20061

 

LlBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Natural Rivers Program
Management Team Interview and Resource Value
Assessment

presented by

Steven Larry Sutton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

 

MQ/%

Major Professor’s Sig

[/me Zdaf

te

MSU is an Afflnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-A-

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProj/Acc8Pres/ClRC/DateDueindd

 

Natural Rivers Program
Management Team Interview and Resource Value Assessment

By

Steven Larry Sutton

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT

NATURAL RIVERS PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT TEAM INTERVIEW AND RESOURCE VALUE ASSESSMENT

By
Steven Larry Sutton

The Natural Rivers Program has been in effect in Michigan since 1970 and
currently protects l6 river systems and 2,091 miles of river state-wide. The primary
goals of this project were to assess the level of Department knowledge and support for
the Natural Rivers Program, prioritize future Program projects, and determine if the
effectiveness of a Natural River designation could be monitored and evaluated by
reviewing existing data on selected natural resource values of a designated river in
Michigan.

Face-to-face interviews were administered to 14 key decision-makers who are
members of the Department of Natural Resources Management Team. Results suggested
a moderate level of Program knowledge with a strong level of Program support from the
majority of Management Team members. Results also prioritized future projects for the
Natural Rivers Program.

Three selected resource values from the Betsie River were reviewed for their
ability to provide a measure of the effectiveness of a Natural River designation.
Resource values of water quality, the fishery, and the condition of the riparian area were
selected for review. As a result of this review, a resource monitoring and assessment
plan will be developed for the Natural Rivers Program that utilizes resource partners and

professionals, and includes ecological, social, and economic measures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. William W. Taylor, for the opportunity to
pursue a Master of Science degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Management and for his
encouragement, motivation, and friendship along the way. I also appreciate my
committee members, Dr. Kurt Newman, Dr. Tom Coon, Dr. Aaron McCright, and Dr.
Dana Infante for their knowledge, assistance, and mentoring.

I wish to thank Dr. Kelley Smith, Chief of Fisheries Division, Department of
Natural Resources for his encouragement, support, and especially for allowing me the
flexibility to pursue this project. I am also grateful to all of the Management Team
members for their participation in the interview portion of this research project. I also
want to acknowledge co-workers at the DNR and DEQ, Mark Tonello, Lisa Dygert, and
Sylvia Heaton, for sharing their knowledge with me.

Most of all, I want to thank my wife Cheryl and crew (Amanda, Colter, and Sam)
for their patience, support, and understanding throughout this entire process...now let’s go

boating!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ vi
INTRODUCTION ............................. - ................................................................................. 1
Goals and objectives ............................................................................................... 8
METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 9
Management Team Interview ............................................................................................. 9
Resource Value Assessment .............................................................................................. 23
Study Area — The Betsie River .............................................................................. 23
Water Conservation ......................................................................... 25
Fish ............................................................................................ 27
Riparian Buffer .............................................................................. 29
Management Team Interview ............................................................. 36
Water Conservation ......................................................................... 38
Fish ............................................................................................ 39
Riparian Buffer ............................................................................. 40
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 42
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 43
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 46
LITURATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 59

iv

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

LIST OF TABLES

Designated Rivers Including their Designation Dates and Designation

Classification 3
Summary of Natural Rivers Program Development Standards .......................... 6
Natural River Values Defined with Metrics ...................................................... 25
Summary of 1978 Betsie River Watershed Land Use and Ownership ........... 31
Summary of 2001 Betsie River Watershed Land Use and Ownership...... . . . . . ..32

Summary of 1978 Betsie River Riparian Corridor Land Use and Ownership...33
Summary of 2001 Betsie River Riparian Corridor Land Use and Ownership...34

Summary of Comparison Between 1978 and 2001 Riparian Corridor Land
Use ...................................................................................................................... 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Natural River District Cross Section .................................................... 5
Figure 2 Organizational Chart for the Management Team Interview ...........11
Figure 3 Management Team Response for Program Familiarity .............................. 12
Figure 4 Management Team Response for Program Understanding ......................... 13
Figure 5 Management Team Response for Program Support ................................. 14
Figure 6 Management Team Response for Program Values ................................. 16
Figure 7 Management Team Response for Program Priorities 19
Figure 8 Betsie River Watershed and Natural River Boundary 24
Figure 9 Yearly Average TP Concentrations in the Betsie River, Lewis Bridge. . . . .......27
Figure 10 Unmarked Steelhead Numbers for the Betsie River, Kurik Road ................ 29
Figure 11 1978 Betsie River Watershed Land Use, Cover, and Ownership ................. 31
Figure 12 2001 Betsie River Watershed Land Use, Cover, and Ownership. . . . . . . . . .....32
Figure 13 1978 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover, and Ownership. . . . ......33
Figure 14 2001 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover, and Ownership. . . . . . ....34
Figure 15 197 8 to 2001 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover Change ......... 35

vi

INTRODUCTION

In the late 19605, the Department of Natural Resources (Department) and
Michigan legislature recognized that the state’s rivers and streams were some of
Michigan’s most important natural resources. They also recognized the beauty and
quality of the state’s rivers were fragile and being threatened (MNRC Policy 2703). In
response to the threat, on December 3, 1970, Governor William Milliken signed into law
Michigan’s Natural River Act, Public Act 231 of 1970, which is now known as Part 305,
Natural Rivers, of Public Act 451 of 1994 (Appendix A). The new statute became
effective on April 1, 1971. The Natural River Act (Act) authorized the Department to
develop a state-wide system of designated Natural Rivers for the purpose of preserving or
enhancing a designated river’s identified natural values. The Natural River system was
defined in the Act as “all of those rivers or portions of rivers designated under this Act”
(Section 30501). A

At the time the Act passed, the legislature did not name which rivers were to be
included within the Natural River system. Instead, they provided a broad list of values
which a river must possess in order to be included in the Natural River system. These
values were to be preserved, protected, or enhanced through designation. The eleven
values that are named in the Act are: water conservation, free flowing condition, fish,
wildlife, boating, scenic, aesthetic, floodplain, ecologic, historic, and recreational uses
(Section 30502). Although the values listed in. the statute are central to the goal of each
river designation, only the value of “free flowing condition” is specifically defined within
the Act. Free flowing is defined as “existing or flowing in a natural condition without

impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification” (Section

30501). Additional Program guidance was developed by the Department’s Office of
Planning Services in 1971 to further define the values and their objectives within the Act
(MDNR 1971). They were:
1. General - To preserve and protect the ecologic, aesthetic, and historic values
and enhance the many recreational values of the river and adjacent lands.

_ 2. Water quality — To maintain or improve water quality consistent with the
designated classification of the river and adhere to the concept of non-degradation
of water quality.

3. Free flowing condition — To maintain existing free flowing conditions where

they presently exist for the purpose of preserving this part of the natural

environment of the river.

4. Fish and wildlife resources — To maintain, protect, and enhance desirable fish

and wildlife populations and plant communities.

5. River environments — To protect riverbanks, the floodplain, and other adjacent

river areas essential to the perpetuation of the total environment of the river.

By passing the Natural River Act, Michigan was following the lead of the federal
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which had been signed into law by President Lyndon
Johnson in October, 1968. The federal act authorized the creation of a nation-wide
system of rivers to be protected in their free flowing condition (Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act 1968). The federal act emphasized protecting rivers against dam construction or
other federally-funded water control projects that would reduce their free flowing
condition or other resource values. The federal act also identified several “Outstandingly

Remarkable Values” to be protected, which included scenic, recreational, geologic, fish

and wildlife, historic, cultural, or “other similar values”, which are to be preserved for
current and future generations. None of the federally listed values, including other
similar values, are defined in the federal act. According to the Interagency Wild and
Scenic Rivers Council, the federal act does not further define Outstandingly Remarkable
Values. Furthermore, agency resource professionals are directed to “develop and
interpret criteria in evaluating river values based on professional judgment on a regional,
physiographic, or geologic comparative basis” (Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers
Council 2009).

In the 39 years since the passage of Michigan’s Natural River Act, 16 rivers or
segments of rivers totaling 2,091 miles, including mainstream and tributaries, have been
designated as Natural Rivers (Appendix B). There are roughly 36,500 total river miles in
Michigan. The first river designated into the Program was the Jordan River in 1972, and

the most recent additions were the Upper Manistee and Pine rivers designated in 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Table 1).
River Classification Year Designated
Jordan Wild/Scenic 1972
Betsie Wild/Scenic 1973
Two Hearted Wilderness 1973
Rogue Country/Scenic 1973
White Country/Scenic 1975
Boardman Country/Scenic & Wild/Scenic 1976
Huron Country/Scenic 1977
Pere Marquette Wild/ Scenic 1978
Flat Country/Scenic 1979
Rifle Wild/ Scenic 1980
Lower Kalamazoo Wild/ Scenic 1981
Pigeon Wild/Scenic 1982
Au Sable Wild/ Scenic 1987
Fox Wild/Scenic 1988
Pine Wild/Scenic 2003
Upper Manistee Wild/Scenic 2003

 

 

 

 

 

Table l. Designated Rivers Including their Designation Dates and Designation Classification

3

Designated Natural Rivers are located throughout the state; however, the majority
of currently designated rivers are located in the northwest Lower Peninsula. Natural
Rivers are chosen for designation because of their outstanding natural resource values as
listed in the Act, geographic distribution throughout the state, and level of local support
for river protection and Natural River designation. Although geographic distribution was
a goal of designation, natural resource values have been most important in deciding
designation priorities.

The goal of designation under Michigan’s Act is to preserve or enhance the listed
values for which a river is designated (Section 30502) and to protect a river by reducing
human impacts, such as loss of vegetation and development, from within the 400 foot-
wide Natural River district along a designated river. The Act authorized the Department
to utilize three methods to preserve and protect a river’s natural values. They are:

1. Acquisition of lands or interest (easements) in lands (Section 30504);

2. To enter into lease agreements with property owners (Section 30505);

3. To develop zoning standards designed to protect riparian vegetation, limit or

prohibit certain uses, such as commercial, industrial, or mineral extraction, and

regulate the location of structures relative to the water’s edge (Section 30507).

