Black River Instream Fish Habitat Assessment

1 Black River Instream Fish Habitat Assessment Michigan Trout Unlimited October 15 Kristin Thomas Dr. Bryan Burroughs

2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 Table 1. Michigan stream and river temperature classification criteria.... 4 Figure 1. Map of the Black River.... 5 DATA EXAMPLES... 5 Figure 2. Hypothetical bedform composition data for a healthy balanced river... 7 Figure 3. Hypothetical substrate composition data for a healthy river... 8 Figure 4. Hypothetical in-stream habitat data for a river with good diverse habitat.... 9 METHODS... Table 2. Bedform delineation explanation.... 11 Table 3. Substrate classes used to denote substrate composition.... 11 Table 4. Descriptions of the original Black River mapping sites.... 12 Figure 5. Black River Substrate Composition... 12 Figure 6. Black River bedform structure.... 13 Table 5. Description of the four Black River segments used for analysis.... 14 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION... 15 BLACK RIVER ANALYSIS: WHOLE RIVER... 15 Figure 9. Black River bedform delineation, bottom substrate, and in-stream fish cover.... 17 BLACK RIVER ANALYSIS: BY SEGMENT... 21 Bedform Structure... 21 Figure11. Bedform structure of segments in the Black River.... 22 In-stream Habitat Availability... 22 Substrate Composition... 23 Figure 13. Black River substrate composition by segment.... 24 Figure 14. Black River fine and hardsubstrate composition by segment.... 24 Recommendations and Management Actions... 24 LITERATURE CITED... 28

3 Purpose & Context Many coldwater streams in Michigan, including the Black River, lack comprehensive data on instream fish habitat conditions. Research has been done to verify that temperature, catchment size, and 9% exceedance flow have a substantial impact on fish community (Zorn et al. 9, Zorn and Wiley 4). However, at this time there is not research available which relates the amount, quality, or spatial distribution of in-stream habitat to fisheries population dynamics (density or size structure). Some work has been done to determine if the addition of woody debris has positive impacts on fisheries populations (Roni and Quinn 1, Bryant 1983), but has not looked at how much wood is needed or optimal. It is our long-term intent to develop paired habitat and fisheries data sets that can be used to statistically determine the degree to which in-stream habitat, substrate, and bedforms shape fisheries populations in Michigan. The ultimate goal of having that scientific insight, would be to assess a stream and fishery and be able to confidently diagnosis the limiting factors and ensure that actions taken to improve fisheries will result in those benefits being realized. With that in mind, fisheries habitat data was collected, summarized, and discussed in the context of prioritizing restoration and protection efforts in the Black River. An emphasis was placed on coldwater fisheries habitat. This methodology was used because it provides a comprehensive habitat inventory for the entire river, or a segment of river, in contrast to a small random subsample that may not accurately depict the variability of habitats that truly represent a river s current conditions. The Black River was surveyed from Green s Landing to S. Black River Rd. just upstream from M-68 (39 miles) and the East Branch from Country Road 622 to the confluence with the Black River (14 miles) in 13. This report summarizes the data collected during this survey. It is important to note, that currently, rigorous statistical relationships between instream fish habitats and fish populations are not available. This means that we are not yet able to place these results for the Black River in a broader statistical context for identifying and justifying priority improvements to target. At this point in time, we must interpret these results in limited context with the other rivers we have thus surveyed, using the professional or expert judgments of those intimately familiar with our streams geomorphology and fish populations, and with experience in the practice of stream enhancement techniques and costs. With that said, this report provides summaries of the results of the survey, and interpretations and recommendations of it that represent TU staff s best professional judgment. This platform will be best put to use through engagement of other partners and practitioners for review and interpretation, to the end of us all doing the best we can to ensure the improvement and protection of the Black River. If you review this report and would like to provide further comments, discussion, alternate interpretations or recommendations for improvement, we welcome all feedback and are available to facilitate further discussion.

