari (MSU), Vic Gillman (DFO), Mike Hansen
(USFWS), Mike Jones (BOTE/OMNR), Roger Kenyon (PFBC), Joe Koonce (HAB/Case Western Reserve
University), Mike Millar (GLFC), Lawrence McClelland (DFO), Jon Stanley (USFWS), Barb
Staples (GLFC)
1. Approval of agenda, 1993 CLC minutes, and 1994 LC executive summaries
The CLC approved the agenda, 1993 CLC minutes, and 1994 Lake Committees' executive
summaries, the latter with a few revisions.
2. GLFC responses to 1993 Lake Committee concerns
Information item.
3. Governors' response to CLC letter on U.S. common contaminant advisory
Doug Dodge (OMNR) will help draft a letter for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman's
signatures to Gail Beggs (OMNR), Cheryl Fraser (DFO), and the Ontario Ministry of Energy
and Environment encouraging Canadian participation in the common contaminant advisory
initiative for the Great Lakes.
4. Pennsylvania legalization of triploid grass carp
Roger Kenyon (PFBC) reported that Pennsylvania legalized triploid grass carp as a
preferred alternative to diploids.
5. Fish community objectives
The CLC recommended to the Committee of the Whole that fish community objectives and
state of the lake reports be revised every five years, perhaps in sync with SOLEC.
The LOC and LEC hope to have fish community objectives by 1995. The LMC and LHC plan
to adopt their draft objectives for presentation at the GLFC's 1994 annual meeting. The
LSC had been side tracked from a planned revision of its objectives by joint exercises
with the Binational Program.
Objectives are reviewed by GLFC Boards and Committees for the Lake Committees'
information. Lake Committees, not ComW, have responsibility for adoption of objectives.
6. Environmental objectives
Lake Committee Chairs will supply the Secretariat with formal statements to the
Commission regarding the nature of assistance on environmental objectives they wish to
receive from the Habitat Advisory Board. The LHC had already requested assistance, and
the LSC would respond to the workshop suggestion that HAB help expand environmental
objectives. The two lakes provided an interesting contrast since the Lake Huron LaMP was
not underway and the Lake Superior LaMP was well along.
7. State of the lake reports
Regarding the State of the Lakes Environmental Conference planned by the Parties for
the week of 24 October 1994 in Dearborn, Michigan, CLC Chair Jester and Marg Dochoda
(GLFC) will explore whether EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office and Environment
Canada plan to invite fish managers, and whether they should be urged to broaden their
list of invitees.
See CLC-94-5.
8. Lake trout rehabilitation plans
The CLC established a lake trout management review task force chaired by Doug Jester
(MDNR) and Ron Desjardine (OMNR) to review CLC stocking policy and related issues.
Members might include Dr. Anne Kapuscinski (BOTE, U.of Minnesota), Dr. David Noakes (BOTE, U. of
Guelph), Jim Selgeby (BOTE, NBS), Dr. John Schachte (GLFDCC, NYDEC), Dale Best (USFWS), Mike Hansen
(NBS), and one representative from each management agency. Randy Eshenroder (GLFC) was
requested to provide staff support.
9. Proposed ruffe containment program
After long discussion, an account of which follows, the Council of Lake Committees
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas the Council of Lake Committees supports containment of ruffe in Lake
Superior, and
After outlining the Ruffe Control Committee's proposal to contain ruffe, Tom Busiahn
(USFWS) answered Mike Talbot (WDNR) that the designated streams would be treated annually
on a preventative basis, i.e. even if no ruffe were found.
Whereas there is at this time no known alternative to piscicide treatments to prevent
unassisted range expansion of ruffe, and
Whereas treatment with TFM has been identified as a potentially effective control
agent that is preferred for its selectivity, and
Whereas the Council of Lake Committees does not wish to adversely affect the sea
lamprey control program, or to jeopardize continued use of TFM for sea lamprey control
or TFM registration under minor use designation,
Therefore be it resolved that the Council of Lake Committees supports testing the
efficacy of TFM for containment of ruffe on a limited experimental basis, under
appropriate temporary use permits, with thorough scientific review by the Lake
Superior Committee, and
Be it further resolved the Council of Lake Committees supports the use of federal
appropriations under the Nonindigenous Prevention and control Act for this purpose,and
Be it further resolved that any regulatory action arising from the proposed use of
TFM to control ruffe that threatens the capability of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to employ TFM as a sea lamprey control agent shall immediately result in
the withdrawal of that proposal, and
Be it further resolved that if the experimental program is determined to not be
successful then it will be terminated. This determination will be made on an annual
basis. The experimental control program will sunset no later than 3 years from
initiation unless it's determined to be successful by that time.
