This was my first year as President of the PMWC and as promised it has held many challenges, success's, and surprises. I've seen many changes in the last few years but what remains constant throughout is that our watershed is one the most beautiful places on earth. Of course, anything as special and precious as our river attracts plenty of attention. This translates into an incredible amount of pressure from everyone partaking in all the recreational opportunities the Pere Marquette River offers. The balance between conservation and recreation is precarious at best. We are very close to loving our river to death. Our number one challenge in the coming years will be finding this common ground between conservation and recreation. After all the Pere Marquette River belongs to us all.

Success with Pere Marquette River Watershed Council projects has always been dependent on strong partnerships. The following organizations are invaluable for their cooperation and support of our watershed: United States Forest Service US Fish & Wildlife Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries & Natural Rivers USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services DEQ Land & Water Management Great Lakes Fisheries Trust Mainstream Resources Conservation Resource Alliance Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited Federation of Fly Fishers Ruby Creek Conservation Club Lake County Road Commission Pleasant Plains Township Orvis

I'd like to thank the 580 members of the Pere Marquette Watershed Council for your investment of time and dollars.

Project's Summary's for the last twelve months:

1. Big South Pere Marquette Habitat Improvement Demonstration Project:

5/27 we met with the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust Scientific Advisory Team in Lansing for a preview of the final report by Dave Cozad of Mainstream Resources. The study conclusions are: • The constructed riffles provide substrate suitable for flora and fauna; • Chinook & Steelhead fingerling densities increased; • The constructed riffles support macroinvertebrate species richness; • Chinook will reproduce in a stream where there is no previous record of successful spawning; • Cutoff oxbows are effective sand traps in flashy streams with high sand bed-loads.

6/27 we held the Big South Demonstration Project Symposium at West Shore Community College. Guest Speakers and their topics are were; • Dick Schwikert/PMWC Big South Project Coordinator - Project Genesis; • Dave Cozad/Mainstream Resources Project Contractor - Stream Treatments & Construction Methods, Electrofishing Survey Results; • Sam Noffke/Mainstream Resources - Macroinvertebrate Response at Constructed Riffles, & Redd Mapping/Spawning Observations; • Jim Bos/PMWC - Questions & Implications for the Future;

After lunch a site tour of the constructed riffles was lead by Dave Cozad, Dr. Robert King, & Sam Noffke of Mainstream Resources.

2. Baldwin River Restoration Project:

Conservation Resource Alliance was awarded a River Care grant from the Orvis Foundation for Streambank restoration on the Baldwin River. This was a four-way matching challenge grant of which $10,000.00 needed to be raised by December 31,2002. PMWC took a leadership role in donating $2500.00 towards the grant and in doing so help enable the match to be met. Work is scheduled to begin in late 2003.

3. Middle Branch Forks Bridge Restoration:

On July 23rd the Dedication for the Forks Bridge was held on site. This project was a partnership lead by Kim Balke & CRA included: Lake County Road Commission, Pleasant Plains Township, USFS, MDEQ, PMWC, MDNR Fisheries, Lansing Trout Unlimited Chapter, & the Damon family. PMWC contributed $5000.00 to this project. Special thanks to Ken Sink of the PMWC board for his leadership with this project.

4. Riparian Rehabilitation Pilot Project

In August of 2002 we received a $5000.00 donation from DOW Chemical of Ludington to fund our Riparian Rehabilitation Project. This is to be the first of three such annual donations. The project goal is to match funding of riparian rehabilitation projects on the Pere Marquette River Watershed. A steering committee Chaired by Fred McLane has been established to qualify proposals and administrate grant funding.

5. Turk & Bell Sand Traps

The Turk Trap was cleaned on 12/31/02 and the Bell Trap on 5/12/03.

6. The PMWC Annual Banquet & Cast For Conservation

Our annual gathering was held July 19th at the Ramada Inn, Ludington, Michigan. This year's guest speaker was State Representative David W. Palsrock of the 101st District. The PMWC Excellence in Conservation Award was presented to Fred Kirchner USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tom Rozich of MDNR Fisheries received his award 7/21/03 at the Natural Rivers Zoning Review Board meeting. Glenn Blackwood conducted another outstanding fundraising auction. Thank you to Master of Ceremonies and Annual Banquet Chair Fred McLane and his team.

A field of twelve teams participated in the Cast for Conservation this year. The Friday night social was hosted by Bob Kennedy C4C Chair at the Big South Project Ruby Creek Interpretive Center. Thanks to Bob and all the Teams.

In conclusion I'd like to extend a special thank you to Dick & Lu Schwikert. Dick is the heartbeat of the PMWC and Lu keeps that heart-beating. Without Dick's leadership and commitment PMWC would not be the outstanding organization it is today.

SAND

Our colleagues from Bear Creek invited me to give them a short talk about sand…a topic I thought should be fairly straightforward. Truth is, I learned a lot about sand, enough to want to share it with you.

Sand is the result of the natural process of erosion with the wind and rain (and snow here in Michigan) slowly breaking the earth into smaller pieces and moving it toward the oceans. It’s been going on for a long time but man’s appearance on earth is speeding up the process…through farming, logging, construction, you name it. And while man has introduced numerous chemicals, including PCB, PBB, dioxan, etc., sand itself is far and away Michigan’s greatest pollutant.

