Coldwater Resources Steering Committee Grayling Ramada Inn Meeting Notes 10/7/2013

Coldwater Resources Steering Committee
Grayling Ramada Inn
Meeting Notes 10/7/2013
Attending: Tom Buhr, Jim Schramm, John Walters, Linn Duling, Jim Bedford, Bryan
Burroughs, Troy Zorn, Dave Borgeson Sr., Steve Mondrella, Christian LeSage (notes),
Mark Tonello, Dennis Eade, Jim Dexter, Phil Schneeberger, Tracy Kolb, and Natural
Resources Commissioner Rex Schlaybaugh, Jr.
Welcome and Introductions
Troy Zorn and fisheries chief Jim Dexter welcomed the committee and everyone
introduced themselves.
Terms of Reference
Troy briefly went over the terms of reference, reemphasizing committee members’
responsibility to respectfully work together and help resolve conflicts among angling
groups and constituencies. An addition to the Terms of Reference (TOR) was proposed
to address situations sporadic meeting attendance by committee members. The suggested
TOR addition was, “If a member does not attend or contribute toward any committee
meetings for 1.5 years or more, the Fisheries Division chief will assess their viability as a
committee member and determine if changes to representation are needed”. Several
members indicated that serving on the committee is both an honor and privilege. The
committee was fine with the addition and some suggested members be asked annually if
they will continue on the committee. Troy will tweak the document bring the terms back
to a future meeting.
Retail Business Representation on CRSC
Troy indicated that the Warmwater Resources Steering Committee (WRSC) has been
discussing the possibility of adding a few retailer representatives to their committee and
thought it would be good to discuss this option for the CRSC. Jim Dexter pointed out
that what we do and how we manage affects the fishing industry, sometimes in subtle
ways, sometimes not. As managers, we may not always make the appropriate
connections between what we are proposing and what may result in this sector of the
economy. Conversely, information sharing and potential partnership possibilities with
this sector are important to us as we would like more people engaged in fishing and
buying that equipment as that funds federal aid back to the states.
The intent is to bring the sportfishing and fishing tackle “industry” to the table. Major
retailers (e.g., Jay’s, Cabela’s, Gander Mountain, Dunham’s, etc.) which cater to the
entire sportfishing public were suggested as potential candidates. A discussion ensued
about river guides associated with fly shops, adding other aspects of the business
community as well as focusing just on the resource and not adding a large contingency of
businesses representation. Someone asked whether general business representation, such
as Chamber of Commerce, or representation from American Tackle Association
involvement would be appropriate. It came up that Cabela’s has a conservation fund and
we should look to partner and promote with them. Others indicated that Fisheries
Division should decide this based upon its goals for the committee, and what it intends to
accomplish with them in the future. There was some support to add this as a new option
and any ideas or recommendations should be sent to Jim Dexter. This issue will be
discussed at a future meeting.
One suggestion involved an idea of figuring out what the multiplier is when describing
the economic footprint that composes the sportfishing community here in Michigan.
Having that information would be helpful when making comparisons between various
groups that are competing over the same resources.
Changes to the Regulatory Process
Jim Dexter informed the group that the NRC now has the authority to set fishing
regulations on the take and harvest of fish. Previously, the authority had been bestowed
to the DNR Director. Fisheries Division will now be moving towards a new multi-year
regulation cycle somewhat similar to Wildlife Division. Fisheries will consolidate all the
currently existing fisheries orders (FOs) into one single FO with four separate chapters
and will move to a two-year regulation cycle. Under the existing system, the annual
process is taxing on staff and the changes will allow more time for us to review our
statewide fishing regulations in the future. Two of the four chapters will be reviewed
during one cycle with the remainder to be reviewed during the following two-year cycle.