Bob Beecher (GLFC) explained that the reregistration of TFM is an expensive,
difficult process. However, costs have been minimized by designation of TFM as a minor
use chemical, the outcome of a meeting between former GLFC Commissioner and assistant
Secretary of Interior Mike Hayden and former EPA Administrator William Reilly. The reason
for designating TFM as a minor use chemical is its limited use, solely sea lamprey control
on a fraction of Great Lakes streams on a cyclical basis, i.e. every three years on an
average stream. We were advised that TFM was the only chemical with minor use designation. However, reregistration, even under the "minor use" designation, is
expensive and time-consuming -- with the lengthy delays in EPA submission review and
response to the Commission's Agent, NBS, it seems impossible to meet the June 1996
deadline.
Beecher added that the proposed use of chemical, personnel, and equipment used for
sea lamprey control is also problematic. Legislators and aides who have supported the
GLFC have done so believing that TFM is a relatively selective piscicide -- use of TFM on
ruffe strains credibility. A second credibility issue occurs when one suggests that the
GLFC, under financial difficulty and buying lampricide on credit, has slack to provide
manpower and equipment for ruffe containment. Beecher concluded that because of the risks
of proceeding (or not) with the proposed ruffe program, the Secretariat was pleased to see
the CLC laboring to make an informed, shared decision.
Busiahn explained to John Robertson (MDNR) and Bob Lange (NYDEC) that the preference
for TFM lay in its selectivity and not its effectiveness. Any of the four chemicals would
be effective. Shortcomings could be addressed. (He was not sure whether Bayluscide
killed ruffe eggs.) Robertson asserted that efficacy was the most important criterion for
choosing a chemical, and that selectivity was secondary. A quick survey of the room
suggested that not much antimycin had been ordered in recent years.
In response to John Schrouder (MDNR) Beecher explained that GLFC would likely be less
concerned regarding the use of Bayluscide, which is used in small amounts for assessment,
and has also been intermittently registered as a molluscicide in the U.S. and elsewhere in
the world. Vic Gillman (DFO) added that Agriculture Canada is looking at Bayer 73 as
synergist to TFM. Neil Kmiecik (GLIFWC) questioned whether Bayer would be lethal to ruffe
because it is typically a bottom toxicant. Busiahn replied that ruffe are typically
associated with the bottom.
John Christian (USFWS) stated that the Service would conduct an environmental
assessment and possibly an environmental impact study, and would discuss with EPA whether
TFM's minor use designation would be jeopardized, before proceeding. According to Mike
Millar (GLFC) an expanded permit would have to be obtained upon successful completion of
the experiment if the containment program was to be continued.
Ontario had no official position, as ruffe are no longer found in Ontario, reported
Bob Thomson (OMNR), but the Great Lakes managers supported the objectives of the
containment program as they believe ruffe pose a significant threat. Ontario's Great
Lakes managers did, however, have some concerns for example on the use of TFM. Therefore
there was support for a closely controlled experiment (rather than an operational program)
on containing the spread of ruffe. There was hope that an alternative to chemical control
becomes available.
Ken Paxton (ODNR) was not supportive of the action plan as proposed by the Ruffe
Control Committee, as he believed the momentum to act was based on political pressure
rather than a scientific appraisal of costs and benefits. Although Ohio is not a
beneficiary of the sea lamprey control program, he would not risk it for the uncertainties
of attempting to contain ruffe.
Referring to the CLC's earlier support for ruffe eradication, Lee Kernen (WDNR)
suggested that the proposed approach would only delay the spread of ruffe. Robertson
concurred that the proposal under consideration was now containment, rather than the
previously approved eradication. Kernen continued that given the distribution of ruffe
offshore, there were no good places in Wisconsin to attempt containment, except possibly a
stream associated with the Red Cliff Band. Now that the ruffe have accessed Chequamegon
Bay, Wisconsin is willing to consider treatment of a stream on the border with Michigan.
The chances for success will be better where waters are deep offshore. Possible impacts
on endangered species must be a consideration.
Bernie Ylkanen (MDNR) reported that there may be outside constraints on treatment of
four streams. The Black River is a "wild and scenic river", treatment of which would have
to be considered by the U.S. Forest Service -- perhaps triggering a time-consuming Section
7 analysis. Three other streams are in the (state) Porcupine Mountain wilderness
management area. Rivers east of Porcupine to the Ontonagon River might be candidates.
Ylkanen and Robertson stated that Michigan is willing to do what it can to establish a
confinement zone but does not expect to carry the burden of an ongoing program alone.
Participants attempted to reach consensus on several points:
10. Meeting arrangements
The CLC encouraged efforts to apprise appropriate outdoor and science writers of
upcoming lake committee meetings. To this end the CLC agreed to prepare agendas well in
advance, and to advise on appropriate reporters for briefing.
11. Law Enforcement Committee
Information item.
12.a. GLFDCC response to Michigan BKD Strategy
The CLC was apprised that the Great Lakes Fish Disease Control Committee would advise
within the year on "Rs-free" and research needs associated with salmonid mortalities in
Lake Michigan. The GLFDCC desired the support of the LMC and its technical committee on
these issues.
