MAINSTREAM

Reporting on the Current of the Pere Marquette Watershed Council Winter 2006

Conservation Easement Legislation Signed Into Law

P.A. 446 of 2006 was signed by Governor Granholm late in 2006, after passing the Michigan House and Senate unanimously. The new law prevents the “pop-up” or uncapping of property tax on land permanently protected with a conservation easement.

Michigan’s 1994 Proposal A provides that the taxable value (the amount we pay taxes on) of a property cannot rise more in a year than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 5%, whichever is less. Riverfront property on the Pere Marquette has appreciated considerably faster than the CPI, meaning that Proposal A has held the taxable value artificially low.

Under Proposal A, the taxable value is “uncapped” and pops-up to the Assessed Value (50% of market value) upon the sale or inheritance of the property. This difference is widening with the passage of time and can lead to extreme shock when a new owner receives his first tax notice. The impact on many wild areas is that the new owners or heirs sometimes find they have to sell all or part of the property to pay the swollen taxes. A possible impact on the P.M. is that large parcels of land may be broken up and developed, decreasing the wild and scenic nature of the waterway. You can calculate the impact on your property by dividing the Assessed Value (usually the same as the SEV) by the Taxable Value and multiplying by 100. If this number is, for example, 350 then the taxes would increase 350% upon a change in ownership (spousal inheritance usually is not considered a change).

A Conservation Easement is a legal agreement that allows a landowner to permanently limit development on his property to protect its natural features. The property stays private, is not open to the public, and the landowner can continue to live on the land, manage it and hunt on the property. Because these agreements are binding, and pass on with the land, the entire community benefits from the perpetual protection of our scenic resources. In return, a property (land only) under a Conservation Easement will not be uncapped with a change in ownership.

The Conservation Easement is donated to an organization such as the Land Conservancy of West Michigan (a non-profit organization that works to preserve high quality natural and scenic lands in our region). The value of the easement, which is determined during the easement donation process, may then be used as a charitable deduction on the donor’s federal income tax filing. For easements created in 2007, the deduction may be spread out over16 year but realize that, not all lands qualify. For information, contact the Land Conservancy of West Michigan at 616-451-9476 or www.naturenearby.org or Rhoda@naturenearby.org

Article by Paul Bigford

Water Diversion

This past November an article in the press informed us that Nestlé’s Ice Mountain division was preparing applications for permits to withdraw water from Oxford Swamp, headwaters to both the White River and the

PM’s Little South branch. We immediately heard from several of our members who were very concerned about what might happen to our river. The news reports were true, but somewhat inaccurate. We’ve since learned many of the details, but we remain uncertain as to where this is leading and what, if any, impact it may have on the Pere Marquette River.

Here’s what we know:

• Nestlé’s Ice Mountain is expanding its water diversion in mid-Michigan, mostly in the headwaters of streams flowing into Lake Michigan from the Muskegon to the Straits.
• Their stated intention is to extract water from a variety of sites without causing “adverse resource impacts”.
• They currently are pumping water from two sources in the Muskegon River watershed: The Sanctuary game ranch in Mecosta County and the City of Evart’s municipal water wells; these two sites withdrew 226 million gallons last year.
• In January, Nestle received DEQ permits for two new production wells on Twin and Chippewa Creeks, tributaries of the Muskegon River north of Evart.
• Currently bottling is centralized through one plant (8 Mile & Northland Drive) near Stanwood.
• They are not drilling in Oxford Swamp, but have announced test wells on James Creek near Kinney Lake (Monroe Twp. Newaygo County) in the headwaters of the White River.
• It is believed that test wells have been drilled near Pease Creek, a tributary of the PM’s Little South branch.
• Nestlé’s corporate practice has been to secure options on private property, usually large holdings of several hundred acres, then procure easement rights for pipelines, and offer municipal improvements. As adjoining land becomes available they expand their sphere of ownership (to avoid private well failures).
• Current DEQ water bottling regulations require a permit for new or increased withdrawals of more than 250,000 gpd.
• The U.S. Geologic Survey Hydrologic Code designates our region to include the Pere Marquette, White, Lincoln, Sable, Pentwater Rivers, and three small direct watersheds, perhaps one contiguous aquifer.

The issue of diversion/withdrawal/mining/extraction of groundwater is not completely well understood. After all, water is lost from our land, lakes, and streams through transpiration of plants, through evaporation, through agricultural and golf course watering (really resulting in increased evaporation), and for food uses (Gerber, Yoplait, Dean Foods, New Era Canning) just to mention local water users. Lake County is negotiating for location of an ethanol plant in Baldwin, most likely in the Baldwin River watershed. Some ethanol facilities consume exorbitant amounts of water. On top of these losses of groundwater start to think of the impact of increasing population, the need for water elsewhere, and the inevitable concern about climate change/global warming. What impact can we expect from Ice Mountain’s bottling of drinking water from the headwaters of our river? With all these losses, how long will it be before we begin to witness “adverse resource impacts”?

The Pere Marquette Watershed Council is truly concerned, but cautious as to what course to follow. We are therefore considering hosting (perhaps co-hosting) a symposium to discuss the entire Water Diversion issue…in an educational – ecological manner…to better inform all state residents about future issues. Topics we are considering include:

• What are the current laws and regulations? Do they need revision?
• What effect may aquifer diversions have on river temperature changes or flow/volume rates? Do these affect fish?