A study on the effects of sand on rivers and its fishery was conducted at MDNR’s Hunt Creek Fisheries Research Station near Lewiston; Hunt Creek and the Gilchrist converge to form the Thunder Bay River. Recent DNR retiree Gaylord Alexander and Ed Hansen of the Forest Service did a five-year study, from 1972 to 1976, and published their findings in 1983. As baseline they had 15 years’ prior data and 5 years’ post study, so the overall observation period was from 1957 through 1981.

Although the study is known today as the “Sand Trap” study, it had little to do with taking sand out of the stream. In fact, they added 2 cubic yards per day to Hunt Creek, a total of 4,223 cubic yards in 5 years. They then observed what happened to the sand: • It first reached 1 mile in 21 months; by then they had added 1300 cubic yards (distributed over 1 mile); • Most of it settled in deeper pools (low gradient), less in riffles; • Pool habitat was reduced 90%; • Both the streambed and water surface were raised 9 inches in 5 years; • The stream became about 1.3 feet wider…and warmer.

Their conclusion: Sand destroys what trout like: Deep pools, gravel riffles, cold water. It sandblasts the large woody debris smooth, like driftwood. It scours and buries the substrate, fills the pools and channels, and covers over the gravel.

But, what effect did it have on the fish, and the insects they feed on? Well, trout numbers were reduced 50%…in year #5, but not in years 1 – 4. It reduced both spawning and fry survival. The numbers of fish over 8 inches decreased 65%. Growth rate remained good, due to the reduced competition. As for the insects, the authors found the greatest reduction was Mayflies…it was termed “drastic”. The Caddis and Stoneflies were reduced “significantly”, and with the exceptions above, the smaller the species, the more seriously affected.

What effect did the sand bedload have on stream morphology? It took 4 years after the final addition of sand for the streambed elevation to return nearly to normal. And in those 4 years only the mid-channel riffles cleared…the pools remained filled with sand.

The study led to the first constructed sandtrap, on Poplar Creek in the Pine-Manistee system. It resulted in an 86% reduction in moving sand, and gave a 30% increase in trout numbers. But not all sites lend themselves to sandtraps. For a trap to be effective (and efficient) you must prevent further erosion upstream; no use spending money to continuously remove sand if it continues to pour in above the trap. Also, traps are ineffective for naturally soft, erodable streambeds, or in low-gradient streams. Rivers need to have their natural controls, i.e., bedrock, clay, boulders, etc. for traps to work. And if you decide to put a trap in an appropriate river you’ll need to provide for three requirements: A firm pad where the excavator will work, a road access to get the spoils off the floodplain, and a suitable dumpsite for spoils far enough back from the river but no so far that hauling costs make it too expensive. The bottom line with any sandtrap is the cost-benefit ratio…they work, they’re expensive, you have to decide how much you can afford. Five years after the “Sandtrap” publication, 110 traps were being maintained; latest available count was 166 in 1993. DNR’s budget (’01) is $200,000 per year or $1250 each. A rule-of-thumb cost is $2500 per year with cleaning each spring and fall.

Are there other ways to get sand out? Sure. The traditional method for sediment removal (today’s politically correct terminology) uses heavy equipment: an excavator, backhoe, trucks, a dozer, front-end loader, anything to pick-it-up, move-it-out. We’ve also had experience with Trout Unlimited”s “Stream Sweeper” suction dredge…works wonderfully in appropriately selected sites. It needs no pad, doesn’t harm the streambank, no trucks and their access roads, and no spoils pit…it spreads the sediment in a “thin veneer” that disappears in a couple years. Currently it is being modified and improved to be more maneuverable, smaller, and more productive; in the right spot, it’s a great tool.

During our Great Lakes Fisheries Trust Big South project we tested another new concept, cleaning out old oxbows so that they serve as a natural trap during high water events. These are prime sites for the suction dredge and seem more efficient, perhaps due to their perpendicular location to the flood flow.

One last method is being discussed more recently, the use of baffles situated properly to catch sand in small localized sites. This fits in with a proposal for small stationary pumps with frequent, near-continual cleaning. No word on how effective these will be.

One last update on our Bell Sandtrap here in the Little South. First dug June 1, 1993 and last cleaned May 12 this year…in 10 years it has yielded 11,356 cubic yards, or a football field covered to 7’ 7”. I should also mention that DNR has another study going at Hunt Creek to assess the suitability of different river types and measurements for maximal spacing between sites to improve efficiency. Problem is final publication is targeted for 2014.

In closing, sand is here, has been here. Logging didn’t cause the sand in the rivers, it just made it easier for it to find its way into our streams. The French discoverers in the 1700s named our rivers the Sauble, AuSable, most likely because they were sandy then. Working to get as much sand out is an ambitious goal, but you should think of the long-term commitment you’re making. My idea would be to find a market for it, sell it, and use those dollars to keep getting more out of the river to the market.

By the way, Lu says if I know as much about salt as I do about sand, my blood pressure wouldn’t be so high.

Dick Schwikert Scribe

P.S. There was no Spring 2003 Mainstream as we delayed it to provide you the final results of the Big South study. Those tabulations are still going on, and we will get you the Spring newsletter…later this fall.

Dick Schwikert Scribe