COMMERCIAL FISHERIES NEWSLINE
Vol. XV, No. 3 - JULY 1996

by Ronald E. Kinnunen
Michigan State University Sea Grant Program

Abstract: Advisory/extension newsletter for keeping Great Lakes commercial fishing and aquaculture industries informed of relevant regulations, events, opportunities and workshops.
===========================================================

*TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Michigan Commercial Fish Marketing Committee
Ruffe Control Meeting
Superior Lake Trout Restored
St. Marys River Lamprey key to health of Lake Huron fishery
Yellow Perch decline in Lake Michigan
Walleye and Yellow Perch harvesting from Lake Erie
Protect your boat from Lightning
Public Hearing on Michigan Smoked Fish Regulations
USFWS works with Indian Nations
Michigan Aquaculture Act
Aquaculture/Coastal Zone Act
Extralabel drug use
Ron Kinnunen on study leave
Sea Grant Web Site
1995 Michigan Fish Harvest

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFORTS OF THE MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL FISH MARKETING COMMITTEE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     It has been a year since the Commercial Fish Marketing Committee was formed as a result of the Michigan Sea Grant Extension sponsored workshop on "Marketing Partnerships: Expanding Commercial Fish Markets and Increasing Profitability of Commercial Fish Businesses." Committee members have had several meetings to chart a course of action.
     Several committee members have been active in providing input to the Michigan Department of Agriculture in getting the current Michigan Smoked Fish Regulation changed to more reasonable standards. This will help ensure that people who smoke fish in Michigan are not held at a disadvantage when compared to smokers in surrounding states who do not have such stringent requirements of heat and salt content as in Michigan. Public hearings on the new proposed Michigan Smoked Fish Regulations will be held this month.
     As a result of efforts of the Commercial Fish Marketing Committee, "commercial fish" has now been added to the language of the Michigan Agriculture Commodities Act. Michigan commercial fish will now be recognized as a food commodity in Michigan and will give the commercial fishing industry the opportunity to apply for promotional grants through the Michigan Department of Agriculture when they become available. It will also assist the commercial fishing industry in teaming up with other commodity groups (e.g., wine, cheese) at food shows to promote Michigan products. If the commercial fishing industry ever wants to explore a check-off, this option will now be available but will require a two-thirds vote of support from the commercial fishermen.
     The Commercial Fish Marketing Committee has worked through the Chippewa and Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority in submitting a Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant to the National Marine Fisheries Service which will focus on "Marketing Michigan Fish Businesses and Products and Ensuring Product Quality and Safety." The grant which is now under review requests over $200,000 and involves Michigan's tribal and state-licensed fisheries and Michigan's aquaculture industry.
     It has only been a year since the Commercial Fish Marketing Committee has been formed but some real progress has been made thus far.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruffe Control Committee to Meet in Alpena, Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Ruffe Control Committee will meet in Alpena, Michigan on July 30-31, 1996. All interested parties are welcome to participate. The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 1000 U.S. 23 North, in Alpena.
     An optional field trip to local sites relevant to ruffe control is scheduled for the morning of Tuesday, July 30. The meeting will run from 1:00 p.m. on July 30 to noon on July 31, and will focus on development of action plans to meet three new objectives of the Ruffe Control Program. These are:

BAIT FISH MANAGEMENT: Assist jurisdictions in developing model language for regulation of bait harvest and possession.

FISH COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Recommend fish management practices that will improve resilience of fish communities against invasion or dominance by ruffe.

