The Current State of the Pere Marquette River. April 1997 Well, here it is, time again for your quarterly newsletter. Since I usually start these with a weather report, you might expect that over a year you would get a Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter report. Michigan, being what it is, tends to favor us with nine months of snow separated by a few weeks of tough sledding. It's snowing now, with more in the forecast. As to the weather report, both the DNR and Forest Service caution that a very dry Spring is expected ... please be careful with fire, especially during April and May. I mentioned in our last Mainstream that we are undertaking a major effort to compile an assessment of our entire watershed. The DNR is also beginning to collect data for a similar project. I want to stress that neither compilation will be duplicative but, rather, both will be complimentary. We expect the DNR's will be tailored more toward the fishery while we are looking at wildlife, cultural resources, endangered species, land use, history, recreation, forestry, jurisdictional boundaries, and all possible parameters that make up our entire watershed. The assessment, when completed, would tell us everything there is to know about our region, as well as list those things we don't know, and would point out problems which may threaten our stream system as well as opportunities which can be taken to protect and enhance our resource. We look upon this as becoming the tool that will provide us the direction for a strategy to pursue our mission to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural values of the Pere Marquette. I don't want to appear redundant, but all members should understand the significance of this project. With this in mind, I would point out another change that the Watershed Council is undergoing. Our past operations have been financed primarily through two sources; historically we have relied upon membership dues and contributions, which over the past five years has been greatly supported by funds raised from our Cast for ConservationÔ and Annual Banquet. The raffles and auctions at our Banquet are currently our major source of income, with dues, gifts, and grants coming along to help out nicely. Our other major revenue for the streambank erosion projects overseen by the Restoration Committee has been the DNR's grant and the U.S. Forest Service's funding in support of that project. However, as this project draws to a close, and with expectations that the Assessment will highlight significant new requirements for funding, we will be obliged to approach new, larger sources for funds to support our mission. We ask your help, not solely financial, as we approach sources to aid us in our operations. We expect that rather than one benefactor contributing for numerous sites as in the past, we may be forming numerous partnerships with patrons willing to accompany us in site-specific or particular-interest projects in the future. We're looking forward to this unique challenge. In trying to determine whether measurable results from the bank stabilization efforts by the Restoration Committee may have been observed during the Aquatic Survey, we asked Indiana University to review their records. Drs. Dan Willard and Clint Oster went beyond our original request and have provided us with "An Ecological Profile of the Pere Marquette Watershed". I mentioned some of their findings in last October's Mainstream, but let me give you some of the details. Their study, designed over ten years ago, was primarily addressing the issue of possible changes to the invertebrate population resulting from the periodic treatment of the river with the lampricide TFM. We'll go into much more detail on this when we receive their final Executive Summary in the near future, but basically their findings were that the insect populations tend to be rich, diverse, and dynamic, and at no time reduced in number. Overall, the biomass of insect larvae is high. A measure of the quality of the water can be taken from the numbers and the families of aquatic insects; high counts of mayflies, caddis flies, and stone flies indicate high-quality clean water, while midges and black flies are able to tolerate low oxygen and polluted waters. The Pere Marquette has good counts of both classes. There is a strong showing of midge larvae suggesting a small amount of organic pollution in the river; this could be a natural breakdown of wood or other plant material in the wetlands, or from septic leakage. However, this is not cause for alarm because of the very healthy population of the families most sensitive to pollution (mayflies, stone flies, and caddis) which are becoming somewhat more abundant. We intend to continue to monitor these changes and have asked IU to extend the survey by expanding some of the parameters studied while reducing the frequency. But our request was for their observations, which might indicate less sand/more gravel, which was not one of the original determinants. However, when insect samples were taken the river bottom and