The administration of local zoning standards or state administrative rules designed
to control land uses within the Natural River district are the only methods to date that
have been utilized to implement the Natural Rivers Program in Michigan. Acquisition of
easements, leases, or other rights in land have not yet been used.

The Act defined the size of the Natural River district that could be controlled

through designation to be no more than 400 feet wide as measured from the water’s edge

(Section 30509). Within the 400 foot-wide Natural River district, the Act limits the width
of the buffer within which vegetation cutting can be controlled to be no greater than 100

feet wide, also measured from the water’s edge (Figure 1).

Natural River District
I I - , . . -
M at. We” “ ' ' ‘
3% J ’ fi"‘=' -99 m.-
" n- as- M ”r 29“ ems
.3”... ,5. ,Agp Salt-:13: iris-t... “a...” “rm‘t-‘W
T T 1\ lwfim‘ . Eff-'73 5&3? fa
River
Access Structures SWCIUTCS ACCCSS
Ve etation Stri
g P )9

 

 

 

 

Setback ————)

Figure 1 Natural River District Cross Section

It is within the 400 foot-wide Natural River district that all other Natural River
protection or development standards also apply (Table 2). In addition to the vegetated
buffer, other land use standards within the Natural River district include a minimum lot
width and parcel size to control the density of development. Minimum setbacks from the
water’s edge are required for all structures to reduce impacts to the river and to protect
the scenic quality of the river and condition of the vegetated buffer. A septic system
setback from the water’s edge is also required to reduce nutrient inputs to the river.
Types of uses (residential, commercial, etc.) within the district are also limited or

prohibited in order to prevent inappropriate land uses near a designated river.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All distances are District Building Minimum Vegetated Septic System
measured in feet Width Setback Lot Width Buffer Width Setback
Upper Peninsula
Fox 400 100 330 100 150
Two Hearted 400 100 330 100 100
Northern Lower
Peninsula
Au Sable 400 200/ 100 200 75/50 150
Betsie 400 200/ 100 200 50 150
Boardman 400 150/100 200 75/50 100
Jordan 400 200/ l 00 150 100/25 200
Pere Marquette 400 150/ 100 200 75/50 150
flgeon 400 200/150 200 100/75 150
Pine 400 150/ 100 200 l 00/ 50 100
Upper Manistee 400 100 200 75 100
Southern Lower
Peninsula
Flat 300 100 100 25 100
Huron 400 125/50 150 50 125
Lower Kalamazoo 300 200 150 50 100
Rogue 300 150/100 200 50/25 150
Rifle 400 150/ 100 200 75/50 150
White 400 150 200 50 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 Summary of Natural Rivers Program Development Standards

When compared to the entire watershed or landscape-scale variables, such as
climate, geology, or topography, the relatively narrow zone of influence within the
Natural River district will not account for all impacts to a river system that may result
from land use changes within a watershed (Zorn and Wiley 2006; Allan 2004).
Landscape scale alterations such as urban development or agricultural uses can threaten
or influence habitat, water quality, and biota within a river system (Allan 2004;
Townsend 2003; Fausch et a1. 2002) and may “overwhelm” riparian vegetation (Roth
1996).

However, Gregory et a1. (1991) stated, “The importance of riparian zones far

exceeds their minor proportion of the land base because of their prominent location

within the landscape and the intricate linkages between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems” (p.545). The riparian area, floodplains, and riparian vegetation have been
found to be important for protecting in-stream communities of macroinvertebrates and
natural processes, such as providing inputs of organic matter, including dissolved organic
carbon in leaf litter (Findlay et a1. 2001), controlling the amount of water entering a
stream as runoff (Strayer 2003), and reducing instream nutrient concentrations (Baker et
a1. 2001).

Protecting the riparian area and its vegetation is important to the biological
firnction and stability of river systems by providing bank stabilization through root
systems, inputs of large woody debris, in-stream habitat, organic material, stream shading
and reduction of stream temperatures, and reducing storrnwater runoff and sediment
transport (Lammert and Allan 1999; Roth 1996; Osborne and Kovacic 1993; Karr and
Schlosser 1978), which in turn, can influence fish communities (N aiman and Latterell
2005). Headwater streams and their riparian areas are considered especially important to
protect, as they provide the initial sources of stream energy, water, nutrients, sediment,
and organic matter to a river system (Gomi et a1. 2002; Vanotte et al. 1980). By
protecting riparian vegetation, the scenic, aesthetic, and wildlife habitat values associated
with natural riparian corridors are also protected (Lovell and Sullivan 2005). Orth and
White (1999) claimed it is essential to understand the relationship between riparian areas
and stream habitat and to manage and protect them, because an altered riparian area can
negatively impact stream habitat.

In addition to the importance of the riparian area, a Natural River designation

protects a river’s free flowing condition by prohibiting dams and harmful streambank

stabilization projects. Protecting the free flowing condition of a river, or its natural flow
regime, can influence the ecologic integrity of the entire river system by affecting water
quality “and quantity, energy sources, physical habitat, and biotic interactions (Poff et al.
1997)
Program Administration

Currently, the majority of Program staff time is spent on the review and issuance
of Natural River zoning permits, monitoring of public and private lands for compliance
with the Natural River management plans and administrative rules, working with local
units of government to achieve consistent administration of the Program, and coordinated
review of other agency projects or permit applications for Program compliance.

However, no specific long-term monitoring or assessment of the natural resource
values associated with Natural River designation has been developed or compiled for
designated Natural Rivers. Further, the level of Department understanding and support
for Natural Rivers Program monitoring, new designations, and other priorities is not
known and will be important to assess prior to initiating additional monitoring, outreach,
or designation of additional rivers into the Natural River System.
Goals and Objectives

Therefore, the goals of this study were to assess the level of Department
knowledge and support for the Natural Rivers Program, prioritize future Program
projects, and determine if the effectiveness of a Natural River designation could be
monitored and evaluated by reviewing existing data on selected natural resource values of

a designated river in Michigan.

My first objective was to conduct an interview of the Department’s Management
Team (MT) members to assess their program knowledge, support, and priorities,
including monitoring, for the Natural Rivers Program. My second objective was to
review and evaluate existing data from three selected values of water quality, the fishery,
and the condition of the riparian area of the Betsie River to determine if the metrics
associated 'with these values could be used to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of a
Natural River designation.

Taylor et al. (1995) identified project or program evaluation as an important step
in the Eight Steps of Project Management process. The eight steps include: goal setting;
resource analysis; diagnosis of problems and potentials; plan development; project
organization (people, budget, equipment); plan implementation; evaluation of program or
project progress; and maintenance of the plan. This research will provide guidance to
current Program staff in the development of a program‘monitoring and assessment plan
that will enable future evaluation of the Natural Rivers Program.

METHODS
Management Team Interview

The goal of the interview was to measure the perceptions of the Department’s
Management Team members regarding the Natural Rivers Program. The interview
method was to meet one-on-one with MT members and interview them regarding their
knowledge, support, and priorities for the future of the Natural Rivers Program, including
Program monitoring. The assessment consisted of a total of ten questions, with questions
for each category of interest: program knowledge, program support, resource monitoring,

and future priorities (Appendix C).

The interview consisted of a mix of Likert scale and open-ended questions, with
an opportunity for follow-up questions by the interviewer or the respondent. All Likert
responses were self-reported by the respondents and each interview was recorded for
transcription following the interview. Most interview sessions lasted approximately one
hour and took place in the privacy of the respondent’s office. Two Management Team
members were interviewed by telephone and received the interview information through
electronic mail prior to the interview.

The Human Research Protection Program deemed this project as exempt, in
accordance with federal regulation for projects exempt from the Institutional Review
Board review (Appendix D). Each respondent was provided with a research participant
and consent form to read and sign prior to participating in this research (Appendix E).

For this study, the respondents included 14 members from two of the
Department’s Management Teams: nine members from the Executive Division and five
members from Fisheries Division. The Executive Division MT members interviewed
included the Director, Resource Deputy Director, Chief of Staff, Office of
Communications Chief, and the five resource managing Division Chiefs representing:
Fisheries; Wildlife; Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management; Parks and Recreation; and
Land and Facilities. The Fisheries Division MT members included three of the four
Great Lakes Basin Coordinators (Superior, Michigan, Erie), the Fish Production and

Tribal Coordination Manager, and the Fisheries Research Manager (Figure 2).

10

 

 

[ j
/ \

[ (33:: of ] [ Bil-122:; ] Eammunications]

 

 

 

 

L I L 1
Land & Parks & . . . .
[ Facilities ] [ Recreation J [ Fisheries ] [ FMFM ] [ Wildlife ]

 

 

 

l

l l l
Lake . Lake .
[ Michigan ][ Lake Erie ][ Superior ][ Research ][ Production J

Figure 2. Organizational Chart for the Management Team Interview

 

 

 

The objective of the agency interviews was to assess the MT members’
knowledge and understanding of the Natural Rivers Program, their support for the
Program, and their priorities for the future of the Program, including monitoring. The
purpose of the first objective was to establish the level of knowledge and understanding
that MT members had regarding the program. The results of this objective would help
determine what additional information and education would be needed to improve the
level of agency Program knowledge.

The second objective was to determine the level of agency support that exists for
the program. Results from this objective would help establish areas of focus for
additional internal efforts in order to develop greater agency-wide buy-in and support for
the Program. The third objective was to identify what priorities the MT members felt
would be most important for the Program to address in the future. Results from this
objective would help establish Program work plans and priorities for the future.

Resource monitoring was specifically addressed to assess if there was MT support for the

11

development of resource monitoring, in addition to current compliance monitoring.
Results would establish the priority level of Program monitoring for the next 12 months.
Program Knowledge

. Respondents were asked to rate themselves regarding familiarity with and
understanding of the Natural Rivers Program. Program familiarity was defined simply as
awareness of the Program. Program Understanding was defined as knowledge of how the
Program functioned administratively day-to-day. In response to questions regarding
program familiarity and understanding, all respondents indicated they had some level of
familiarity with the program, as well as an understanding of how the program functioned
day-to-day. Seventy-one percent of MT members rated themselves as at least moderately
familiar with the program, and 58% rated themselves with at least a moderate amount of
understanding of how the Program functioned. Only one MT respondent reported having

no understanding of how the program functioned (Figures 3 and 4).