4 Introduction The Black River is a renowned brook trout stream located in northern Lower Michigan. The Black River watershed drains 547 square miles; the mainstem is approximately 78 miles long. The Black River is a cold-transitional stream down to where the East Branch meets the mainstem where it changes to a cool small river until M-33/Tower Pond where it changes to a warm large river until it meets Black Lake. The East Branch begins as a cold stream and changes to a cold-transitional stream where the stream from Foch Lakes enters the East Branch. It remains a cold-transitional stream until it empties into the Black River (Table 1). Management of the Upper Black River focuses exclusively on the naturally reproducing brook trout fishery. Table 1. Michigan stream and river temperature classification criteria. Temperature ranges are based on predicted mean July water temperature ( F). These classification are the base for protection limits from large quantity water withdrawals under MI statute (Part 327). Classification Temperature Range Cold <63.5 F Cold-Transitional 63.5-67.1 F Cool 67.1-69.8 F Warm >69.8 F Prior to this survey there was limited current fish habitat data available for the Black River. Some road stream crossing and habitat data are available from Huron Pines and the DNR. This is great data; however, it does not focus on the status of instream fish habitat conditions in the entire river. The purpose of this survey was to catalog in-stream habitat to determine how it may be limiting the coldwater fishery. It is important to note that fish habitat data is only one of the tools used to identify factors that may be limiting a coldwater fishery, albeit a critical one in which data is typically lacking. Habitat mapping differs from many types of habitat monitoring in that fish habitat is surveyed in the entire river, or an entire sub-section of a watershed. It serves as more of a census than a survey. The survey included; delineating the river channel into bedform types (run, riffle, or pool), recording the length, location, and width of each bedform unit; and the characterization of the amounts of in-stream fish cover (aquatic vegetation, woody debris, and deep water) and streambed substrate composition in each bedform unit. The full methodology is explained and supported in a separate manual, found at, http://www.michigantu.org/index.php/river-stewards-manual/habitat-mapping. Each of these variables is important to the health of a coldwater fish community. A variety of bedform structures are needed for a healthy fishery. Each species of fish, at different stages of their life, have specific needs for survival, growth and feeding, and reproduction, and it takes a variety of habitats to provide for all of those unique needs. For example, riffles with coarse substrate are used for spawning and are critical habitat for numerous species of macroinvertebrates, which provide food for trout. Bottom substrate heterogeneity is also important in providing a variety of food sources. A variety of substrate types (gravel, cobble, silt, wood, leaf packs, etc.) provide habitat for a diverse macroinvertebrate community and thus a variety of food sources for coldwater fish. Areas that can hold

5 and hide fish are also important. Woody debris, deep water, and aquatic vegetation are examples of fish habitats which provide cover. Trout and other fish can seek refuge from predators in these areas. In 13 approximately 53 miles of the Black River were mapped, including 14 miles of the East Branch of the Black River (Figure 1). Habitat mapping data collected on the Black River in 13 is summarized in this report. Trends in bedform composition, substrate composition, and fish habitat structure were compared in five segments of the Black River. Direction of Flow Figure 1. Map of the Black River. The River was mapped from Green s Landing to Black River Road near Tower. The East branch was mapped from County Road 622 to the confluence with the Black River. Data Examples As discussed in the Purpose & Context section, we do not currently possess well-developed quantitative relationships between instream fish habitat variables and stream fish populations. However, we do have confidence in several general ecological principles. 1.) Habitat heterogeneity and diversity is desired. It provides for habitats to suit many macroinvertebrate and fish species and their various life stages, generally leading to healthy populations, diverse fish communities, and ecosystem resiliency. In contrast, homogeneity of

6 habitats, while possibly benefiting a few select species, generally leads to less productive and resilient fish communities. 2.) Stream fish such as trout, unless prevented from migrating throughout a river system by impassable barriers, will move considerable distances to reach unique habitats they needed for different purposes. If connectivity between river segments exist, each segment need not offer all habitat elements in ideal levels, rivers can form mosaics of different habitats that taken and functioning as a whole provide all the necessary elements. 3.) Trout, salmon and steelhead are lithophilic spawners, meaning they require gravel substrates of the right size ranges, with specific water velocities to reproduce. We do not well understand the exact amounts of this habitat in a stream that are required to ensure maximum spawning potential and success for a given population, but these habitats are essential. 4.) Wood material is critically important in Michigan streams, for influencing channel form, localized substrates, nutrient cycling, substrates for macroinvertebrates, and cover for fish. We do not yet understand how much wood is optimal. Is more wood always better for trout, or is it only better to a certain point, with no real benefit after that? We do not yet understand finetuned wood dynamics, but do know it is a critical component to healthy stream fisheries in the Midwest. 5.) Deep water, defined here as >2.5 ft. deep, provides security and comfort to many species of fish in streams, and for large sizes of trout. Very wide and shallow habitats can be productive habitat for small fish and juvenile trout, but generally, larger sizes of stream trout require presence of deep water and other forms of cover. 6.) Moderate slopes or gradients of streams tend to lead to the formation of more riffle and pool bedforms, interspersed with runs. As slopes decrease, riffle and pools become less frequent, and bedforms are dominated by runs. When run bedforms are dominant, it becomes essential that habitat complexity and diversity is accomplished by other habitat elements such as deep water, wood material, and aquatic vegetation. 7.) We are not yet able to confidently state how much sand substrate is deleterious to a trout population. The negative impact of sand to a trout population generally, has been well documented. But exact impacts to a population will be dependent on many other variables, including the abundance and distribution of other forms of critical habitat (which may or may not co-vary with sand). So, we examine the results of instream fish habitat assessments through these very general principles, looking first for clear and obvious deficiencies or imbalances of critical habitats, and secondarily for potential elements that could be optimized further in specific locations. The following are hypothetical data scenarios to familiarize the reader with these concepts and the data summaries to follow.

7 A healthy stream will have diverse bedform structure with ample run, riffle, and pool habitat. The river will not be dominated by one bedform type (Figure 2). River A has a good balance of bedform types, whereas River B is dominated by run habitat with little riffle or pool habitat available. The dominance of run habitat in river B may indicate a problem. A) B) Figure 2. Hypothetical bedform composition data for a healthy balanced river (A) and a river with limited bedform heterogeneity (B).