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL: Consider options to prevent the movement of ruffe from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi watershed via the Chicago, Des Plaines, and Illinois Rivers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Superior Lake Trout Restoration Proclaimed a Major Victory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     A major victory in efforts to restore lake trout in Lake Superior was declared during a recent meeting of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Superior Committee in Duluth, Minnesota. The Committee--made up of fishery managers from the three Great Lakes States which border Lake Superior, from the Province of Ontario, and from U.S. Tribes represented by the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority (COTFMA) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)--agreed that lake trout stocking programs, along with a coordinated effort of sea lamprey control, limits on sport and commercial fishing, and water quality protection and enhancements, has allowed lake trout to again become self-sustaining in areas of Lake Superior. With the return of self-sustainable lake trout populations, state, federal, provincial, and tribal management authorities have decided to eliminate stocking of federally-reared lake trout in areas of lake extending from the Apostle Islands in Wisconsin eastward to Grand Marais, Michigan. Similarly, a number of areas in Ontario waters have shown improvements in lake trout populations such that stocking has been reduced to about a third of what it was in the 1980s.
     Currently, Lake Superior is the only lake in which lake trout populations are self-sustaining. According to a recent report by Dr. Michael Hansen of the National Biological Service, in some areas of Lake Superior, populations are up to 80% of those that occurred before the sea lamprey invaded and lake trout populations crashed. The ultimate goal of the Lake Superior Committee, as reported in the 1990 Lake Superior fish community objectives "is to restore self-sustaining stocks that can provide an average annual yield equal to that attained during 1929-1943 (the period prior to decline)."
     Lake trout restoration efforts began in Lake Superior in the 1950s3/4coincidental with the beginning of sea lamprey control3/4and managers spread their efforts to the other Great Lakes during the ensuing decades. Since the 1950s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, and more recently the Keweenaw Bay Tribe, have been trying to increase lake trout populations through stocking. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was created by Canada and the United States and has complimented these efforts by controlling sea lampreys and by coordinating fishery research and management on a binational level.
     The return of self-sustaining lake trout populations is a major victory for the Great Lakes fishery because naturally occurring lake trout once supported a major commercial and a small sport fishery in the Great Lakes. Anglers came from far and wide to catch Great Lakes trout, and commercial fishermen sent millions of them to restaurants and packing houses annually, supplying the region and the world with some of the best fish available. In the middle part of this century, however, the species experienced the unthinkable: near extirpation in the Great Lakes. Overfishing and sea lamprey predation caused such devastation to lake trout stocks that harvesting in the Great Lakes fell from about 17 million pounds annually to almost nothing. The lake trout, once the king of the fishery, fell so quickly in numbers that many questioned whether the species, let alone the fishery, could survive.
     "The recovery of lake trout in Lake Superior is indicative of what is possible in the other lakes," said Lake Superior Committee Chair Bill Horns of the Wisconsin DNR. "This achievement gives us renewed hope for ongoing lake trout restoration efforts in the lower lakes."
     "This is a sterling example of a cooperative effort between federal, state, and provincial agencies, and tribal governments," added John Robertson, Chief of Fisheries, Michigan DNR, "to be able to claim such a victory on the road toward a complete rehabilitation of the lake trout in Lake Superior and elsewhere in the Great Lakes."
     In other areas of Lake Superior--such as Minnesota, western Wisconsin, and lower Keweenaw Bay waters--stocking will continue because natural reproduction has not yet taken hold at a level that would likely allow self-sustainability. In these areas, state or tribally reared fish will continue to be stocked. Management agencies will continue to monitor the lake trout fishery, and perhaps, one day find it unnecessary to stock any lake trout in Lake Superior.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Marys River Lamprey Control Key to the Health of the Lake
Huron Fishery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Canadian funding cuts may threaten the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's ability to begin sea lamprey control on the St. Marys River, warned fishery managers from Michigan, the Province of Ontario, and the Tribes during a recent meeting of the Lake Huron Committee in Duluth, Minnesota. Lamprey control on the St. Marys River is pivotal to the health of the Lake Huron fish community because the river harbors large numbers of sea lamprey larvae and is the largest single source of sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. Without St. Marys River lamprey control, the health of fish stocks and collaborative, binational restoration programs in Lake Huron are jeopardized. The Committee members noted that the cut could not have come at a worse time because the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is on the verge of implementing a St. Marys River lamprey control program after years of careful assessment and planning
