Newsletter
HomeNewsletter
President's Message 07

Winter 2006

Fall 2006

Summer 2006

Spring 2006

Winter 2005

Spring 2005

Winter 2004

Fall 2004

Spring 2004

Special Addition 2003

Presidents Message 2003

Fall 2002

Newsletter President's Message July 2001

Spring 2001

Winter 2001

Fall 2000

July 2000 President's Message

Spring 2000

January 2000

October 99

July 99

April 99

April 98

January 98

October 97

January 97

July 97

April 97

ProjectsHistoryEvents & ActivitiesManagement PlansMapsFishing InformationBoard of DirectorsMeeting MinutesCuster WeirLinks
Spring 2001

MAINSTREAM Spring 2001 As usual, we are being blessed with an atypical spring. Winter hung on longer than really necessary, delaying the steelhead run, but the late snowmelt seems to have diminished the possibility of grass and leaf fires. To my way of thinking we’ve got the best of both worlds. An update on a couple of recent activities:

A portion of the electrically charged area

Custer Weir In reviewing the progress of this project, which has really been an ongoing adventure since the mid-1980’s, it appears we finally can mark significant success. It was expected that the installation of the window would allow operation of the weir by March 15 ... this was not the case, but not really a problem either. As indicated earlier, the cold weather and frost prevented our getting an early start on the construction portion of the project. A window, below water level in the fish passage ladder, is to be installed to permit a camera to be situated to record fish passage. The camera will be activated by a motion-detector which will photograph the fish. A scale on the opposite wall will indicate the size of the fish, and biologists can identify both the species and sex from the photo. Similar installations elsewhere have proven extremely efficient, and have even identified some “hams” who return to have their photos taken repeatedly. However, the high water from the snowmelt runoff and rains prevented the window and camera from being installed in time for the first steelhead runs.

Concrete vault where window will be installed and camera housed

The migration runs for spawning for both the fish species (primarily the steelhead and suckers in the P.M.) and for lamprey are somewhat dependent upon water temperature. When the electrical grid and fish passageway were activated on April 5th, many steelhead had already been observed to have passed, but it was expected that very few lamprey had already begun to migrate and may have passed the weir. Since the viewing window and camera had not been installed, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service arranged for the manual counting and recording of all the fish that negotiated the passageway. In the first week of operation (April 5-12), a total of 1,664 steelhead were observed passing over the ladder, 909 of those passing on Thursday the 12th, most likely because of the high water from heavy rains the two previous days. Stray voltage had been detected in the river, and eliminated, but there are doubts this had any significant effect on passage.

Fish passageway with pumps activated

The fish being tagged by the MSU crew, to assure adequate numbers pass, have been observed running the ladder. The new esophageal implant tags are reportedly working well, and the elimination of the stray voltage seems to have eliminated the electrical jolt the transmitter-implanted fish experienced last year. We expect to receive the detailed results of the MSU study in early June and will pass that material on to you later.

All in all, those involved: Fish & Wildlife, the DNR, and the MSU students – all report that it’s fun and gratifying to watch the fish passing through … their coloration is beautiful and some real lunkers have been seen. This finally is really encouraging. If you’re in the Custer region this May or June (the weir will probably be shut down in early July), stop and take ten or fifteen minutes to watch the weir in action. You might be lucky enough to see a late running steelie in the ladder

River Volunteers In the last Mainstream I mentioned our Volunteer river groups’ annual meeting … briefly, these organizations with no paid staffs get together annually to report their successes and failures, especially tips to the others to avoid similar frustrations. Our neighbors from the Little Manistee hosted this year’s session and I thought you might be interested in hearing how other groups are doing. A total of twenty-five turned out representing ten (of about 15 or 16) northern Michigan river-protection organizations. In no particular order, these are their reports: · The Little Manistee Watershed Conservation Council just celebrated their sixth anniversary and have restored about half of their moderate to severe erosion sites. They were successful in obtaining an educational grant for a ten-year sandtrap study by turning the project into an instruction and research program.

· The Muskegon River Watershed Assembly is now a 501c3 non-profit organization and received a Fremont Foundation grant to rehabilitate Bigelow Creek (mainstem, below Croton). They are about to receive a very substantial grant from the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust, and will be required to hire paid staff and “market” the river. They extensively discussed the Perrier “water-mining” proposal and elected to take no position on the issue. · The Betsie River guys and gals are now ten years old and have stabilized 59 banks. They are currently working on erecting a timber bridge at the Thompsonville dam. Their Clean Michigan Initiative grant will include a classroom education program. · The Black River fellows are now maintaining nine sandtraps. · The Sauble River team is in the process of just forming a watershed council and praised the forum for providing valuable counsel and advice. · The Platte River people bragged about the wealth of baseline data that was collected in the process of their lawsuit vs. the DNR over contamination from the hatchery. · The Upper Manistee organization has completed their entire rehabilitation in ten years and is now turning their efforts to “perpetual care”. They still desire natural river status but are relying on local (township) zoning based upon the “natural” rules. · The AuSable River group is also changing to a management mode; they see little likelihood of removing the Grayling dam. · The Thunder Bay people are putting together a management plan with federal 319 grant monies, same as we are. These plans are necessary to obtain the Clean Michigan Initiative grants to clean up the rivers’ most common contamination: sediment. · Our Pere Marquette report summarized the GLFT Big South project, pretty much as it appeared in the last Mainstream. The other topic we presented centered around a recent inquiry to us. Prospective purchasers of land on the river have asked if PMWC would be interested in taking a conservation easement on the land to preserve it in its undeveloped state in perpetuity. Our Board of Directors are examining the issue in detail as usually these easements are assigned to conservancies. None of the other watershed councils have experienced similar requests which invites much speculation. As you can see, other councils range from rookies through the very experienced and successful. I feel proud to represent your organization, not just because of our thirty years’ experience, more that we’ve accomplished so much and led the way for others to preserve and enhance their rivers.

Poaching You’ll recall our concerns regarding the success of rehabilitating the Big South branch … that we’ve done such a good job that word is spreading and illegal fishing has again become lucrative at our restoration sites. Two things you should know … first, that we’ve been able to formulate a program which we feel will discourage and hopefully diminish the poaching in these areas, and secondly, that the RAP – Report All Poachers program truly is effective. We’ve heard rumors that riparians are hesitant to call the RAP line because it goes to Lansing (even though it’s toll-free). But the way the system is set up, the most proximate Conservation Officer is notified ... the dispatcher knows who is available and who isn't, and the closest to your complaint is notified. And one other thing, if you ask to be informed of what happened on your complaint, the RAP program must provide you with the follow-up, even if no enforcement was taken. This was written into the program to more completely assure that the DNR take action. You’ll be asked your name, but you may request immunity. So remember this and mark the number by your phone – if you see a wildlife violator call RAP at 1-800-292-7800.

As long as you’re writing down the RAP number, mark your calendar now for our 30th Anniversary Annual Banquet … July 14 at Lands Inn in Ludington. We promise you again that you’ll have a great time and we’ll have a lot of prizes for you to take home. Mark it down … now.

The best,

Dick Schwikert Jim Bos Scribe President

   

© Pere Marquette Watershed Council
P.O. Box 212 -- Baldwin, MI 49304 -- Fax: 231-745-7692

The Pere Marquette Watershed Council is a 501c Not-for-Profit Organization. Contributions are tax deductible within the limits of federal tax regulation.
Cast for ConservationTM is a trademark of the
Pere Marquette Watershed Council.


e-mail: info@peremarquette.org

Site Map