12.b. Larval salmonid mortality
The CLC supported the GLFDCC's planned workshop on larval salmonid mortality and
other efforts to exchange information on the phenomenon, including promotion of research
through BOTE, state Sea Grant programs, and the Council of Great Lakes Research Directors.
12.c. Diagnostic tool for EEDV
The CLC will write U.S. National Biological Survey re the need for an EEDV diagnostic
tool, asking that the Leetown Lab assign the project a high priority and that they make
the virus available to outside researchers.
12.d. GLFDCC strategic operating plan
The CLC agreed to review the GLFDCC's proposed strategic operating plan upon receipt.
12.e. Proposed GLFDCC name change
The CLC accepted the proposed GLFDCC name change to "Great Lakes Fish Health
Committee". The CLC will consider terms of reference inferences when the proposed
strategic operating plan becomes available.
Changes in terms of reference are approved by the Commission, under which the
management committees operate. Because the management committees also operate under the
Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan, the Commission has in the past consulted
with the Committee of the Whole where proposed changes may diverge in a major way from
existing agreements or practices, e.g. the addition of new member agencies to lake
committees.
13.a. BOTE's lake trout task
Commending BOTE and the GLFC for the RESTORE lake trout conference, the CLC supported
renewal of BOTE's lake trout task area. It was understood that funds are available within
current allocation, and that some cross-consultation will occur with the CLC's lake trout
stocking review (CLC-94-8).
13.b. BOTE's proposed biodiversity task
The CLC supported BOTE development of a biodiversity task area proposal for GLFC
consideration. The CLC requested to be consulted in the planning of workshops or
roundtables including interest groups. There was concern that the topic might generate
undue concern among traditional stakeholders, and that "roundtable burnout" might result
in poor turnout. On the other hand members were hopeful that the proposed biodiversity
task area would provide ecological concepts which would be useful to managers as
underpinnings for fish community objectives, and as the basis for cooperation with Water
Quality Agreement initiatives.
14.a. Review of GLFC vision
CLC members expressed no preferences for participating in a planned review of the
GLFC's Vision. One member thought it ironic that Lake Committees were invited to review
progress on the Vision when they were not offered an opportunity to fully participate in
its development.
14.b. GLFC budget
Information item.
15.a. Proposed review of institutional arrangements for ecosystem management
The CLC forwarded for implementation the proposal for a review of institutional
arrangements to the GLFC and ComW Operations Committee. It was time for a SGLFMP review.
There was some reluctance to invoke the Council of Great Lakes Governors, particularly for
SGLFMP which could be reviewed more profitably by the Committee of the Whole. After some
discussion the CLC concurred that despite some current exceptions such as the Lake
Superior Binational Program, it was proving difficult to cooperate with environmental
initiatives on an ad hoc basis and that a review leading to formal arrangements such as an
ecosystem management plan would be an interesting exercise. Also, an open discussion on
arrangements for meeting basin needs such as sea lamprey control might also be beneficial.
15.b. Communications and management information
The CLC encouraged the GLFC to continue its discussions and development of an
electronic information system.
15.c. Proposed arbitration protocol
In response to hearsay re the proposed format for GLFC arbitration procedures as
proposed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada CLC Chairman Jester stated that
CLC members agreed to advise the Great Lakes Commission and the GLFC of any problems
with the draft Ecosystem Charter.
16.a. National Biological Survey funding shortfall
The CLC will send a letter signed by the Chair and Vice Chair to the NBS supporting
allocation for important monitoring and survey work by the Ann Arbor Lab, and requesting a
briefing by Commissioner nominee Bob Davison at the GLFC's Annual Meeting on the Great
Lakes' status as a national priority.
It was noted that the Northeast Midwest Institute planned a conference on ecosystem
protection and pollution prevention in the Great Lakes the following Monday, that Davison would be addressing the conference on
priorities, and that GLIFWC was the only fishery management agency invited. Carol Bohan
(USFWS) explained that the Institute's Allegra Cangelosi wished to keep the conference
small and high level. Bohan was arranging a poster session featuring coaster brook trout,
Tawas Reef lake trout (and sea lamprey control), and Metzger Marsh.
16.b. Restoration Act MOU with USFWS
The Fish Chiefs (except for Indiana and Pennsylvania, who were not represented) were
supportive of a single Memorandum of Agreement between U.S. fish management agencies and
the USFWS Restoration Act Offices, if such an agreement could be negotiated. The Fish
Chiefs felt strongly that states must sign off on the proposed Restoration Act study
before same could be submitted to Congress.
17.a. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Control and Protection Act intentionalintroductions policy review
Michigan DNR will provide its comments on the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Control
and Protection Act intentional introductions policy review to Margaret Dochoda (GLFC) for
distribution to CLC members.
17.b. Office of Technology and Assessment intentional introductions policy review
Information item.
18. Other business
The 600,000 surplus fall fingerling lake trout produced by Region 3 of the USFWS will
be split equally between Lakes Huron and Michigan as in the past. The LHTC will provide
specific instructions for that lake.
GLFC Home