 

Program Familiarity

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

0%

 

Very Familiar Moderate Little None
Level of familiarity

 

 

 

Figure 3. Management Team Response for Program Familiarity

Using a bivariate correlation, responses for familiarity and understanding were

compared with a result of (Pearson’s r= 0.636). The correlation between the amount of

12

familiarity and the degree of understanding was strong enough to be statistically
significant, even with the small sample size. The majority of respondents rated
themselves with a relatively equal amount of familiarity and understanding of the

Program.

 

Program Understanding

58%

 

Great Deal Moderate Little None

Level of U nde rstand lng

 

 

 

Figure 4. Management Team Response for Program Understanding

Ninety-three percent of MT members stated they had participated in some type of
recreational experience, such as hiking along or canoeing and fishing on a Natural River.
Seventy—two percent reported having had a work-related Natural River experience with
the Program. Those respondents who rated themselves as only a little familiar with the
Program (21%) reported no work-related experience with the Program.

Program Support

Respondents were also asked to report their support for the program. Eighty-six
percent of respondents rated themselves as strongly supportive of the program, regardless
of potential impacts that Natural River designation may have on other Department
programs (Figure 5). The remaining 14% of respondents expressed moderate support for
the Program, with one citing the “need for developing greater public awareness and

support in order to gain [their] strong support.” One strong supporter stated “their
1 3

support could change, however, depending on whether or not staff personalities or
Department cultural issues, such as working in silos (Divisions), could be mitigated,”
indicating that a holistic management approach where all Division input is considered

would be preferred over single Division or Program control.

 

 

 

 

Program Support
100%
3 80%
I:
.8 60%
C
8 40%
8
a: 20%
0
0%
Strong Moderate Little None
Level of Support

 

Figure 5. Management Team Response for Program Support

Forty percent of strong supporters of the program specifically added that Natural
River standards had less of an impact on other Department programs than many perceive.
They mentioned the perceived loss of timber harvest or wildlife management
opportunities as examples. Another strong supporter commented that, “it is better to
protect the intact, rather than try to fix what is broken,” when talking about river and
resource protection.

Program familiarity and understanding both were positively correlated with
Program support. The correlation between familiarity and support was r=(0.522) and was
statistically significant. The correlation between understanding and support was less

significant, but was still a positive correlation at r=(0.290). Respondents with even a

little or moderate amount of understanding or familiarity with the Program were still
rating themselves as strong supporters of the Program.

In an additional measure of Program support, 64% of respondents thought the
Program could improve in its administration of ecosystem management principals
specifically by working more within the Department’s Statewide Council and eco-team
process. Statewide Council would provide an opportunity for other Divisions to consider
and comment on Natural Rivers Program issues:

Values
The majority of Management Team respondents identified the values of ecologic,

scenic, and free flowing as being most important when thinking about the character of a
Natural River. Recreation, fish, and the floodplain were other highly ranked values
(Figure 6).

Seventy-one percent felt that the ecologic value was most important because it
represented a functioning river system, floodplain, and riparian area that would support
good water quality, and appropriate and diverse populations of fish and wildlife. One
MT member stated, “If we do a good job protecting the riparian area and its ecologic
function, then we will have good fish and wildlife populations.” Others mentioned “it is
a synthesis of many values” and a “self-sustaining system over time.” When considering
their reply, one respondent commented that “the statute was very progressive for its time
in considering all the values that it incorporates, including ecologic.”

The scenic value of a designated river was also considered important as
respondents felt “they would not want to encounter many man-made structures or mowed
lawns to the water’s edge” while on a designated river and “would expect a naturally

vegetated river bank and floodplain.” A Management Team member reported, “The

15

scenic value was important because everyone likes to be in a beautiful area.” Sixty-four

percent rated the scenic value as one of their top three values, second only to ecologic.

 

Values

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

20%
o 7%__ 7%—
10 A 0%

Percent of respondents

 

0%

\o \0 «:9 .6‘ 6 \° -\° ‘9‘" 9' «9
(9 0° ‘ \ Q‘ Q S‘ x. 69‘
o o 6“ 0’5 9e 0 ca
0 9 .55. 5?‘ @ Q?

Q\ \$\\

 

 

 

Figure 6. Management Team Response for Program Values

A respondent who rated recreation high felt it was important because “recreation
can provide an opportunity to talk with other river users about the Natural River
designation and point out why the river is special.” Fifty percent also thought some of
the values could be combined together or would be integrated when protecting broader
values, such as ecologic or scenic.

Free flowing was identified by fifty percent of MT members as important. They
felt the natural firnction of a river would be protected if there were no additional dams
built and encouraged removal of any unnecessary dams. They also felt that river
dependent recreational values would be protected through preserving the free flowing
value of a river. As one MT member stated, “Nature should rule the system, not man-

made structures like dams and seawalls.”

When discussing values, respondents focused on one of two categories; system
function vs. system services. Seventy-one percent focused on a naturally functioning
ecosystem as being important, while 29% discussed public access, river dependent
recreational activities, and the “hmnan engagement with the resource.” Also, those 21%
who self reported little or no understanding of the Program had a great deal of knowledge
and understanding of ecosystem processes and function and how they related to the
Natural River values. This level of knowledge and understanding of ecological principals
and Natural River values may be what led to their high level of Program support even
with little Program knowledge.

Priorities

Respondents were also asked to prioritize a list of potential Natural River projects
for the next twelve months of the program. A list of potential projects was provided to
serve as a starting point for the discussion and additional projects ideas could be included
by the respondents (Appendix F). Updating existing outreach and education documents
was chosen by 64% of MT members as a priority for the Program. Fifty-seven percent
identified updating existing rules and management plans as another priority (Figure 7).
Development of Program monitoring was also high on the priority list and was chosen by
50% of the MT. Respondents, however, were concerned with current staffing levels and
budget constraints as a limiting factor when considering projects like increased
monitoring or new designations. Raising the public’s awareness about the Program and

its accomplishments was also seen as important. One MT member felt, “No matter what

17

priority project is chosen, it should be done in a manner to raise public awareness about
the Program.”

Providing greater assistance to local units of government and developing new
designations were mentioned 28% of the time. The Program is responsible for oversight
and assistance to local units of government who choose to administer the Program within
their jurisdiction. Greater oversight would help to maintain statewide Program
consistency. New designations were also seen as requiring a great deal of staff time, but
would be a higher priority once the existing Program documents were up-to-date.
Updated Program materials were considered important to the success of additional
designated rivers.

Partnering with local units or stakeholder groups was identified as critical in an
effort to develop long-term, grass roots support for the Program. “Development of local
support and local leadership during designation is critical for the Program,” stated more
than one MT member. Others felt that creating greater Program visibility and local buy-
in would be necessary for any successful new designations.

Several members mentioned development of an economic study though a
university partnership to be essential. The study would highlight the benefits of
designation to help convince both the legislature and local units of the positive aspects of
the Program. An economic study could provide evidence of the economic benefit that
designation can have on a region or community. This would include promotion of the

Program from a statewide benefit perspective.

18

 

Program Priorities

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

n: 10%
0%

 

Outreach Rules Monitoring Assistance New Local
Designation Designation

Project

 

 

 

Figure 7. Management Team Response for Program Priorities

Several additional projects that were not on the list (Appendix F) were mentioned
by individual Management Team members and are listed below. Several are good
projects and could be included within Program priorities in the near future.

0 Prioritization of the next rivers to be designated as Natural Rivers. This project
would begin to develop the next phase of Natural River designations and could
potentially define the complete Natural River system for Michigan.

0 Integrate the Program into the Statewide Council and eco-team process. By
working within statewide council, greater Department recognition and buy-in
could be developed.

0 Develop greater partnering with local support groups on designated rivers. The
idea was to empower local groups to provide additional on the ground work for
the benefit of each river, including monitoring.

0 Foster sponsors for increased outreach and education products. This project
would utilize partners to develop and distribute outreach and educational products

that promote the Natural Rivers Program.

19

0 Monitor our outreach and education efforts and products. This project would
review the effectiveness of our current outreach effort and recommend
development of an outreach plan for the future.
0 Document Natural River success stories to use during the next designation.
Developing a series of success stories specific to Natural Rivers would be another
promotional tool that would be useful for outreach and during additional river
designations.
0 Purchase of additional public access on Natural Rivers. This project would
identify additional public access needs on Natural Rivers and potential funding
sources.
Monitoring

All 14 respondents agreed that resource monitoring and compliance monitoring
are important and should be a priority for the Program. A Management Team member
stated, “Monitoring may tell us if we are really getting at what we want to achieve, and if
not, what needs to be modified.” Another member added, “We go through a lot of
political capital during a designation, and it’s important to point to a Michigan river and
provide evidence that we’ve made a difference.” Several members recommended the use
of partners as a potential method to develop Program monitoring. Potential partners were
identified as Michigan State University faculty and/or students, Michigan Natural
Features Inventory staff, Fisheries Division field staff or other Division field staff.
Several MT members felt that many grant opportunities exist for resource monitoring.

Continuation of compliance monitoring remained the highest priority.

20

Fifty percent of MT members were concerned that limited staff and budgets
would prevent the Program from developing or implementing a resource monitoring plan
and re-emphasized the need to utilize partners and share existing data to develop a
workable monitoring strategy. At a minimum, the collection of baseline data for each
river was seen as important, as was development of a monitoring plan. Respondents
recommended several resource metrics they felt would be useful for monitoring, which
included use of DEQ’s Procedure 51, water quality sampling, survey of the condition of
the riparian zone, fish surveys, use of GIS as a monitoring tool, and the identification of a
featured wildlife species. Procedure 51 is a qualitative biological and habitat survey
protocol for wadable streams in Michigan.

In addition, 65% also mentioned the importance of measuring public acceptance
through local interest group or local government support, local promotion of the Program,
property value studies, or research of local attitudes as all being important measures of
Program success. A Management Team member stated, “Evidence of success comes
from support or encouragement from locals for Natural River designation.” Measuring
public support for the Program will be an important priority in the monitoring of Program
success.

