Well winter is definitely here … the ground has been a funny white color since early November. It’s time to review a few of the projects we have going and let you know what’s coming up in the way of future activities to improve our river.

The Big South Branch Habitat Improvement Project This month marks the end of the third year of this five year effort to increase the number of salmonids. Nearly all of the construction work has been completed with the emphasis now shifting to monitoring the effects of that work. The most dramatic change is a result of installing “artificial riffle beds” for spawning purposes … you might say we were following up on that old slogan “Build it and they will come”. And so it was. We took gravel and cobble and rocks and created seven areas ranging from 400’ to 600’ each and six of the seven had outstanding Chinook salmon spawning redds on them last fall. We will continue to look into the Freeman Creek site to figure out why it was the lone exception and, using some of the stones we had left over, we will try to add two new sites to our list.

The other truly notable and easily visible construction was the Interpretive Center at Ruby Creek. Since June members of the Ruby Creek Recreation and Conservation Club have erected the pavilion, installed restrooms, fabricated benches, dredged the old DNR rearing pond, built a parking lot, and marked it with a beautiful sign inviting the public to come see what a little habitat restoration work can do to the stream.

The educational component of the project is also progressing very well. The classroom curriculum is being tested right now. Students will participate both in the classroom and in the field, including helping by monitoring water quality. The program will be a continuous one following the students as they move through grade school, middle school, and high school.

The Watershed Council officers met last week to review the finances of the project. With sixty percent of the time gone by we’ve spent eighty percent of the grant, but not to worry. The planning and construction parts naturally come first and don’t continue throughout the project. In fact, our Program Manager, Dave Cozad projects that if we continue according to plan we will finish about $6,000 over budget, or less than one percent of the $750,000 grant from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust. In reviewing the progress, the Executive Committee even went so far as to recommend these scope changes: · To make best use of the left-over cobble, we can make two more artificial riffle zones for only $24,000; · Chuck Bassett, Hiawatha Forest biologist, recommends an improved method of measuring increasing fish populations to better assure statistical significance, for only $18,000; · There is much interest in seeing the sites, so a field trip will be added to the final symposium when we present our results. It’ll cost $3,000.

The Board approved spending this additional $45,000 and will either take it out of our treasury or will seek special funding, but not use GLFT monies.

What remains to be done? The last bit of construction work will be done as soon as the snow is gone; the Stream Sweeper dredge will be used to clean sand out of old “oxbows” so that they will serve as natural sandtraps during future high-water events. Also a small sediment trap will be located just upstream of the Ruby Creek Interpretive Center so that visitors and students can better see the habitat work placed there. The final touches will be put on the educational segment which should be ready for implementation in the fall. Monitoring of all the different components (fish = kind, size, numbers; insects = species, counts; spawning redds; stream morphology changes; etc.) will be tallied and compared with baseline numbers.

All in all we’re really excited about our progress … and it’s something you can really see. The bad news? … already we’re attracting poachers, which not only depletes the resource but also could influence our statistical counts. We are working on several ways of controlling this shady element, but then we should have known … “Build it and they will come”.

Road Stream Crossing Improvements Conservation Resource Alliance, our RC&D from Traverse City was recently awarded a grant for $373,646 to benefit the P.M. river. The money comes from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division through Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act, and runs from December 2000 through September 2003. The grant will repair up to eight eroding road/stream crossings, reactivate the P.M. River Restoration Committee, and complete a P.M. River Management Plan. This plan, essentially a reformat of our Assessment, will prioritize the inventory of sites which are sources of sand and sediment entering the stream, and can be used to request additional funds from the Clean Michigan Initiative approved by voters in 1998. Currently the Restoration Committee is working with the Newaygo, Lake, Oceana, and Mason County Road Commissions to select the first eight locations, and work will likely proceed on a worst/first basis. We’ll be reporting to you periodically on our progress.

Legislation We just didn’t do so well on getting our two most critical pieces of legislation passed last year. We served on the Advisory Committee which tailored the contents of the Aquatic Species Conservation Act, and played a role in attempting to amend the Drain Code. For those of you who wonder why these are important, the ASCA would change the setting of fishing seasons, creel limits, license fees, etc. from the state House of Representatives to the DNR who would be required to base decisions on biology instead of politics; the Drain Code currently allows Drain Commissioners to clean drains, drain wetlands, dredge channels without any concern for environmental issues. Neither of these bills emerged from the legislature last term. Rep. Susan Tabor has announced plans to reintroduce the ASCA, but opposition is expected from the Aquaculture industry and bait dealers. Prospects for revision of the Drain Code appear dim … the first attempts to correct the old law began in 1973!

Brown Trout and Steelhead Competition Study The Watershed Council hosted a meeting of fisheries experts from around the state in Cadillac in 1993. The meeting has been termed the “What if …” meeting because the topic was “… What if several steps were taken to keep the anadromous salmon and steelhead from spawning in a section of river with good populations of resident Brook and Brown Trout?”. This blue-sky discussion did little to resolve the question, but it did result in the DNR’s funding of a study at their Hunt Creek Research Station, on a tributary of the Thunder Bay River near Lewiston. Gaylord Alexander, DNR’s Father of the Sandtrap, started the study with Andy Nuhfer taking over when Gaylord retired two years ago. The DNR’s interest is really two-fold: · Physically and philosophically, what impact do these larger more aggressive fish have on the resident populations with their annual incursions? · What will happen if the Federal Energy Relicensing Commission (FERC) rules eventually require that dams be removed or that fish ladders be installed around dams allowing salmon and/or steelhead access to waters where they’ve never been before? Andy Nuhfer attended our February Board Meeting to describe his preliminary findings and his thoughts on further studies.