The new regulation cycle will mean that the fishing guide will be produced only once
every two years. We will be printing more copies at a cheaper cost per guide, while also
reducing the number of guides needed for the two-year period since people can reuse
their guides. The 2014 guide will still be a one year guide, but starting in 2015 and
beyond, the guide will be good for two years. Jim Dexter pointed out that the longer
regulation cycles means fishing regulations will be more consistent since changes won’t
be happening annually. Jim also indicated that the Division is currently working on
various mobile apps for the future including a fishing regulations app.
Commissioner Schlaybaugh informed the committee about what role the NRC will now
play in regulations on harvest/take of fish. There will be a new standardized set of
questions and templates that staff will need to provide to the NRC to assist them on
regulatory decisions. Some regulation changes will be mainly based upon science while
others may be based more on social considerations. The commissioner also stated that an
assessment of angler satisfaction should somehow be incorporated into the regulation
process to track changes in angler opinions and preferences over time
Trout Management Plan: Outlining Structure and Content
Troy Zorn gave a PowerPoint presentation on what the structure of the new trout
management plan may look like and used the recent Northern Pike Management Plan as
an example. The Division’s Trout Committee will be given the charge to lead in the trout
management plan development and the CRSC will be involved by providing input. The
plan will focus on resident trout populations (brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow
trout). The plan’s structure will differ from the existing pike and musky management
plans, reflecting distinct aspects of resident trout management such as management of
stream vs. lake fisheries, stocked vs. wild fisheries, stocking vs. habitat management
trade-offs, etc. The committee suggested that data from the Division’s Status and Trends
program be queried and used in the development of this plan.
Some discussions arose about focusing on trout habitat and stream habitat projects.
Various stream habitat projects have been employed using various techniques with sitespecific, and often mixed, results. The plan should provide insights and will be helpful in
developing and setting criteria for recommending techniques that may be effective in
different situations. There is a need to evaluate types of projects that have already been
done and focus on providing guidance on what types and techniques work the best for
future projects.
It was also stated that the management plan should tie into angler satisfaction, including
satisfaction with the fishing regulations. It was suggested that the plan be more outcomefocused and provide the rationale for management direction and actions. Anglers are
very interested in trout and they are highly valued. The committee was very supportive
of the action to move forward on the effort to draft a trout management plan. The
committee was generally surprised to hear that this would be the first statewide effort to
draft a trout plan for Michigan. The plan should written so it’s easy to read, and it will
provide the rationale, vision, and guidance for the Division’s management of resident
trout.
The timeline for the plan: the process will start in 2014 and wrap up sometime in 2015.
More information will be provided to the committee at future meetings.
It was noted that final versions of the pike and musky management plans are not
available online, and Fisheries Division will follow-up to address this. Troy will followup with editors of pike and musky management plans to see how they organized the
writing/editing process, and will initiate the process at the Division’s Trout Committee
meeting in December.
Steelhead Stocking, Regulations, and Harvest
Fisheries biologist and acting unit supervisor, Mark Tonello, provided a PowerPoint on
steelhead stocking and fishing regulations. Information highlights: A total of 1.2 million
steelhead spring yearlings are produced each year at our fish production facilities for fish
stocking locations. The number of steelhead stocked into each Great Lake varies: Lake
Superior (83,000), Lake Huron (471,000), Lake Michigan (573,000) and Lake Erie
(113,000). There is currently a daily possession limit of 3 fish per day in place. Mark
indicated that the current daily possession limit of 3 fish per day is very conservative and
protects Michigan’s steelhead populations, especially naturally reproducing fish. Mark
reported that the Manistee River has the largest steelhead run in the Great Lakes basin
(annual harvest levels of roughly 17,000 fish, based on 1999-2004 creel reports). Mark
noted work by former DNR fisheries researcher Dr. Paul Seelbach who found that the
limiting factor for steelhead smolt production in the Little Manistee River was the
amount of available habitat in the river system to rear 8-inch smolts. Under the current 3
fish/day regulations there are more than enough fertilized eggs and fry produced, but the
survival to the smolt stage is where the bottleneck occurs. The Division’s Status and
Trends data from other steelhead streams supports that natural reproduction of steelhead
in Michigan is generally limited by the amount of habitat for the larger smolts, and not
abundance of steelhead at earlier life stages, such as fry or parr.