In addition to measuring public support, when asked about ecosystem
management, 64% of respondents thought the Program could improve in its
administration of ecosystem management principals and integration within the
Department, specifically by working more within the Department’s Statewide Council
and eco-team process. Ecosystem management is a Department priority which includes

social and economic values when considering ecological management decisions. There

21

was a positive correlation of r=(0.344) between those who supported developing a social
measure of Program success and respondents who felt the Program could improve in its
ecosystem management approach. This indicated that MT members are consistent in
their position on including a social measure within the administration of the Program.

In consideration of monitoring and the values that MT members identified in the
previous section as important, our monitoring plan should consider those highly rated
values as priorities to measure and report on their condition.

Interview Summary

The assessment indicated that the Natural Rivers Program is a well recognized
program among the Department’s Management Team members, with 78% of respondents
reporting at least moderate familiarity with the Program. Seventy-two percent of the
team members had a moderate level of Program understanding. Eighty-six percent of
respondents also indicated a high level of support for the Program within the Department.
Department Management Team support in the future will be important when initiating
additional river designations and other controversial projects.

In addition, 64% of respondents stated that a greater level of Program
understanding, support, and buy-in could be achieved by utilizing the Statewide Council
and eco-team process for future planning, rule making, and Natural River designations.
Management Team members specifically identified the Statewide Council as the most
appropriate forum for addressing Natural River issues on a Department-wide basis due to
the council’s implementation of a holistic, ecosystem-based strategy for resource

management.

22

Future Program priorities focused on updating existing documents such as
management plans, administrative rules, and outreach or educational material. The next
most common priority was resource monitoring and increased local assistance.
Management team members were also supportive of designating additional rivers
following the completion of Program updates and the prioritization of a list of proposed
rivers. Sixty-five percent of the MT identified including a social metric in the
measurement of program monitoring or success.

Resource Value Assessment

For the evaluation of resource values, water conservation, the fishery, and
ecologic were selected as the three values from the Act to be reviewed and evaluated to
determine if these metrics could be used to monitor the effectiveness of Natural River
designation.

Study Area — the Betsie River

The Betsie River was chosen for this study because it has been a designated
Natural River since July of 1973 and included a significant amount of privately owned
river frontage. Sixty-eight percent of the river corridor is privately owned, and roughly
75% of the entire watershed is in private ownership. A high percentage of privately
owned river frontage was desirable to provide an indication of how effective the Betsie
River development standards have been at protecting the river. The length of time that
the Betsie has been a designated Natural River was also important to provide a long-term
assessment of the Program.

The Betsie River watershed is located in Grand Traverse, Benzie, and Manistee

counties in the northwest Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Figure 8). A series of small

23

lakes and several tributary streams make up the headwaters of the Betsie River that empty
into Green Lake near Interlochen before becoming the Betsie River at the Green Lake
outfall (Tonello 2004). From there, the Betsie River flows into Grass Lake and then
flows in a westerly direction for roughly 52 miles before it enters into Betsie Lake.

Betsie Lake then empties into Lake Michigan near Frankfort (Betsie River Plan 1973).

Location

     
 
 

 

Betsie River Watershed
al'r:A-.“"‘I
t‘ uss‘ik /"J-\
I W ._ -‘ r ‘14— \
I. \ . 1- -
u .‘ ‘~ I. ”filer. /_L_ $ >_. “
*~ .9 r a er “bk-“t
9. ‘----‘ k » “X ”K In}. a) “f l} ‘
. \‘ I‘ a ./ . 9} T‘;-J d~¢<f /} g. J ’.
so, . I, BENZIE co. 1,“; it." rg ,-
‘ \ L, V7: ' 1f: GRAND ‘s.’
(f " “r: I: mavens:
.5 ' i co.
“g‘§ "";d
l , C
,‘ ‘ I
l f
‘ ,'-l
C \.

   

V"

' 1 , .
tr / y

‘ 9 4-

“,)‘~ .1
MANISTEE

co.

  
   

Watershed Boundary

 

Natural River

Figure 8. Betsie River Watershed and Natural River Boundary

The Natural River designation of the Betsie River begins at the Grass Lake outfall

in Grand Traverse County and continues downstream to the river’s mouth at Betsie Lake

24

in Benzie County. Designation also includes the Little Betsie River and Dair Creek, the
system’s two largest cold-water tributaries to the mainstream.

Resource Values

The first step in my data collection was to define the 11 resource values found
within the Act and to identify measurable metrics for each value (Table 3). From these

11, the resources values of water conservation, fish, and ecologic were selected to assess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Definition Metric
Defined in the Act: without Presence or occurrence of dams, riprapping, or
Free flowing impoundment, diversion, straightening, other streambank modifications (Number of
riprapping, or other modification dams, miles of modified shoreline, etc.)
Water Protection and enhancement of water Results Of waterjchemitsgry testling, gilblbats GS
conservation quality and quantity assessments’ an use 0 oce ure '
' gauge or other flow data.
Data that considers relative abundance,
Fish Protection and enhancement of fish species diversity index, IBI, or the presence of
communities and their habitat selected or theme species. Diversity of
habitat. Use of Procedure 51.
Protection and enhancement 9f Wildhfe Data that consider relative abundance and the
. . speCies and their habitat wrthm the . .
Wildlife . . . presence of nnportant or key specres. T&E
riparian comdor .
specres occurrence.
Variety of biological relationships, Various measures depending on the function
Ecolo ic interactions, and functions that support or relationship of interest, IBI, natural
g fish, wildlife, transfer of energy, and recruitment of LWD. Riparian zone, land use
water conservation principles measures. Use of Procedure 51.
Inventory and measurement of the floodplain
Floodplain Area as defined by FEMA 100 year considering gain or loss of floodplain area.
floodplain arm
Targeted historic or cultural features are
. . . . . protected or enhanced. Inventory at the time
Historic Historic and cultural attributes of designation. Aboriginal or other historic
sites.
Recreation — Tradition recreational uses and historic DNR permits, inventories, pUbhc access use,
. . . . recreation plans, creel census for effort, user
Boating commercral boating operations . .
satisfaction.
Scenic - Protection of important scenic visual GIS or on the ground survey of the riparian
Aesthetic condition of the corridor corridor condition

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Natural River Values Defined with Metrics

Water Conservation
From the value of water conservation, water quality was identified as the

measurable metric, and within water quality, the characteristic of total phosphorus (TP)

25

was reviewed. An increase in TP can occur as the result of hiunan activity such as waste
water discharge, agricultural activity, lawn fertilization, and soil erosion. Excessive
levels of TP can cause eutrophication in river systems and result in the loss of in-stream
nutrient balances (Osborne and Kovac 1993).

Water quality of the Betsie River at the time of Natural River designation was
rated as high. The Michigan Water Resources Commission had developed water quality
standards and use designations for the Betsie River (DNR 1973) and the river was to be
protected for recreation and total body contact such as swimming; for intolerant fish such
as cold water species; for industrial water supply; and agricultural and commercial water
supply and other uses (DNR 1969).

Existing Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality data was
reviewed from the Michigan Surface Water Information Management System
(MiSWIMS) database which also contains the EPA’s STORET legacy data. The data set
used was for the Lewis Bridge site in Benzie County, Crystal Lake Township, Section 30,
sampling station 100067. Water quality data were collected monthly at the Lewis Road
site from 1968 through 1993, which was the longest-term and most comprehensive data
set available for the Betsie River. Also included were TP data from three additional
studies that were sampled by the DEQ for the years 1994, 1998, and 2003 utilizing the
DEQ’s Procedure 51, which is a qualitative biological and habitat survey protocol for
wadable streams in Michigan and includes TP (Reports 97/082, 99/135, 07/107). At the
recommendation of DEQ staff, the monthly TP data were averaged into annual

concentration levels and then summarized (Figure 9).

26

The water quality data indicated that for TP during the time period studied at the

Lewis Bridge site, the average yearly TP concentrations within the Betsie River were (24

ug/l), which is below the EPA threshold of (30 ug/l) within the Sub-Ecoregion 56

(U SEPA 2000). It appears that TP levels in the Betsie River were at an acceptable level

in 2003.

100 -

YEIRLY NEUGETP CONCNI'RN'IONS BETSIERVER, LEVB BRDGE, BBIZIE co, M

Averqe for yeas 1973 - 2033 is 24 ug/l

 

90

80

 

 

70

 

USEPA Reference Condition for TP (31 ug/l) as the lowest
25’/otileof TP in strems inerriert SLb-anregicn 56

 

 

 

 

60

50

Tiresl'old (30 ugA) drove Vlhid'l omer of cladaphera
(a filanentous alga) imreases. sesiive dgal tara cbcrase,

 

40

intderait fish taxa disrese. and sensitiie imertetrae taxa _
decreae. Bue-greers may danirate smal arcane.

 

 

 

30*

TP CONCENTRATIONS (null)

209

10~

 

01

 

 

 

I I I I I r I I I I

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1%3 1&4 19% 2003
YEIR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Yearly Average TP Concentrations in the Betsie River

Fish

The condition of the fishery was reviewed as another resource value and a

measurable metric for the Betsie River. The rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss was

selected as the indicator or key species. The Betsie River is classified as a marginal trout

stream because sections of its mainstream and tributaries develop summer water

temperatures that are often too warm for most trout species to thrive or survive

27

(N ewcomb and Coon 1997). The high water temperatures are due to the small amount of
groundwater the river receives during the summer months (Tonello 2004). However, the
Betsie River does support some natural reproduction of both brown Salmo trutta and
rainbow trout. Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, coho Oncorhynchus kisutch, and
steelhead Oncorhyinchus mykiss are also present in the river (Tonello 2004).

Population estimates for both brown and rainbow trout from 1990 and 1996
ranged from 6.8 to 64.9 brown trout/acre, and from 4.0 to 624.7 rainbow trout/acre
(includes stocked fish). Tonello (2004) stated that other northern Michigan trout streams
such as the Boardman, Jordan, and Au Sable often have trout densities greater than 500
fish/acre. Due to its marginal summer water temperatures, the Betsie River has been
stocked with brown and rainbow trout for many years.