     .Populations of spawning-phase sea lampreys in northern Lake Huron are estimated to be greater than that of all the other Great Lakes combined. The population of sea lampreys is nearly as large as it was before any treatment efforts, when populations of lake trout and whitefish were decimated. Today, up to 45% of trout and salmon in Lake Huron exhibit wounds and scars from sea lamprey attacks. This year, 29% of lake trout in northern Lake Michigan were also reported to be recently preyed upon by sea lampreys from the St. Marys River.
     Until recently, cost-effective lamprey control on the St. Marys River had not been possible because of the size of the river and because of the widespread distribution of lamprey larvae. Recent state-of-the-art mapping and assessment efforts, however, have provided new insights into the locations and densities of larval lamprey. A newly developed model suggests the possibility of targeting concentrations of larval lampreys in the river.
     This summer, the Commission's sea lamprey control agents plan to take a large step in their evaluation of the best approach to large-scale lamprey control on the St. Marys River. Managers and scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission will undertake a St. Marys River dye study to confirm their understanding about how lampricides would move in the river. Agents hope to couple the data gathered from the dye study with the larval density data to determine the best way to apply lampricides in the St. Marys River. Lampricide treatment is scheduled to begin in 1997.
     "For the first time, we are close to reducing the flow of lampreys from the St. Marys River into Lake Huron," commented Lake Huron Committee Vice-Chair Ron DesJardine of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. "We must now move forward with an aggressive effort to treat the St. Marys River for sea lampreys. A St. Marys River treatment will allow us to get on with our work to restore and to sustain the Lake Huron fishery."
     .Lake Huron Committee members, however, questioned whether the St. Marys River treatment will ever happen in light of the recent decision by Canada to reduce its funding for lamprey control by 26% (about $1 million US) in 1996/1997. The Committee members expressed alarm over the severity of the funding reduction, and expressed concern that the Commission might be hard-pressed to find resources for the new St. Marys River treatment while still maintaining effective lamprey control in the other Great Lakes.
      Lake Huron Committee Chair Tom Gorenflo, Director of the Chippewa and Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority, expressed the Committee's sentiment: "Budget reductions are particularly disappointing now, considering we are poised to deal effectively with the St. Marys River sea lamprey problem. Until sea lamprey populations in the St. Marys River can be reduced, no fishery management authority can move forward comfortably with fishery management or restoration plans in Lake Huron. The high lamprey populations from the St. Marys River make lake trout restoration nearly impossible and add tremendous instability to the Lake Huron fish community."
     Lake Huron Committee member John Schrouder of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources added: "People who rely on the sport and commercial fishery for recreation and income are very concerned about the Canadian government's apparent move away from its commitment to sea lamprey control. It is my understanding that the Lake Huron Committee and the many user groups in both countries will continue to voice their concerns to the Canadian government."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serious Yellow Perch Decline Continues in Lake Michigan
-     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellow perch abundance in Lake Michigan continued to decline precipitously in 1995, prompting the state and tribal fishery management agencies bordering Lake Michigan to maintain sport and commercial harvesting restrictions in 1996 and to seek an aggressive program to research the causes for the decline. The fishery managers, who make up the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Michigan Committee, met recently in Duluth, Minnesota and collectively agreed that the yellow perch decline requires tight quotas and bag limits in order to conserve the existing yellow perch stocks. Significant numbers of yellow perch larvae are not surviving well to the young-of-the-year (YOY) stage, which means the aging adult populations are not being replaced readily by new generations of perch in Lake Michigan. Although scientists do not know the exact cause for the decline, they do agree that yellow perch larvae are not surviving to a harvestable age. The harvesting limits are designed to help preserve spawning age adults until the situation improves.
     Lake Michigan Management agencies reported that compared to 1994, catch rates of mature yellow perch declined 30% in Wisconsin waters, 56% in Illinois waters, and 67% in Indiana waters. Captures of young-of-the-year perch continued to be very low for the sixth consecutive year; thus, the downward trend (which commenced in 1989) continues.
     Because of this severe decline, state fishery agencies collaborated on reduced commercial catch quotas and reduced sport bag limits in 1995, with all four states closing the Lake Michigan perch fishery entirely during the month of June 1995. The 1995 harvest regulations effectively reduced the number of perch harvested by 50% in comparison to 1994.