Why is the study at Hunt Creek being done? · Passing anadromous fish upstream has the potential to make fishing better. * Great Lakes fish offer angling opportunities and their offspring can cut hatchery costs of stocking the Great Lakes. · Managers and planners need to know if fish passage is likely to reduce abundance of resident trout species through competition or by introduction of new diseases. · Declines in abundance of resident trout species have been observed since the 1970’s in streams with and without barriers to upstream passage of anadromous fish, but… · The effects of anadromous fish passage on resident trout are difficult to assess by comparing abundance of resident trout in streams with and without anadromous fish because habitat differences between streams confound interpretation of data. · Thus, more controlled studies are needed. · The Hunt Creek study simulates a real-world fish passage scenario and uses comparisons of resident trout abundance, survival and growth in treatment and control stream reaches to help separate environmental influences from effects of competition.

The Hunt Creek study uses a classic Before/After/Treatment/Control design. Data on population dynamics of resident trout were collected annually from 1995-97 in a section of Hunt Creek where adult steelheads were to be stocked. Similar data were collected in reference zones in Hunt Creek and Gilchrist Creek where no steelhead were to be stocked. Steelhead were selected as the “test” competitor because their progeny remain in the stream longer. Thus, they are expected to compete more with resident species than juveniles of other species such as Chinook salmon which usually smolt and emigrate the same year they hatch. Steelhead were also selected as the test species because selective passage of steelhead is perceived to be more socially acceptable than passage of some other species.

Adult steelhead have been stocked into Hunt Creek each spring for three consecutive years (1998-2000). The study plan calls for two more years of stocking. Preliminary results include the following: · Brown trout reproductive success did not change significantly after steelhead were stocked. · Steelhead rarely superimpose their redds upon Brown trout redds dug the previous fall. · Survival of young-of-the-year Brown trout to age 1 has declined. · Survival of age 1 Brown trout has not changed. · It is too early to determine if survival or abundance of older and larger fish has changed as a result of steelhead stocking. · Brown trout yearlings are less abundant than they were before steelhead were stocked. · Low numbers of whirling disease spores have been detected in a few Brown trout since steelhead were stocked. However, the fish display no clinical signs (symptoms) of the disease. · No significant changes in growth rates of resident trout have been observed.

Andy plans to continue the Hunt Creek study and expand it to provide information on effects of species interactions in additional rivers. The Hunt Creek study is looking for changes in resident trout populations after potential competitors are introduced. Andy is exploring the possibility of “reversing” the experimental design by looking for changes in resident trout populations after potential competitors are excluded. The Baldwin River was identified as the best potential site in the state to do such an experiment. Anadromous fish reproduce upstream of the Baldwin Dam and the dam could be modified to block upstream fish passage. This experiment can only be conducted if the owner of the dam is agreeable to dam modifications. The proposal will be presented and discussed with the owner this year.

A successful experiment in the Baldwin River also hinges on the size and temporal variability of salmonid populations in the river. Detecting meaningful changes in populations that are small or variable through time is very difficult. Hunt Creek Research Station staff estimated salmonid populations at sites above and below the dam in August 2000. Population estimates were relatively low and imprecise. This means that pre-exclusion population data should be collected over more years (2001 to 2003 or 2004). Few juvenile coho salmon were found either up or downstream of the dam, although juvenile steelhead were fairly abundant at all stations. Charlie Turk offered to assist the DNR in locating reference reaches on the Baldwin where salmonid densities are higher to enhance the statistical reliability of data collected.

Preliminary sampling indicates that modification to the dam to block fish passage (acceptable to the owner) will not be implemented any earlier than fall 2003..

A motion was made by Bob Nicholson that the Watershed Council supports the DNR’s Baldwin River Brown trout competition study and encourages incorporation of the Middle Branch Sandtrap monitoring data into the study: APPROVED.

Volunteers Seven years ago the Watershed Council hosted the initial get-together of members of other watershed councils who are made up of strictly volunteers (no paid staff). Annually we share experiences and expertise to preclude “re-inventing the wheel” and to cultivate new friendships and learn other groups’ proficiencies. One of the very few rules we have is that we share each other’s newsletters. The latest mailing from the Thunder Bay Watershed Council was a brochure by two of their members, Barb Meek and Elizabeth Littler, recommending those shrubs and trees which should and should not be used to landscape near rivers and lakes. The suggestions are so useful, we have reprinted the brochure with permission of the Thunder Bay Watershed Council and have included a copy with this issue of the Mainstream. Thanks, Thunder Bay!

Mark your calendars now for our 30th Anniversary Banquet, July 14th at Lands Inn in Ludington. Hope to see you there.

Jim Bos Dick Schwikert President Scribe