For review of the condition of the fishery, existing stocking evaluation data from
the DNR Fisheries Division Fish Collection System database for the years 1990, 1996,
1998, 2003 through 2008 were used. There were no Status and Trends fixed sites or
random site surveys in the DNR, Fisheries Division Fish Collection System for the Betsie
River. Data for the total numbers of unmarked juvenile steelhead were reviewed as
reported by Tonello from 2008 (Tonello, MDNR, unpublished data). Tonello found an
increasing number of wild, unmarked juvenile steelhead (Figure 10) and estimated their
presence indicates the river’s ability to produce large numbers of fry due to desirable
habitat conditions, with the majority being produced in the river’s cold-water tributaries
(N ewcomb 1998) or colder sections of the mainstream. Tonello also estimates that many

of the wild steelhead are now surviving to smolt and are returning to the river in much

28

larger numbers than those of stocked fish. Tonello’s early estimates are that roughly 75%
of returning fish are wild steelhead.

It appears from the existing data that the Betsie River is showing a significant
trend of increased wild steelhead production. Even with the river’s higher than desired
water temperatures, natural reproduction is occurring and adult fish are returning to
spawn (Tonello personal communication 2009). It appears that the Betsie River’s many

habitat attributes may be able to support natural reproduction of steelhead.

 

Unmarked Steelhead

Total Catch

 

1996 1998 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year

 

 

 

Figure 10. Unmarked Steelhead for the Betsie River, Kurik Road

Riparian Buffer

Ecologic was the third value reviewed. For this research, ecologic was defined as
the physical condition of the riparian area or Natural River district (N RD). Utilizing a
Geographic Information System (GIS) approach, the metric was to measure and compare

the change in land use and land cover over time within the 400 foot-wide Betsie River

29

NRD. Although there are potentially several metrics that could be selected to measure
the Ecologic value of the Betsie River, it was important for this research to assess the
condition of the buffer and NRD. As described previously, the Natural River
development standards apply within the 400 foot-wide district, therefore a measure of the
land use and cover condition within the district could be a direct indication of the success
of the designation. Increased development of impervious surfaces within watersheds or
the NRD can have negative impacts on hydraulic processes and in turn, the ecological
processes within streams. Schoonover et al. (2006) identified five hydraulic variables
that can be affected by an increase in impervious surface development and impact
instream ecological processes, these include stream flow magnitude, duration, frequency,
timing, and rate of discharge.

Land use or land cover change within the buffer could be an indication of the lack
of adequate NRD protection. Inadequate protection could occur through a violation of
the development standards or improper administration of the development standards at
the state or local level. However, some change in land use and land cover is to be
expected and is permitted according to the previously mentioned development standards
in Table 2.

Land use and land ownership data were compared from 1978 and 2001 for the
Betsie River watershed (Figures 11 and 12; Tables 4 and 5). Information used to create
the maps was from the 1978 MIRIS land cover data and the IFMAP 2001/GAP Lower
Peninsula land cover data with a single cell size of 30m2. Both a 100 foot-wide and 400
foot-wide buffer clip was taken from the 1978 and 2001 watershed land use data (Figures

13 and 14; Tables 6 and 7). From these two buffer clips, a third comparison clip was

30

made to highlight the areas of change within the 400 foot-wide Betsie River Natural

River District (Figure 15; Table 8).

(
Betsie River Watershed Land Use/Cover_.L_j

1978 MIRIS Data

 

  

 

Land use and land cover acreage
summary is listed in Table 4.

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. 1978 Betsie River Watershed Land Use, Cover, and Ownership

100 %

 

31

 

I
Betsie River Watershed Land Use/Cover_.Lj

2001 IFMAP Data

  

 

Land use and land cover acreage
summary is listed in Table 5.

 

 

 

 

Figure 12. 2001 Betsie River Watershed Land Use, Cover, and Ownership

 

32

 

   

 

 

 

Betsie River District & Riparian Zones Land Use/Cover
1978 MIRIS Data

 

 

 

 

Land use and land cover acreage
summary is listed in Table 6.

 

 

 

 

Figure 13. 1978 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover, and Ownership

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1978 100 foot zone Percent 400 foot zone Acres Percent

Public Land 466.90 32% 1,683.61 32%
Private Land 971.09 68% 3,519.58 68%
Total 1,437.99 100 5,203.69 100%
Agriculture 0.65 0% 16.30 0%
Barren 0.00 0% 0.00 0%
Forest Land 799.18 56% 2,610.64 51%
Rangeland 92.98 6% 750.64 14%
Urban 103.87 7% 408.47 8%
Water 18.94 1% 32.21 1%
Wetlands 422.37 30% 1 ,3 85.44 26%
Total 1,437.99 100% 5,203.69 100%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Summary of 197 8 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover, and Ownership

33

 

 

Betsie River District & Riparian Zones Land Use/Cover
fun-3‘s. 2001 IFMAP Data

'19 ' " I
‘.‘~’!." Q

"““L‘
kc...
\: ..

.‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r
fi— .-..__1
Land use and land cover acreage
summary is listed in Table 7.
Figure 14. 2001 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover, and Ownership
2001 100 foot zone Percent 400 foot zone Acres Percent
Public Land 466.90 32% 1,683.61 32%
Private Land 971.09 68% 3,519.58 68%
Total 1,437.99 100 5,203.68 100%
Agriculture 3.65 0% 59.57 1%
Barren 0.10 0% 3 .79 0%
Forest Land 442.61 30% 2073 .90 40%
Rangeland 67.25 5% 561.78 11%
Urban 14.39 1% 105.83 2%
Water 17.32 1% 23.81 0%
Wetlands 91 1.91 63% 2375.00 45%
Total 1457.43 100% 5,203.68 100%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Summary of 2001 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use, Cover, and Ownership

34

 

 

Betsie River District Zone Land Use/Cover Change
:9 _ 1978 compared to 2001

 

 

\
we." .

 

Land use and land cover change
summary is listed in Table 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15. 1978 to 2001 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use Change

 

 

 

 

 

Acres Percent
No Change 2,655.96 51%
Change to non-developing 2,325.84 45%
Change to developing 221.87 4%
Total 5,203.67 100%

 

 

 

 

Table 8. Summary 1978 to 2001 Betsie River Riparian Buffer Land Use Change

Within the 5,203 acres of land within the 400 foot-wide Natural River District,
2,655 acres (51%) showed no change in land use. Between 1978 and 2001, 2,325 acres
(45%) showed a change from one non-developed land use to another non-developed use
or from one developed land use type to another developed type. Two hundred twenty-

one acres (4%) showed a change from non-developed land use type to a developed land

35

 

use type (Table 8). The rate of land use conversion for the 23 years between 1978 and
2001 from non-developed land use to developed land use was 9.6 acres/year (0.18%/year)
within the NRD.

In an effort to reduce some of disagreement between the 1978 and 2001 land use
and land cover data, several of the land use categories were summarized into two general
categories of developed (urban, agricultural, barren, rangeland) and non-developed (all
types of forest, all wetland types, open water) and compared these two categories. This
summarizing accounts for some of the change from one non—developed land use type to
another non-developed type in Table 8. The change in urban acreage between 1978 and
2001 highlights the disagreement between the two data sets. Research by Pijanowski
(2006) on land use in the Muskegon River watershed in Michigan highlights the
disagreement between MIRIS and IFMAP data and the need to consider the potential
large discrepancies between the data sets when comparing change over time.
DISCUSSION
Management Team Interview

The agency interview indicated that Department Management Team members had
a moderate level of knowledge regarding administration of the Program. The interview
also established that MT members had a strong level of support for the Program and its
ecosystem management approach and habitat protection role within the Department. A
good understanding and strong support will be critical for the Program in moving forward
with future plamring, rule development, and designation projects which are often

controversial for both the Program and Department.

36

The interview highlighted the need for the Program to engage with the
Department’s Statewide Council and eco—team management process. This multi-
Divisional council has representation of all Department Divisions and is seen as the
appropriate forum for addressing Natural Rivers Program issues and for receiving
feedback on future planning and prioritization projects. As a result, Statewide Council
and/or eco—teams will become the forum for future Natural Rivers Program projects.

MT members also prioritized updating existing Program plans, rules, and
documents, but recognized the importance of new designations and greater local
assistance. They felt that by being up-to-date, the Program would be more successful on
moving ahead with new designations and more effective with outreach efforts to local
units of government and property owners in the future.

Resource monitoring was identified by all 14 of the MT members as important to
the long-term success of the Program within the Department. They agreed that
compliance monitoring remained critical, as it is a major component of the administration
of the Program. However, because resource protection and enhancement are goals of the
Act, a greater level of resource monitoring and evaluation, in addition to compliance
monitoring, should be integrated into the Program. At a minimum, baseline data
collection and a monitoring plan should be developed for each designated river, provided
current Program staffing and budgets allow for additional projects.

The interview further identified the values that most management team members
recognize as important for protecting and enhancing through designation. Ecologic,
scenic, and free flowing were identified by at least 50% of the MT member as the most

important values to protect through designation. From a Program Manager’s perspective,

37

it was interesting to hear the level of emphasis that was placed on the ecologic value and
how the MT members tied it to ecosystem management at the Department level.
Reporting on the condition of these highly-rated values will be important to include in a
monitoring plan. Also of interest was the importance given to the scenic/aesthetic value.
This value may be more qualitative than the others to measure, but it is recognized as a
critical component of any Natural River designation. Developing a reliable metric for the
scenic/aesthetic values will be important when evaluating the condition of designated
rivers and reporting their condition to the MT members.

Water Conservation

As summarized previously, the water quality data collected for the Lewis Bridge
site indicated that for TP during the time period studied at the Lewis Bridge site, the
average yearly TP concentrations within the Betsie River were (24 ug/l), which is below
the EPA threshold of (30 ug/l) within the Sub-Ecoregion 56. This indicates potential
good water quality, however, additional water quality measures need to be added to make
for a more rigorous water quality sample of the Betsie River.

Long-term water quality data for the Betsie River was limited to the Lewis Bridge
site, which has been discontinued since 1993. Since the designation of the Betsie River
as a Natural River, water quality in the Betsie River has been monitored by the
Department of Environmental Quality at a variety of locations and durations throughout
the watershed. DEQ MISWIMS database contains 16 individual reports that include a
variety of water quality information, however, only one report provided the long-term

data of interest. Unfortunately, this sampling site is no longer in operation.