     Last fall the states of Wisconsin and Illinois agreed to maintain a daily sport bag limit of 25 yellow perch for anglers in 1996 and to continue a 65% reduction (from the 1994 level) in allowable commercial harvests. Since then, Indiana reduced its allowable commercial harvest to 16% of the 1994 level because, assessment data show a larger yellow perch decline in Indiana waters than in other areas. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana again closed the Lake Michigan yellow perch fishery in June. Wisconsin is currently reviewing assessment data collected this winter and may consider further changes in cooperation with the other states. Michigan reduced its daily sport bag limit in 1996 from 50 to 35 yellow perch and has allowed yellow perch sport fishing during the month of June. Michigan does not have a commercial yellow perch fishery.
     "Lake Michigan Committee members recognize the seriousness of the yellow perch decline and what it means to the people who rely on the Lake Michigan fishery for sport and income," said Committee Chair John Trimberger of the Michigan DNR. "Right now, our primary goals are to protect the existing broodstock of adult yellow perch and to determine why the larval perch are not surviving. The states have been working closely with sport and commercial fishing interests to communicate the importance of the bag limits and quotas and, generally, these fishery users have been cooperative and understanding."
     In response to the yellow perch decline, fish chiefs from the states bordering Lake Michigan asked the Lake Michigan Committee's Yellow Perch Task Group to develop a multi-agency research initiative to identify the likely causes for the recent lack of yellow perch survival. The task group formulated several research proposals focusing on possible factors contributing to the decline including: predation on perch larvae by alewives; weather conditions; lack of food for young yellow perch; inadequate egg hatches; disease; and zebra mussel-caused water clarity (which may have increased young yellow perch's vulnerability to predation). The Lake Michigan Committee hopes this initiative will serve as the framework for yellow perch research in Lake Michigan.
     "The research priorities developed by the task group will help us look more closely at factors we suspect are contributing to the yellow perch decline," said Richard Hess of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Task Group's Chair. "It is the Task Group's hope that the implementation of the proposed research will represent another important step in the direction of the collaborative fishery management on an ecosystem basis."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walleye and Yellow Perch Harvesting from Lake Erie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     U.S. members of the Lake Erie Committee recommended an increase of allowable harvests of walleye in the western and central basins of Lake Erie from 9 million fish in 1995 to 11 million fish in 1996. Although fishery managers expect a decline in stock size in 1997 (due to a poor year class in 1995), U.S. members agreed that the total allowable catch was conservative enough to protect the existing stocks and to allow for lakewide distribution while still allowing a modest increase in harvest.
     "Lake Erie walleye continues to show strong abundance," said Lake Erie Committee member Doug Jester of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. "We will keep a sharp eye on stocks over the next few years to determine just how large of an impact the poor 1995 year class will have on the overall walleye fishery."
     Lake Erie yellow perch recruitment in 1995 continued to be low, especially in comparison to the large classes seen in the 1980s. However, the relatively stronger 1993 and 1994 yellow perch year classes will dominate the trapnet, gillnet, and sport fishing harvest. In 1995, the Lake Erie Committee adopted a lakewide harvest of 4 million pounds of yellow perch. In consideration of the expected contribution of the '93 and '94 year classes, U.S. members recommended increasing that harvest slightly in 1996 to 4.3 million pounds.
     Research scientists and biologists from Canada and the United States presented data demonstrating declines in Lake Erie productivity. Production of plant and animal plankton and the open water fish that feed on them (e.g., smelt) is demonstrably reduced lakewide, with the largest decrease in the east basin. Water clarity has increased dramatically from the combined effects of lower phosphorus levels due to pollution control and zebra mussel filter-feeding, resulting in increased aquatic macrophyte (rooted plants) abundance and in lower catchability for some fish species.
     Some fish species have prospered as a result of the rapidly changing ecosystem, most notably lake whitefish, smallmouth bass and, in the western and central basins, walleye. The ecosystem is becoming more driven by bottom organisms and this may be a positive sign for bottom-feeding fish such as yellow perch. However, fishermen around the lake need to realize that these major and significant changes are not short term and may be permanent.
"     The Lake Erie Committee believes that expectations for traditional fisheries must be tempered by the realities imposed by the ecosystem changes," commented Lake Erie Committee Chair Ken Paxton of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. "Record high harvests experienced during recent decades for yellow perch, walleye, smelt, white bass, and even the exotic white perch, are unlikely to reoccur in the foreseeable future."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting Your Boat from Lightning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Most of the available information concerning lightning protection of boats recommends providing a well-grounded vertical conductor such as a mast which will act as a lightning rod. The electrical force in a lightning bolt will shatter nonconductors of electricity such as trees, but a well-grounded aluminum mast on a sailboat acts as a lightning rod and diverts the electrical charge away from the boat structure to ground--in this case the water in which the boat is floating.