• Who owns the water? Do royalties incur if natural resources are extracted?
• What possible benefits incur to the riparians, to local residents and to Michigan’s citizens?

Our symposium will address these questions and will provide answers to allow us to better manage our precious natural resources. Please let us know your thoughts so we can better represent you in these deliberations. We will keep you informed of our plans for this summer’s symposium.

Article by Dick Schwikert, Scribe

Right-of-Way Trimming of Large Woody Debris

Historically, navigational hazards in the Pere Marquette River have been cleared by the commercial users of the river with little to no input from the managing agencies (USFS, MDNR). This has resulted in a less than optimal scenario where much of the work was performed without attempting to maximize natural large woody debris (LWD) for trout habitat. LWD is vital for providing overhead cover for trout as well as for providing substrate for macroinvertebrate life that young trout look to feed upon. Recently, in the Manistee and Au Sable Rivers, full trees have been dropped by helicopter to add to the river’s natural wood, at significant expense.

The PMWC Board of Directors has long recognized the potential to improve woody debris management on the PM, and the relatively inexpensive benefits of increasing trout habitat that would occur with improved LWD management. Discussions began several years ago between the agencies charged with managing the river and its fishery (USFS,MDNR) and stakeholder groups (PMWC, Pine River Association, Michigan River Guides Assoc).While there has been general consensus that improving LWD management would be a worthwhile goal, there has not been agreement on how to accomplish the goal. Existing USFS guidelines call for clearing no more than an 8 foot channel, but it was agreed that this was not an enforceable rule. Discussion clarified that an 8 foot channel may not be wide enough in certain situations to provide safe passage for a watercraft. In other situations, it was clear that cutting the tree at the trunk and then cabling it along a cutting bank would increase trout cover, as well as potentially decrease erosion, by deflecting current away from a cutting bank.

Early in 2006 a meeting was called by USFS in Wellston, Michigan. It was attended by many of those who went to the initial discussion group as well as by commercial livery owners and fishing guide/outfitters. Many widely divergent opinions were aired. It became apparent that trimming would be ideally performed by qualified personnel who would consider both the needs of the trout as well as watercraft passage. When trimming is necessary, utilization of the cut timber for overhead cover would be a major improvement.

This past May two sections of the PM were floated by stakeholders including USFS, MDNR, MRGA, PMWC, and Baldwin Canoe Rental. These “flotilla trips” allowed for on-site observation and discussion of multiple watercraft passage situations, which was beneficial to all parties. Some trimming was performed on these trips, but only after all parties had reached consensus. The resulting trimming this spring was an improvement from previous years of unsupervised trimming. We have been told by USFS personnel that they plan to organize similar trips again this spring. The PMWC Board hopes that these trips and their positive results can be duplicated this year. We’ll keep you posted in a future Mainstream edition.

INCREASED HUNTING & FISHING LICENSING FEES PROPOSED

It has been more than a decade since there was a license fee increase in Michigan. Michigan ranks well below other states in this area. When increases do occur here, they are generally limited in both price and scope.

This mistake creates a problem that impacts all of us, particularly those of us who value outdoor opportunities. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is facing an $8 million shortfall in the coming year. Without a comprehensive license fee increase additional programs will be cut, and this will have a big impact on those of us who enjoy the outdoors.

A proposed package of license fee increases is making its way to the Michigan Legislature. This is the result of the Hunting and Fishing License Package Development Work Group that was appointed by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission. For details of the Group’s report, go to www.michigan.gov/dnr. The Report includes a chart comparing present and proposed fees.

While there is no set percentage increase applied, most license fees will double under the proposed plan. A $28 Resident All-Species Fish license will increase to $40 under the new plan. The Non-Resident license will increase from $42 to $80. The increase will cover the MDNR’s $8 million deficit and generate an additional $13 million for limited new programs and services.

For years the MDNR’s allotment of general fund dollars has been steadily declining. Costs have gone up and license fees have not followed suit. This license fee hike is not intended to be a long-term solution. In a few short years, even with the increases, the MDNR will be facing a budget shortfall again. A long-term funding source for the MDNR must be created and it should be a plan that is paid for by everyone.

In the meantime, the GLC supports the proposed license fee package. We ask that you contact your legislators and let them know your position. For information on contacting your legislator go to the GLC website at www.fffglc.org Click on the Conservation Directory at the bottom of the page and then click on Michigan Legislature.

Article by PMWC Board Member Jim Schramm for Great Lakes Council of FFF

Membership Renewal

Name: ___________________________________ Address: _______________________________________

City: ______________________________ State: ____ Zip: __________ Telephone: ___________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________________

[ ] $40 – one year membership [ ] $500 – life membership

[ ] Additional donation of $________ to match Wege Matching Grant

[ ] I am a Life Member, but would like to send a donation of $________ to match Wege Matching Grant

[ ] I wish to receive the MUCC magazine as a benefit of membership

[ ] Please send information on endowment opportunities

[ ] I would like to volunteer. My special interest is ________________