38

For the firture, the Department of Environmental Quality has developed a surface
water monitoring strategy that will include using Procedure 51, which is their qualitative
biological and habitat survey protocol for wadable streams in Michigan. In order to
develop a long term consistent water quality monitoring process, partnering with the
DEQ to develop a monitoring plan for the Betsie and other Natural Rivers will be a
Program priority, and reliance on DEQ staff expertise for a routine summary of water
measures will be critical. Use of the Procedure 51 protocol would be a better measure
than only the water chemistry data presented within this research. Procedure 51 samples
multiple values that are important to the Natural Rivers Program, including
macroinvertebrates, fish communities, habitat status, non-point source information, as
well as water chemistry. The habitat metric includes condition of the bank and riparian
area, channel condition and in-stream cover and substrate composition.

Fish

The fisheries data for the Betsie River was somewhat limited for the rainbow trout
or steelhead, which was the indicator or key species selected. The Betsie River does not
support a large resident population of rainbow or brown trout, although both are present
in the river. The river does, however, support a good steelhead fishery and is heavily
managed for steelhead, and therefore, they became the focus of the data collection in this
research.

It appears from the current steelhead data that the Betsie River is showing a
significant trend of increased wild steelhead production. Even with the river’s higher
than desired water temperatures, natural reproduction is occurring and adult fish are

returning to spawn (Tonello, personal communication 2009). It appears that the Betsie

39

River’s overall habitat attributes may be supporting natural reproduction of steelhead.
However, Fisheries Division staff continue to monitor steelhead reproduction and adult
returns.

An argument could be made that with the marginal stream temperatures, Natural
River protection is even more important for the Betsie, since any additional impacts, no
matter how minor, could cause significant changes within the river system. Changes of
any kind, even slight ones, could push conditions outside the range of steelhead survival.
As mentioned previously, partnering with Fisheries Division field staff to develop a plan
for monitoring the fishery values of all designated rivers and selecting the appropriate
key species depending on the river system will be critical to the success of a monitoring
program. The potential for combining or partnering with DEQ staff and their Procedure
51 fish collection data may be useful for a Natural Rivers monitoring protocol.
Riparian Buffer

The GIS project showed promise as a tool for the Program to remotely monitor
and evaluate the changing condition of the watershed and riparian buffer. This
information could prove useful for monitoring land use change within the Natural River
District and could focus field monitoring efforts to those areas indicating the greatest
amount of land use change. The spatial representation of the land use and land use
change within the watershed and corridor could serve as powerfirl education and outreach
tools during Natural River public meetings. A comparison between designated and non-
designated rivers would be possible using the GIS tool.

As noted previously, of the 5,203 acres of land within the 400 foot-wide Natural

River District, 2,655 acres (51%) showed no change inland use and 2,325 acres (45%)

40

showed a change from one non-developed land use to another non-developed use or from
one deveIOped land use type to another developed type. A total of 221 acres (4%)
showed a change fi'om non-developed land use type to a developed land use type.

Limits to the accuracy of the current buffer comparison in this study are the result
of comparing two different methods of original data creation for the land cover
information used. The 1978 data was derived from hand digitized CAD files that have
been converted into a GIS format. The 2001 data was derived from automated
classification of satellite imagery. Comparing the two data sets will not result in a
completely accurate image. There also exists a 1992 data set which was created using a
different method than the 2001 data, so comparing those years would also result in some
uncertainty. I chose to use the 1978 data because it was closer in time to the Natural
River designation date of 1973 for the Betsie River. Comparing the 1978 data to the
2001 data would provide the greatest time span for change to occur. For any future
mapping of additional rivers, I would also use the 1992 data for a second comparison.

The mapped area for the Betsie that indicated change in land use from non-
developed to developed should be put to use and ground checked for accuracy of the data
and for compliance with the Natural River development standards, realizing the
significant amount of variation in the data sets. As with the collection of other resource
data, partnering with other Department staff with the knowledge and expertise to help
answer our GIS question will be of great benefit. Developing a complete set of Natural
River District buffer land use maps may be the initial step in developing a long term

monitoring and evaluation plan if reliable data sets can be used for comparison.

41

Acquiring data of a finer scale for review of the Natural River District would be of
greater benefit for this method of assessment.

The resource monitoring data collection exercise was important in order to begin
to understand the complexity of gathering and evaluating resource data that could be used
evaluate the Natural Rivers Program. Understanding the resource questions to ask and
where to find the data to answer the questions will require a team approach and involve
team members from other Departments, Divisions and agencies. This research indicates
that existing resource data can be used to monitor and assess certain resource values.
However, it is clear that not all the Natural River values will have data available for
assessment and monitoring.

Fortunately, the Management Team members supported the Natural Rivers
Program and the concept of resource monitoring and have recommended the Statewide
Council and eco-teams as the appropriate forum from which to initiate future projects that
require Department-wide involvement. The important task will be to identify the
necessary information needed to develop a monitoring plan that will reflect the condition
of the resource and performance of the Natural River designation. The metrics contained
in Table 3 will provide the basis for a monitoring plan.

CONCLUSION

My overall goal with this research was to provide a foundation for advancing the
Natural Rivers Program forward into its next decade of riparian and river habitat
protection in Michigan. I wanted to explore the level of knowledge and support for the
Program within the Department and review several selected values from the Act for their

potential as resource monitoring metrics. As a result of this research, the Natural Rivers

42

Program may be in a more Department integrated, resource oriented, socially acceptable,
and legislatively sustainable position for the future.

Beyond the results from the agency interview, the opportunity to discuss the
Natural Rivers Program in a one-on-one setting with all of the members of the Executive
Division Management Team and the Fisheries Division Management Team was a unique
opportunity. As a result of the interviews, all Management Team members may have a
greater recognition of the Program values and benefits, and I have a greater appreciation
for the multiple perspectives and diversity of the Management Team. The awareness that
the Management Team has regarding the Program will make future Natural River policy
implementation across Division lines more efficient and effective. Personally and
professionally I have benefited from the opportunity to listen to the Management Team
member’s perceptions and comments about the Program and will apply their insights into
the administration of the Program in the future. The Natural Rivers Program will benefit
from the support and direction that Management Team members provided during the
Management Team Interviews.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of this research, Natural River Program staff will begin to utilize
Statewide Council when Program issues arise that involve other Division staff or may
impact management of other Division programs. In order to stay current with Statewide
Council, the Program should utilize this forum for information items, as well as issue
items.

The Program will also begin development of an assessment and monitoring plan

for all Natural Rivers that would link the Program values to an appropriate metric to

43

determine the current status of the resource. Using the metrics from Table 3 as a starting
point, I recommend using an existing protocol, like Procedure 51, to measures multiple
resource values within one process. Measures of in-stream habitat, riparian zone
condition, and fish species richness would be inclusive of multiple values and provide a
good indication of the condition of the Program values. Given the limited resources
within state government, our monitoring will have to be effective at determining the
condition of multiple resource values with the fewest number of metrics. I will present
the monitoring plan concept to the Fisheries Division Management Team for their
information and guidance and utilize the Statewide Council as appropriate. The
monitoring plan should incorporate ecological, social, and economic metrics to the extent
possible. Program staff will also initiate deve10pment of an economic impact study for
the Natural Rivers Program through Michigan State University, PERM staff as a
component of a long term monitoring strategy.

The revision and update of a comprehensive administrative rule package will also
be completed. This process will include presenting the rule update plan and package to
the Statewide Council for their information. A comprehensive rule set has been drafted
and is ready for initiation through the formal rules review process. In addition to the rule
package, a revision and update of Program outreach and education products is needed,
including the Natural Rivers web page. Up-to-date outreach products will be critical to
the success of any future designation campaign.

Program staff will also initiate the completion of a draft strategy for prioritizing a
list of proposed rivers for Natural River designation. This strategy will include a criteria

list for the next designated rivers. Even though the Management Team did not rate new

44

designations as the highest priority, a prioritization of proposed Natural Rivers was seen
as important and will become a higher priority following the completion of Program
updates. It will be a Program goal that the priority list of designated rivers develops into
the complete system of designated Natural Rivers in Michigan.

There is the potential to expand the respondent group to be surveyed regarding the
Natural Rivers Program. Potential groups may include the Natural Resources
Commissioners, eco-team members, Divisional field staff, local unit of government
officials affected by Natural Rivers, property owners, watershed councils, restoration
committees, and other constituent groups with an interest in designated Natural Rivers.
The survey could be modified depending on the respondent group being surveyed.

Program staff should also begin to share information more actively with other
states regarding the Natural Rivers resource assessment and monitoring plan. Thirty-
three other states have river protection programs modeled after the federal Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. There exists a great potential to network with other states involved in

similar programs.

45

 

APPENDIX A

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
(EXCERPT)

Act 451 of 1994
PART 305
NATURAL RIVERS
324.3050] Definitions. [M.S.A. l3a.30501 ]

Sec. 30501. As used in this part: (a) “Free flowing” means existing or flowing in natural
condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other
modification.

(b) “Natural river” means a river that has been designated by the department for inclusion
in the wild, scenic, and recreational rivers system.

(0) “River” means a flowing body of water or a portion or tributary of a flowing body of
water, including streams, creeks, or irnpoundments and small lakes thereon.

(d) “System” means all of those rivers or portions of rivers designated under this part.
History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

324.30502 Natural river; designation; purpose; long-range plans; publicity;
cooperation. [M.S.A. l3a.30502 ]

Sec. 30502. The department, in the interest of the people of the state and future
generations, may designate a river or portion of a river as a natural river area for the
purpose of preserving and enhancing its values for water conservation, its free flowing
condition, and its fish, wildlife, boating, scenic, aesthetic, floodplain, ecologic, historic,
and recreational values and uses. The area shall include adjoining or related lands as
appropriate to the purposes of the designation. The department shall prepare and adopt a
long-range comprehensive plan for a designated natural river area that sets forth the
purposes of the designation, proposed uses of lands and waters, and management
measures designed to accomplish the purposes. State land within the designated area shall
be administered and managed in accordance with the plan, and state management of
fisheries, streams, waters, wildlife, and boating shall take cognizance of the plan. The
department shall publicize and inform private and public landowners or agencies as to the

46

plan and its purposes, so as to encourage their cooperation in the management and use of
their land in a manner consistent with the plan and the purposes of the designation. The
department shall cooperate with federal agencies administering any federal program
concerning natural river areas, and with any watershed council established under part 311,
when such cooperation furthers the interest of the state.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30503 Qualifications for designation; categories of rivers. [M.S.A. l3a.30503 ]

Sec. 30503. A river qualifying for designation as a natural river area shall possess l or
more of the natural or outstanding existing values cited in section 30502 and shall be
permanently managed for the preservation or enhancement of such values. Categories of
natural rivers shall be defined and established by the department, based on the
characteristics of the waters and the adjoining lands and their uses, both as existing and as
proposed, including such categories as wild, scenic, and recreational. The categories shall
be specified in the designation and the long-range comprehensive plan.