     A lightning protection system (LPS) creates a "cone of protection." Under the "cone of protection" principle, any grounded vertical conductor throws a protective shadow over any object below it. Lightning will usually stay out of the shadow area. The apex of the "cone of protection" on a sailboat, for example, is the top of the mast. Its protective shadow extends from the top of the mast to the waterline.
     According to "Recommended Practices and Standards Covering Lightning Protection" published by the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC), on a boat with a mast which is less than 50 feet in height, the bottom of the "cone of protection" is a circle with a radius equal to the height of the mast. A 30-foot sailboat with a well-grounded 30-foot aluminum mast is virtually guaranteed protection from lightning. The circle at the bottom of its "cone of protection" would cover an area from 30 feet forward of the mast to 30 feet aft of the mast.
     An LPS must be located so that lightning makes contact with it rather than another part of the boat structure. Providing lightning protection on a sailboat or cabin cruiser is relatively simple because on these boats it is easy to place the apex of the cone at a sufficient height to guard against damage to lower portions of the boat structure. Although a mast would appear to be impractical on a small open boat, many mariners needlessly expose themselves to the danger of being struck by lightning. The solution on a small open boat is to build an LPS which can be temporarily installed and raised when lightning storms are in the vicinity.
     Building a temporary LPS. Normally the components in an LPS would consist of an air terminal (lightning rod), a conductor and a lightning ground plate. For a temporary lightning protection system all three components can be combined into one. The first requirement is an electrically conductive material. Any metal can be used, but aluminum will work best for the most reasons: suitability for a marine environment, availability, workability, etc.
     The second requirement for an LPS is sufficient vertical height above the boat to provide a "cone of protection." Again, on a boat with a mast which is less than 50 feet in height, the bottom of the "cone of protection" is a circle with a radius equal to the height of the mast. If the mast is raised amidships, the circle at the bottom of the "cone of protection" will cover an area from the height of the mast forward to the same distance aft of amidships.
     The third requirement for a temporary LPS is sufficient contact of the conductor with the ground, in this case, the water in which the boat is floating. According to the ABYC standard, a lightning to ground connection for a boat may consist of any metal surface which is submerged in the water and which has an area of at least one square foot.
     The fourth requirement is a means for attaching the mast vertically to the outboard side of the boat. The attachment must be secure enough to keep the mast upright if a sea is running.
      One way to make a bare minimum, temporary lightning protection device for a 16-foot boat, for example, is to cut a 10-foot length of two inch diameter hollow aluminum tubing. Using a metal file or piece of waterproof tape, make a mark on the aluminum tubing at least two feet from one end. When the temporary mast is raised, the mark at the two foot end should be even with the surface of the water. With the eight foot section of tubing extending overhead, the circle at the bottom of the "cone of protection" will cover an area from eight feet forward of amidships to eight feet aft of amidships--the length of a 16-foot boat. Because the mast is hollow, the inside and outside surfaces of the remaining two feet of tubing submerged in the water will be sufficient to provide the necessary one square foot of connection to ground.
     The only remaining requirement is to find a suitable means for lashing the temporary mast vertically at amidships. The mast should be easy to put up and easy to take down. One way to make lashing the temporary mast easier is to drill two holes in the aluminum tubing: one at the height of the gunwales and the other close to the bottom. Insert a pin in each hole. The pins will make it easier to tie knots on the tubing which will not slip. With the tubing lashed to the boat at the height of the gunwale, tie a small mushroom anchor or other weight to the two foot end of the tubing submerged in the water.
     Most boat owners carry a hollow aluminum boathook; few a 10-foot boathook. But it is possible to make an aluminum extension that will slide over the end of a boathook, provided there is a tight connection of the conductors (aluminum to aluminum) between the two. Thus, a temporary lightning protection device for a 16-foot boat might require only a four or five foot length of aluminum tubing, a boathook and a means for lashing the device vertically amidships.
     There are other ways to make a simple low cost lightning protection device. The lower unit on an outboard motor will act as a ground plate. Find some way to lash an aluminum boathook to the outboard motor in such a way that there is metal to metal contact between the boathook and the lower unit. Just remember that with the mast on the motor, the "cone of protection" it provides extends only as far forward as the height of the mast. This means passengers will need to seat themselves farther aft than when a mast is affixed amidships.
     Install a fishing rod holder which can also be used to hold up an aluminum boathook. Clamp a battery cable to the boathook and trail the battery cable in the water or use an anchor and chain as a ground plate and wrap the chain around the boathook. If a battery cable is used, the part in the water should be stripped of its insulation to provide a good connection to ground.