Fisheries biologist and creel program leader, Tracy Kolb, provided a PowerPoint
presentation of recent estimates of annual steelhead harvest for various ports and rivers in
Michigan, and included information on how frequently anglers harvested 0, 1, 2, or 3
steelhead at each location. Most creel surveys have been done in the Great Lakes; inland
creel program has been very limited over the years due to budgetary constraints. Since
2004, there have only been three inland creel surveys (Pere Marquette, Betsie, and Au
Sable Rivers). Some observations from the creel program:
Generally, <2% of the anglers harvest the possession limit of 3 steelhead.
Great Lake anglers keep/harvest most of their catch.
River anglers release a large majority of their catch.
Biological implications of decreasing the possession limit are minimal. At most,
reduced limits restrict steelhead harvest by a few hundred fish per location. For
example, on rivers such as the Manistee and Muskegon where relatively high
harvests occur, reducing the limit from 3 steelhead to 2 would reduce overall
harvest by 6-9% (about 1000-2000 fish); reducing the limit from 3 to 1 would
reduce overall harvest by 24-27% (about 4000-6000 rainbows). Note: The
estimates for the Muskegon included considerably high numbers of non-steelhead
strain rainbow trout that provide a resident (stocked) trout fishery.
Social implications are variable – if the DNR reduces bag limits on steelhead is it
supporting catch-and-release fishing over harvest fishing?
Steelhead fisheries on Great Lakes’ piers showcase Michigan’s fisheries to
potential new anglers and the non-fishing public. It’s important to keep this in
mind when considering a management action that could decrease pier angling
effort.
Although the Chinook salmon fishery drives Lake Michigan fishing, a reduced
bag limit for steelhead could negatively impact the charter business, especially in
the spring and fall seasons and years when it’s difficult to catch other species.
A discussion on steelhead possession limits broke out including opinions on keeping wild
vs. hatchery fish. The topic of mass marking of steelhead would allow for a different
possession limit for wild vs. hatchery fish. The question was raised if whether releasing
wild fish caught in the Great Lakes would be good given warm surface temperatures?
Several committee members indicated their preference to protect “wild” fish. Jim Dexter
indicated that Seelbach’s research stated that 1/3 of the steelhead caught are wild fish.
However, the steelhead we stock are from a wild broodstock source (Little Manistee
River), with eggs are taken during the annual spawning run.
Several other points were raised.
It was noted that >95% of anglers do not catch any fish, so is the amount of
harvest really a big deal?
There was some discussion about a possession limit of 3 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 1 fish, but
no clear consensus was achieved on either possession limits or selective harvest of
hatchery steelhead.
It was proposed that a creel survey be conducted on the Manistee River to provide
updated steelhead harvest estimates for comparison with harvest estimates
associated with future steelhead regulation changes that might occur.
Action item: The DNR will discuss potential steelhead bag reduction proposals in
December. If viable proposals are identified, a brief of proposals will be developed for
committee consideration in January.
Future Meeting Topics
Several topics were presented from the group:
drain commission woody debris removals
future research studies on temperature changes due to loss of riparian canopy
cover [Dave Borgeson offered to lead this charge]
fisheries habitat unit biologist Chris Freiburger could come to discuss some
habitat issues
10 brook trout possession limit regulation evaluation update
adfluvial brook trout study update
list of previous issues from Gear Restricted streams discussions [Dexter has list]
steelhead possession limit proposal
changes to hook restrictions on salmon streams
boot washing stations
trout management plan update
updated terms of reference
What will the increased license fees mean for the fishery division? What that will
mean in terms of hires, new research, site improvements, etc. It could be
interesting to see what the new funds mean and what they don't.
Next meeting: May 6th, 2014 in Lansing