 

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Irnd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

324.30504 Land acquisition; purpose; interest acquired; consent. [M.S.A. l3a.30504
1

Sec. 30504. The department may acquire lands or interests in lands adjacent to a
designated natural river for the purpose of maintaining or improving the river and its
environment in conformance with the purposes of the designation and the plan. Interests
that may be acquired include, but are not limited to, easements designed to provide for
preservation and to limit development, without providing public access and use. Lands or
interests in lands shall be acquired under this part only with the consent of the owner.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Irnd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

47

324.30505 Federal financial assistance programs; leases; expenditures; purposes.
[M.S.A. 13a.30505]

Sec. 30505. (1) The department may administer federal financial assistance programs for
natural river areas.

(2) The department may enter into a lease or agreement with any person or political
subdivision to administer all or part of their lands in a natural river area.

(3) The department may expend funds for works designed to preserve and enhance the
values and uses of a natural river area and for construction, management, maintenance,
and administration of facilities in a natural river area conforming to the purposes of the
designation, if the funds are appropriated by the legislature.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30506 Public hearings; notice. [M.S.A. l3a.30506]

Sec. 30506. Before designating a river as a natural river area, the department shall conduct
public hearings in the county seat of any county in which a portion of the designated
natural river area is located. Notices of the hearings shall be advertised at least twice, not
less than 30 days before the hearing, in a newspaper having general circulation in each
such county and in at least 1 newspaper having general circulation in the state and 1
newspaper published in the Upper Peninsula.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Irnd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30507 Land uses; zoning; local ordinances; state rule. [M.S.A. l3a.30507 ]

Sec. 30507. After designation of a river or portion of a river as a natural river area and
following the preparation of the long-range comprehensive plan, the department may
determine that the uses of land along the river, except within the limits of an incorporated
municipality, shall be controlled by zoning contributing to accomplishment of the
purposes of this part and the natural river plan. County and township governments are
encouraged to establish these zoning controls and additional controls as may be
appropriate, including, but not limited to, building and subdivision controls. The
department may provide advisory, planning, and cooperative assistance in the drafting of

48

ordinances to establish these controls. If the local unit does not, within 1 year after notice
fi'om the department, have in full force and effect a zoning ordinance or interim zoning
ordinance established under authority of the acts cited in section 30510, the department,
on its own motion, may promulgate a zoning rule in accordance with section 30512. A
zoning rule may also be promulgated if the department finds that an adopted or existing
zoning ordinance fails to meet adequately guidelines consistent with this part as provided
by the department and transmitted to the local units concerned, does not take full
cognizance of the purposes and objectives of this part, or is not in accord with the
purposes of designation of the river as established by the department.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, lmd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30508 Zoning ordinance or rule; purpose. [M.S.A. l3a.30508 ]

Sec. 30508. A zoning ordinance adopted by a local unit of government or a zoning rule
promulgated by the department shall provide for the protection of the river and its related
land resources consistent with the preservation and enhancement of their values and the
objectives set forth in section 30502. The ordinance or rule shall protect the interest of the
people of the state as a whole. It shall take cognizance of the characteristics of the land
and water concerned, surrounding development, and existing uses and provide for
conservation of soil, water, stream bed and banks, floodplains, and adjoining uplands.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

324.30509 Zoning ordinance or rule; establishment of districts; powers; distance.
[M.S.A. l3a.30509]

Sec. 30509. The ordinance or rule shall establish zoning districts within which such uses
of land as for agriculture, forestry, recreation, residence, industry, commerce, and
additional uses may be encouraged, regulated, or prohibited. It may limit or prohibit the
placement of structures of any class or designate their location with relation to the water's
edge, to property or subdivision lines, and to flood flows and may limit the subdivision of
lands for platting purposes. It may control the location and design of highways and roads
and of public utility transmission and distribution lines, except on lands or other interests
in real property owned by the utility on January 1, 1971. It may prohibit or limit the
cutting of trees or other vegetation, but such limits shall not apply for a distance of more
than 100 feet from the river's edge. It may specifically prohibit or limit mining and

49

drilling for oil and gas, but such limits shall not apply for a distance of more than 300 feet
from the river's edge. It may contain other provisions necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this part. A zoning rule promulgated by the department shall not control
lands more than 400 feet from the river's edge.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30510 Local zoning ordinance; conformance with applicable law; construction.

Sec. 30510. A local unit of government, in establishing a zoning ordinance, in addition to
the authority and requirements of this part, shall conform to the township zoning act, 1943
PA 184, MCL 125.271 to 125.310, or the county zoning act, 1943 PA 183, MCL 125.201
to 125.240, including, but not limited to, the variance provisions of those acts. Any
conflict shall be resolved in favor of the provisions of this part. The powers granted under
this part shall be liberally construed in favor of the local unit or the department exercising
them, in such manner as to promote the orderly preservation or enhancement of the values
of the rivers and related land resources and their use in accordance with a long-range
comprehensive general plan to ensure the greatest benefit to the state as a whole.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;--Am. 2000, Act 17, Imd. Elf. Mar. 8, 2000 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.3051] Districts; valuation for tax purposes. [M.S.A. l3a.30511 ]

Sec. 30511. Upon adoption of a zoning ordinance or rule, certified copies of the maps
showing districts shall be filed with the local tax assessing Officer and the state tax
commission. In establishing true cash value of property within the districts zoned, the
assessing officer shall take cognizance of the effect of limits on use established by the
ordinance or rule.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, lrnd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

324.30512 Rules; enforcement; promulgation; variance; existing use.

50

Sec. 30512. (1) The department shall prescribe administrative procedures and rules and
provide personnel as it considers necessary for the enforcement of a zoning ordinance or
rule enacted in accordance with this part. A circuit court, upon petition and a showing by
the department that there exists a violation of a rule properly promulgated under this part,
shall issue any necessary order to the defendant to correct the violation or to restrain the
defendant from further violation of the rule.

(2) The department shall promulgate a zoning rule to implement this part. The rule shall
include procedures for receiving and acting upon applications fi'om local units of
government or landowners for change of boundaries or change in permitted uses in
accordance with chapter 4 of the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306,
MCL 24.271 to 24.287. An aggrieved party may seek judicial review under chapter 6 of
the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.301 to 24.306.

(3) A variance from a zoning rule promulgated by the department to implement this part
may be applied for and granted pursuant to section 4 of the uniform condemnation
procedures act, 1980 PA 87, MCL 213.54, and the variance provisions of the zoning rule.

(4) The lawful use of any building or structure and of any land or premise as existing and
lawful at the time of enactment of a zoning ordinance or rule or of an amendment of a
zoning ordinance or rule may be continued although the use does not conform with the
ordinance, rule, or amendment. The ordinance or rule shall provide for the completion,
restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses upon
reasonable terms as set forth in the zoning ordinance or rule.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;--Am. 2000, Act 17, Imd. Eff. Mar. 8, 2000 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30513 National wild and scenic river system; administration. [M.S.A. l3a.30513 ]

Sec. 30513. This part does not preclude a component of the system from becoming a part
of the national wild and scenic river system under the wild and scenic rivers act, Public
Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271 to 1287. The department may enter into written cooperative
agreements for joint federal-state administration of rivers that may be designated under
the wild and scenic rivers act.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

51

324.30514 Area plans; approval; rules. [M.S.A. l3a.30514 ]

Sec. 30514. The department shall approve preliminary and final plans for site or route
location, construction, or enlargement of utility transmission lines, publicly provided
recreation facilities, access sites, highways, roads, bridges, or other structures and for
publicly developed water management projects, within a designated natural river area,
except within the limits of a city or incorporated village. The department may require any
measure necessary to control damaging erosion or flow alteration during or in
consequence of construction. The department shall promulgate rules concerning the
approvals and requirements provided for in this section.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

© 2002 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
324.30515 Construction of part. [M.S.A. l3a.30515]
Sec. 30515. This part does not prohibit a reasonable and lawful use of any other natural

resource that benefits the general welfare of the people of this state and that is not
inconsistent with the purpose of this part.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 .

Popular Name: Act 451

52

omwewewwe

_|_s_.L
N—‘O'

13.
14.
15.
16.

Designated Natural Rivers

APPENDIX B

'5‘” Michigan Designated Natural Rivers

. Two Hearted River

Fox River

Pigeon River

Jordan River
Boardman River
Betsie River

Upper Manistee River

. Au Sable River

Rifle River

. Pine River
. Pere Marquette River
. White River

Flat River

Rogue River

Lower Kalamazoo River
Huron River

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Natural Rivers Program Interview
(1) How familiar are you with the Natural Rivers Program?
Not at all familiar Moderately familiar
A little bit familiar Very familiar
(2) Do you have any personal experience with a designated Natural River?

(3) Given your level of familiarity with the Program, how well do you understand the

Program?
Don’t understand at all Understand a moderate amount
Understand a little bit Understand a great deal

(4) The purpose of the Natural Rivers Program is to protect and enhance the natural
resource values that are listed in the statute. How would you rank the three most
important values you find in the Natural Rivers statute? How would you define these
values?

(5) What would you consider as evidence that the Natural Rivers Program is achieving its
goals for protecting and enhancing the named values?

(6) Is long-term Program monitoring important to you or the Department? Is our current
monitoring adequate, and how would you recommend implementing a monitoring
program?

(7) What do you think are the most important priorities over the next 12 months for the
Natural Rivers Program? Why is this important?

