Lake Michigan Fisheries Forum

4 August 2009

Meeting Notes

Members Present: Phil Moy, John Janssen, Jim Kettler, Dan Peterson, Duane Nadolski, Dennis Hickey, Ted Eggebraaten

Alternates: Charlie Henriksen (Mark Maricque), Chuck Weier (Mark Hasenberg), Tom Kocourek (Scott Haberman), Chuck Bronte (Mark Holey)

Absent: Kevin Naze, Dale Maas, Steve Bousley, Dennis Radloff, Glenn Seger

Others: Steve Hogler, Ellen Brody, Keith Meverden, Joe Jerich, John Karl

The Proposed NOAA Marine Sanctuary – Ellen Brody

Ellen described the purposes and intent of the NOAA Sanctuary – the protection of marine archaeological resources (sunken ship) along the Wisconsin coast. She described the establishment of the Thunder Bay sanctuary near Alpena and other sanctuaries in the NOAA system.

We want to connect people to the lakes and want to involve the public in the sanctuary process. Each sanctuary has a 15-member advisory council comprised of people representing local interests.

The designation process will likely take at least 2-3 years; Thunder Bay took 9. A NEPA document (Environmental Assessment) must be prepared listing alternatives. There will be a series of public hearings. The Governor can veto all or parts of the sanctuary proposal.

In Thunder Bay issues of concern raised by the public included:

Fishing and diving, user fees, limited access, changing the terms of the agreement after designation and interference with states rights.

The Thunder Bay sanctuary does NOT:

Regulate commercial or recreational fishing

Interfere with fish management

Interfere with diving

There are no user fees

The federal regulations stipulate that no one can take anything off of or damage a wreck; drill, dredge or alter the lake bottom and that vessels must use the mooring buoy.

Source of funding

Some areas are fully federal. For the GL sanctuary the state provided some in-kind services like law enforcement boats. This amounts to about $200-250,000 annually, but no match is required.

Why This Area - Keith Meverden

There are estimated to be 700 shipwrecks in Wisconsin; 125 are known. Within this area there are 33 known wrecks and 96 potential wrecks. This area was chosen for the types of wrecks, integrity of the wrecks and the extent of cultural material, the cross-section of vessel types and the range of build dates.

NOAA is involved because they bring resources – funding, legal, vessels, national exposure, attraction of other partners, economic development and tourism.

The location of the interpretive center has not been set. Manitowoc, Port Washington, and Sheboygan have all made offers. NOAA cannot promise construction of a building.

Will there be new regulations?

Nothing beyond the existing state laws.

Keith has developed a report on the plan. It will be posted at the Forum website.

Lake Trout Restoration Plan – Steve Hogler

Steve briefly reviewed the LT restoration plan and addressed questions. The plan is not yet finalized.

Steve also reviewed the status of the forage base. As we heard from Chuck Madenjian, the forage abundance as determined by bottom trawls is very low. The acoustic survey indicates the picture may not be quite as bleak.

Forum Future

Phil proposed conducting 4 to 6 meeting each year and to use the Forum as an extension of the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute. This was a Sea Grant project a few years ago designed to educate future Great Lakes advisory board members. Essentially the concept would, in addition to providing recommendations to the DNR, to use the Forum meetings to educate Forum members and the attending public on Great Lakes issues and ongoing research.

We could establish a series of meeting dates well into the next year to help assure improved attendance and participation by Forum members. Please send comments or suggestions for future programs to Phil at philip.moy@uwc.edu.