cross-sections were recorded. Overall, the amount of sandbottom is lower in the post-1990 period than in the pre-1990 period. Averaging all sites: 50.5% had a sand bottom before 1990 ('85-'90) vs. 35.4% after 1990 ('90-'94) -roughly 30% reduction. While the decline could be documented throughout the study area (M37 to Rainbow Rapids), the upper river (from just up from Danaher Lake) started out cleaner but still had about 18% improvement compared to the lower river. Two major factors, which increase bank erosion, are increased flow in the river and increased recreational use. Average mean monthly flow measured at the Scottville gauging station from 1939 through 1993 indicates a trend toward increased flow volumes; this is in agreement with data showing increased annual precipitation from 1961 to 1991. The increased flow would be expected to do two things: Scour more sand from the river bottom uncovering more gravel and stones, but it also increases the river's ability to erode the banks and thus bring more sand and sediment into the river. On top of this is the increasing recreational use, which increases erosion through walking along the banks and dragging watercraft in and out of the river. Yet, in spite of the increased water volume and increased trampling of the banks, we are able to show that bank stabilization and other erosion control efforts have been sufficient to counter the effects of more water and people. It appears that our work is proving effective, but will require continuing study and control. We'll keep you informed. The report given by Jerry Rakoczy of the MDNR at the Fisheries Workshop, which was held at the Lands End in Ludington on January 4th, showed an increase in both the number of fish caught as well as the man-hours of effort for 1996. The steelhead catch for charter boats was up 167%, for a total of more than 18,000 steelhead. The chinook catch was up 87% over 1995, with an estimated 100,000 fish caught. Other trout and salmon catch rates were up slightly over 1995 with the exception of lake trout which were slightly down. The decrease in the lake trout catch was attributed mainly to less targeting of lake trout because the salmon were so plentiful. Lake Michigan charters totaled 9,320 trips - up 8% over 1995. 1996 Ludington charter trips totaled 1,183. Ludington charter trips accounted for 3,759 steelhead and 4,599 chinooks. Charter trips account for only 8% of all Great Lakes fishing. While fish numbers were certainly up overall, a significant portion of the increased catch was due to all angling hours being up 47% for charters and 40% for non-charters over 1995. This was probably due to the success of 1995, we can probably expect an increase in effort in 1997 as anglers respond to the increased catch rates. We remain involved in numerous projects, some of which seem entwined in perpetuity. For example: Construction has been forestalled on the Custer weir until proof comes from the Jordan River that the pulsed-electrical grid apparatus is functional; MSU meanwhile has caught and implanted transmitters in the first batch of 14 steelhead. One has already been harvested and the transmitter returned. We are hosting a river management forum, which is investigating two issues: Access: Controlling numbers of users, perhaps by category, extending or modifying the permitting system, developing a uniform strategy. Behavior: Rowdyism, noise, bans or limits on alcohol defining standards or guidelines. Both matters would be addressed through education and signs, and a cooperative effort by all agencies to enforce the rules. The DNR's Parks & Recreation personnel are sharing their experience and background with similar mischief. Each of you who receive this Mainstream will shortly receive a questionnaire on river use; the Forest Service is funding the survey, which is being done by MSU. The goal is to measure recreational use of the river in order to attempt to set a balance between the many types of users. A telephone sampling to ask specific details regarding issues of special interest will follow the questionnaire. We ask your cooperation in helping out on this, as we expect it will provide a volume of baseline data for further discussion. We would all hope that the end result will be to provide a truly quality experience for each person who uses our river, and that certainly should include the riparians. Last but not least is our Annual Banquet and Cast for ConservationÔ. Chuck and Pat Smith are promising that this year's festival will be the best yet! In addition to the usual quality art and sporting equipment, we will have some new items that will incontrovertibly be unique. We encourage you to get your reservation in early so you won't miss out on a wonderful extravaganza. George Kustin also will have some new twists and surprises in this year's Cast for Conservation. If this weather keeps up we'll still have steelhead available for the contestants to measure. Mark your calendars now for July 12. The Banquet tickets will be available shortly. Keep your dry flies floating! Dick Schwikert President