     Whether a boat is equipped with a lightning protection device or not, there are precautions every mariner should take when a boat is in a lightning storm.

* Stay as far inside the boat as possible and never dangle arms or legs in the water.
* Do not touch any part of a lightning protection system.
* Do not touch metal objects such as handrails.
* Stay out of the water during a lightning storm.

     There is one other precaution to consider. Refrain from wearing large metal necklaces.

Source: U.S. Coast Guard Boating Safety Circular #

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing to be Held on Revisions to Michigan Smoked Fish
Regulations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     A public hearing on a proposed revision of Regulation No. 541, Smoked Fish, will be held on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the Doherty Hotel located in Clare, Michigan
.     The Michigan Department of Agriculture invites all interested persons to present their views regarding the proposed revised regulation either orally or in writing. Those wishing to testify in person at the hearing are requested to bring written statements with them. Written comments must be received by the Food Division by 5 p.m. Friday, July 19, 1996.
     A copy of the proposed revised regulation can be acquired from the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Food Division, PO Box 30017, Lansing, MI 48909, phone 517/373-1060, upon request.Some of the proposed revisions to the Michigan Smoked Fish Regulations include changing the minimum internal cooking temperature of smoked fish from 180°F for 30 minutes to 145°F for 30 minutes; decreasing the minimum percent of water phase salt from 5% to 3% for air packaged smoked fish; and increasing the maximum storage temperature of smoked fish from 36°F to 38°F. The shelf life of smoked fish is proposed to remain at 14 days.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS HACCP Workshop for the Seafood Industry
Greenbay, WI 3/4 August 6-8, 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     HACCP based inspection system -- It's now federal regulation. Are you confused about HACCP? Unsure of how to start writing your plan? Doubtful of how it will work for you? Learn how to make HACCP work for you.
     Whether you're interested in complying with EU directive 493, the NMFS voluntary inspection program, training requirements for the newly published FDA mandatory HACCP regulation, or in improving consumer confidence, the NTB staff will show you how to incorporate the internationally recognized seven principles of HACCP to ensure food safety and will demonstrate how HACCP can be the basis of your total quality systems management program.
     Join the over 2000 industry members, federal employees and foreign government inspection personnel who have attended and been certified through NMFS comprehensive HACCP training workshops since 1992. Attend one of the many open enrollment HACCP workshops scheduled monthly throughout the country or let the staff develop and deliver a custom program for your trade group or corporation. The staff of the NTB have developed custom programs in the U.S. and internationally for crews of factory trawlers, shellfish harvesters, retailers, fresh and frozen producers and canners.
     To register for this intense two and a half day workshop in Greenbay, WI please complete the registration form and fax to the National Training Branch at 508/281-9220. Or mail to NMFS National Training Branch, 1 Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930. Workshop fees are $425 per person or $395 p.p. for two or more attendees. Company check, Visa or MasterCard accepted. For more information please call 508/281-9216 or 207/596-0947.