(8) Realizing the potential impact Natural River designation can have on the management
of other Department programs (such as timber harvest, recreation planning, and fisheries
or wildlife management), how strongly do you support the Natural Rivers Program goals?
Very strongly V Not very strong
Moderately strong Not at all

(9) In thinking about ecosystem management, which is one of the Department’s key
initiatives, how well do feel the Natural Rivers Program integrates the ecosystem

management approach into its administration?

(10) Do you have any questions for me about this survey or the Natural Rivers Program?

54

APPENDIX D

Principal Investigator Assurance of An Exempt Protocol

Name of Principal Investigator: William Taylor

Title of Project: Perceptions of the Natural Rivers Program

IRB #: X09-070

The Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) has deemed this project as exempt, in
accord in federal regulations of projects exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB)
review. As an exempt protocol, the appropriate IRB will not be further involved with the
review or continued review of the projects, as long as the project maintains the properties
that make it exempt.

Since the HRPP is no longer involved in the review and continued review of this
project, it is the Principal Investigator who assumes the responsibilities of
protection human subjects in this project and ensures that the project is performed
with integrity and within accepted ethical standards, particularly as outlined by
the Belmont Report (see exempt educational materials).

The Principal Investigator assumes responsibility for ensming that the research
subjects be informed of the research through a documented or undocumented
consent process, if appropriate.

The Principal Investigator assmnes the responsibility to maintain confidentiality
of the subjects and the data, and maintain the privacy of the subjects and
protection of the data through appropriate means. If data is anonymous, the
investigators will make no attempt to identify any individuals.

The Principal Investigator assumes the responsibility that co-investi gators and
other members of the research team adhere to the appropriate policies to
protection human subjects, maintain confidentiality and privacy, and adhere to
accepted ethical standards.

If the Principal Investigator adds additional investigators to an exempt protocol,
he/she may inform the HRPP of the additions. This may be of particular
importance to graduate students if the Graduate School requires proof of IRB
approval.

Any complaints from participants regarding the risk and benefits of the project
must be reported to the HRPP.

Since the Principal Investigator and co-investigators are charged with human
subject protection and adhering to ethical principles in exempt research, it is
appropriate that investigators be trained in human subject principles. The
Principal Investigator and all members of the research team are required to
complete MSU IRB educational requirements or equivalent.

55

APPENDIX D (continued)

0 Any change in the protocol which may raise the project from exempt to an
expedited or full review category must be presented to the HRPP. If there is any
question about a change in protocol the Principal Investigator should consult the
Director of the HRPP. Failure to submit changes which raise the protocol out of
the exempt category will be considered non-compliance and will be subject to
investigation and action by the HRPP.

By signing below, the Principal Investigator assures that he/she will abide by the terms of
this assurance and the HRPP exempt policy.

 

 

Signature of Principal Investigator Date
05/05/05

56

APPENDIX E

Research Participant Information and Consent Form

Thank you for taking the time to consider participating in this research study regarding
“Perceptions and Values of the Natural Rivers Program”.

Purpose of this research:

You are being asked to participate in a research study regarding your values and
perceptions of the Natural Rivers Program. This study is being conducted as part of my
Master of Science program through Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife. As a member of the Department’s management team, you have been
selected to answer a brief survey regarding your perceptions, priorities, and values
relative to the Natural Rivers Program.

What you will do:

This one-on—one survey should take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Any
information you share in this survey will be kept strictly confidential and your
confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. This survey
will be electronically recorded and all data will be destroyed upon completion of this
study. This survey is completely voluntary, and you may choose to not respond or to skip
any question that you do not want to answer. You may also withdraw from this study at
any time.

Benefits and Risks

There are no known risks associated with participating in this study. Potential benefits
for participating in this research include the opportunity to learn about the Natural Rivers
Program and to help guide the future of the program.

Contact information:
If you have any questions or concerns about this survey, please feel free to contact Steve
Sutton at 517-241-9049 or Suttons@michigan.gov.

If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Michigan
State University Institutional Review Board at irb@msu.edu, 517-355-2180, or Michigan
State University, Human Research Protection Program, 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824.

 

Documentation of informed consent:
Your signature below means you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

Signature Date

 

I agree to allow audio recording of the interview Yes NO Initials

 

57

APPENDIX F

Natural Rivers Program survey supplement

Natural River Values as found in the Act

QP‘PP’NT‘

Water Conservation 7. Aesthetic
Free Flowing condition 8. Floodplain
Fish 9. Ecologic
Wildlife 10. Historic
Boating 1 1. Recreation
Scenic

Program Success

1.

9995”!"

Water quality monitoring
Fisheries surveys

Scenic quality

Property values

Riparian corridor condition

Property owner or river user opinion

Program Priorities

1.

2.

3.

Designate additional rivers into the Natural River System.
Update older administrative rules and management plans.
Develop new and revise outreach and education products.
Develop additional monitoring of the existing Program.

Provide greater assistance to local units of government regarding program
administration and river protection.

Pursue acquisition of scenic easements along designated Natural Rivers (no public
access).

Pursue locally designated rivers through local governments.

58

LITERATURE CITED

Allan, J .D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream
ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evel. Syst. 35:257-284.

Baker, M.E., M.J. Wiley, and P.W. Seelbach. 2001. GIS-Based hydrologic modeling of
riparian areas: Implications for stream water quality. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association. 37:6:1615-1628.

Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, B.V. Colden, and L.W. Hiram. 2002. Landscapes to
riverscapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes.
BioScience 52: 6: 483-497.

Findley, S., J .M. Quinn, C.W. Hickey, G. Burrell, and M. Downes. 2001. Effects of land
use and riparian flowpath on delivery of dissolved organic carbon to streams.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 46:345-355.

Gomi, T., R. Sidle, and J .S. Richardson. 2002. Headwater and channel network:
Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems.
BioScience 52: 905-916.

Gregory, S.V., F .J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem
perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:8:540-551.

Hudson, P.L., R.W. Griffiths, and T.J. Wheaten. 1992. Review of habitat classification
schemes appropriate to streams, river, and connecting channels in the Great Lakes
drainage basin. In The development of an aquatic habitat classification system for
lakes. Edited by WDN Busch and PG Sly. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, Mich. Pp.
73-107.

Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Council. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from National
Wild and Scenic Rivers Web site: http://www.rivers.gov/council.html.

Jones, K.B., A.C. Neale, M.S. Nash, R.D. Van Remortel, and JD. Wickham. 2001.
Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a
multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landsc.
Ecol. 16:301-312.

Karr, J .R., and 1.]. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface.
Science 201 :21 :229-234.

Lammert, M., and J .D. Allan. 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of

scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish
and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 23:257-270.

59

Lovell, S.T., and W.C. Sullivan. 2006. Environmental benefits of conservation buffers
in the United States: Evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 112:249-260.

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and RC. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to
evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, WA. 166p.

Meyer, W.B., and BL. Turner, eds. 1994. Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A
Global Perspective. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. 537pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Management. 1969. Use

designation areas for Michigan intrastate water quality standards. Lansing,
Michigan.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resource Commission 2703. 1978.
Policy and procedures regarding the Natural Rivers Act of 1970. Lansing,
Michigan.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Office of Planning Services. 1973. Betsie
river natural river report.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Office of Planning Service. 1971.
Guidelines for Designating Natural Rivers, Lansing, Michigan.

Montgomery, DR, and L.H. MacDonald. 2002. Diagnostic approach to stream channel
assessment and monitoring. J. Am. Water Resources Association. 3821-16.

Naiman, R.J., and J .J . Latterell. 2005. Principles for linking fish habitat to fisheries
management and conservation. Journal of Fish Biology. 67 (supplement B), 166-
185.

Newcomb, T.J., and T.G. Coon. 1997. Assessment of management alternative for
altering the thermal regime of the Betsie River, Michigan. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources. Fisheries Division Research Report 2047.

Orth, DJ, and R.J. White. 1999. Stream habitat management. Pages 249-284 in CC.
Kohler and WA. Hubert, editors. Inland fisheries management in Northern
America, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Osborne, L.L., and DA. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-
quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-258.

Pij anowski, B.C. 2006. Afforestation patterns in the upper midwest, USA. IUFRO
landscape ecology conference. September 26-29, 2006. Locorotonda, Bari, Italy.

60

Poff, N.L., J .D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J .R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks,
and J .C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river
conservation and restoration. BioScience 45:11:769-784.

Roth, N.E., J .D. Allan, and D.L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic
integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landsc. Ecol. 11:141-156.

Schoonover, J .E., B.G. Lockaby, and BS. Helms. 2006. Impacts of land cover on

stream hydrology in the west Georgia piedmont, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 35:2123-
2131.

Strayer, D.L., R.E. Beighley, L.C. Thompson, S. Brooks, C. Nilsson, et a1. 2003. Effects
of land cover on stream ecosystems: roles of empirical models and scaling issues.
Ecosystems 6:407-423.

Stuart, G.W., P.J. Edwards, K.R. McLaughlin, and M.J. Phillips. 2000. Monitoring the
effects of riparian management on water resources. In E. Verry, J. Hombeck and

C. Dolloff. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United
States. 287-302. Boca Raton: Lewis.

Taylor, W.W., C.P. Ferreri, F.L. Posten, and J .M. Robertson. 1995. Educating fisheries

professional using a watershed approach to emphasize the ecosystem paradigm.
Fisheries. 20 926-8.

Tonello, MA. 2004. Michigan department of natural resources: Status of the fishery
report, Betsie river. Report No. 2004-3.

Townsend ,C.R., S. Doledec, R. Norris, K. Peacock, C. Arbuckle. 2003. The influence
of scale and geography on relationships between stream community composition
and landscape variables: description and prediction. Feshw. Biol. 48:768-785.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Ambient water quality criteria
recommendations, information supporting the development of state and tribal
nutrient criteria. Rivers and streams in the nutrient ecoregion VII. EPA 822-B-
00-018, December 2000.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and CE. Cushing. 1980.
The river continuum concepts. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:130-137.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287. Public Law 90-542. 1968.
Zorn, T.G., and M.J. Wiley. 2006. Influence of landscape characteristics on local habitat

and fish biomass in streams of Michigan’s lower peninsula. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 48:375-393.

61

      

MIC

”11131111111111!flifilflfflflflfllyifliifliflfl