REGISTRATION FORM

Name______________________________ Card#___________________

Company___________________________ Name____________________

Address___________________________ Expiration Date_________

City/St/Zip_______________________ Phone_________fax_______

     Enrollment will be accepted on a first received basis and will be limited to the facilities available. Registration fees, less a $50 administrative charge, will be refunded if notification is received in writing 10 days prior to Program Date. No refunds will be made after that date. Substitutions may be made at any time. The workshop may be canceled by the National Training Branch 3 days prior to the first day of the workshop if insufficient enrollment has been received.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service Works to Expand Relationships with Sovereign Indian Nations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     As part of the Department of the Interior's ongoing efforts to carry out the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with self-governance Tribes during the last year to inform them of opportunities for expanded cooperation.
     The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 enables Indian Tribes to negotiate annual funding agreements that allow them to conduct certain functions ordinarily conducted by Federal personnel.
     Although the Service has received various inquiries from self-governance Tribes concerning the Self-Governance Act, only one Tribe has begun formal negotiations for an annual funding agreement. Discussions with the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes about the National Bison Range in Montana are continuing.
     To further the Department's goals for carrying out the Self-Governance Act, the Service has identified a range of opportunities for increased Indian Tribal participation, including everything from fish hatchery operation to endangered species recovery programs. A list of programs with elements available for annual funding agreement negotiations will be published in the Federal Register.
     Annual funding agreements are similar to contracts but allow a greater involvement in program management and operation than a contract negotiated for services only. Under such agreements, a Tribe might assume elements of biological, visitor, or research services currently performed by Service personnel. Funds normally associated with the activity would be transferred to the Tribe for administration. The extent of Tribal involvement depends on whether the activity is an "inherently Federal" function or is otherwise appropriate.
     Funding agreements require Tribes to follow all Federal rules and regulations. Ultimate control of Federal programs, facilities, and property remains with the Service. Other laws, such as the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, do not allow the Service to delegate many of its management authorities to cities, counties, states, or Indian Tribes. On-the-ground management at national wildlife refuges would not change in any major ways under an annual funding agreement.
     Service-Tribal negotiations may be open to public participation and comment by mutual consent. All Service-Tribal agreements must be sent to Congress for review at least 90 days before they take effect.
     For more information about Service involvement in the Tribal Self-Governance programs, write to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Native American Liaison, 1849 C Street, NW., MS 3012 MIB, Washington, DC 20240.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Aquaculture Development Act Signed by Governor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Michigan Aquaculture Development Act passed the Michigan
legislature and was signed by Governor Engler. Passage of the Act
will now recognize aquaculture as other Michigan farming
enterprises and give more responsibility to the Michigan
Department of Agriculture.
     Bob Baldwin (President-Michigan Aquaculture Association) is now working with the various state agencies on implementing the details of the Michigan Aquaculture Development Act. Those having specific questions on the Act should contact Bob at 616/796-2284.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquaculture Amendment to coastal Zone Management Reauthorization
Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Congress recently passed the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act (HR 1965 which was signed by the President. Of importance to the U.S. aquaculture community is an added amendment, Section 7. Aquaculture in the Coastal Zone, included under Section 309. The language is as follows:

     The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is amended--

1. in section 306A(b) (16 U.S.C. 1455a(b) ) by adding at the end of the following:

"(4) The development of a coordinated process among State agencies to regulate and issue permits for aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone." And

2. in section 309(a) (16 U.S.C. 1456(a) ) by adding at the end the following:

"(9) Adoption of procedures and policies to evaluate and facilitate the siting of public and private aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone, which will enable States to formulate, administer, and implement strategic plans for marine aquaculture."

     With this technical issue amendment and President's signature, states will have the option to dedicate Section 309 funds to appropriate aquaculture-related projects. This is a long-awaited development and will hopefully enhance the opportunities for economically viable aquaculture development in appropriate coastal area sites.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extralabel Drug Use in Animals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to allow veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of certain approved animal drugs and approved human drugs for animals. This action implements the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (the AMDUCA). This proposed rule will provide veterinarians greater flexibility for using approved drugs for animal use and will have implications for aquaculture.
     Written comments on the proposed rule will be accepted up to July 31, 1996 and should be sent to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857.
     FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard L. Arkin, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-238), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301/594-1737.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Commercial Fisheries Newsline Readers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Kinnunen will be on study leave from September through December 1996 to work on writing his Ph.D. dissertation. Please contact one of the other Sea Grant Agents during his absence if you have any specific needs or questions.

Michigan Sea Grant Web Site//
Check out our new Web site at
http://www.engin.umich.edu/seagrant/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIGAN 1995 COMMERCIAL FISH HARVEST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The following tables are a summary of the 1995 commercial fish harvest from Michigan waters. This information was compiled from data supplied by the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, the Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment Program regulated by COTFMA (Bay Mills, Soo Tribe, and Grand Traverse) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (Bad River, Keweenaw Bay, and Red Cliff Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians). It should be noted that the treaty commercial harvest figures for Lake Superior are a total of all the tribes, while those for Lakes Huron and Michigan are Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment Program regulated by COTFMA.

TABLE 1. LAKES HURON AND ERIE

1995 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest (pounds)in Michigan Waters of Lakes Huron and Erie

TABLE 2. LAKE SUPERIOR

1995 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest (pounds) in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior

TABLE 3. LAKE MICHIGAN

1995 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest (pounds) in Michigan Waters of Lake Michigan

TABLE 4. 1995 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest

(Pounds and dockside dollar value) in Michigan Waters of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie Combined

TABLE 5
Pounds of Chinook and Coho Salmon harvested from Michigan weirs, Lakes Michigan and Huron during the fall of 1992-1995