8 A variety of substrate types are also present in a healthy river. It is especially important that fine sediments (sand and silt) do not dominate a river bottom. Erosion is a major source of pollution to our waterways, an overabundance of fine sediment may be a sign that there is an erosion problem in the watershed, or a legacy of past sedimentation that has not been flushed out of the system. A healthy river will have a balance of substrate types (Figure 3). River A has a good balance of fine and hard substrate; whereas river B is dominated by silt and sand with little hard substrate present. A) B) Figure 3. Hypothetical substrate composition data for a healthy river (A), and a river with excess fine sediment (B).

9 In-stream habitat diversity, or fish cover is also an important portion of what makes a stream ideal for coldwater fish. Fish need a variety of places to seek cover from predators including aquatic vegetation, woody debris, and deep water. River A has abundant, diverse in-stream fish habitat (8%); whereas, river B has sparse in-stream habitat available (25%) (Figure 4). A) B) Figure 4. Hypothetical in-stream habitat data for a river with good diverse habitat (A), and a river deficient in-stream habitat (B). Graph A in Figures 2-4 depict a healthy river, ideally each river mapped will have data similar to that generally seen in the A graphs. Graph B in Figures 2-4 depict issues which may be indicative of a limitation to the coldwater fishery. When we see data similar to that in the B graphs restoration or enhancement may be needed, and more in-depth analysis and discussion is appropriate.

Methods Methodological details for this instream fish habitat assessment can be found in full detail in report form, at: http://www.michigantu.org/index.php/river-stewards-manual/habitat-mapping. This survey was conducted by a Huron Pines AmeriCorps member serving with The Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited (HWTU). The AmeriCorps Member was trained in habitat mapping methods by Michigan Trout Unlimited (MITU) Aquatic Ecologist Kristin Thomas. All mapping was completed during average or low flow conditions. It is important that habitat is not mapped during times of high flow because high flow can make it difficult to distinguish bedform delineations. Mapping was completed in the early summer of 13. Training included instruction on how to determine bedform delineation, substrate classification, and practice visually estimating percent of streambed. Stream diagrams were used to practice estimating the percent of streambed occupied by substrate types and fish cover. Volunteers estimated substrate composition and fish cover for each diagram. A key with a grid and actual percentages were then provided. This exercise was used to help the member visually estimate percent of stream bottom. Bedform delineation and qualitative observations were derived through independent visual observations and evaluations. Bedform delineation involved the categorization of the stream into bedforms (run, riffle, pool, rapid, as defined in Table 2). The length and widths (top and bottom) of each bedform section were measured. Latitude and longitudes were recorded at the top and bottom of each bedform section using a handheld GPS. Measurements of bedform lengths and widths were made with a Nikon Laser Rangefinder (+/-.5 yard accuracy) or a tape measure. Quantitative streambed substrate composition measurements were made through visual estimation. The percent area of each bedform segment occupied by clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, or boulder was estimated visually. Substrate classification followed Wolman size classes for sand, gravel (all sizes combined), and cobble (all sizes combined) (Table 3). The percent area of streambed in each bedform section covered by woody debris, aquatic vegetation and deep water (>2.5 ft.) was also visually estimated. The amount of wood, vegetation, and deep water was expressed as a percent of streambed area (5% increments). The maximum depth present in each bedform section was also recorded. In cases were maximum depth could not be measured; maximum depth was listed as greater than 4 feet.

11 Table 2. Bedform delineation explanation. Bedform Description Run Riffle Fast or slow current, unbroken water, average depth. Swift current, turbulent broken water, shallower than average depth. Pool Slow or no current, unbroken water. Generally about 1.5 times deeper than average depth. Rapid Waterfall Swift current, very turbulent, broken water. Large boulders or bedrock often breaking the surface. The majority of the stream flow over a ledge or cliff. Table 3. Substrate classes used to denote substrate composition. Particle Description Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Very fine sticky texture. Easily forms ribbons when rolled in hand, generally reddish or gray in color. Very fine texture. Smooth, silky feel when handled. Crumbles readily when handled. Single sand grains are apparent. Rocks 1/16 to 2 ½ inches in diameter Rocks 2 ½ to inches in diameter. Rocks greater than inches in diameter. Solid rock surface, not the tops of boulders. The Black River was originally divided into habitat mapping sites, for the purpose of organizing field data collection (Table 4). In most cases, access points dictated the beginning and end of each site. Habitat data for all of the mapped portions of the river were analyzed and then the sites were grouped into 5 analysis segments. Segments were chosen based on commonalities in habitat conditions, and clear contrasts between them (Table 5). Figures 5-7 below are provided to illustrate that the consolidation into 5 segments for analysis was based off similarities in instream habitat elements, and not arbitrary grouping that would obscure significant differences between the segments.

Black 1 Black 2 Black 3 Black 4 Black 5 Black 6 Black 7 Black 8 Black 9 Black Percent of River Bottom Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 12 Table 4. Descriptions of the original Black River mapping sites. Shading indicates transition between 5 segments used in analysis. Site Name Site Description Segment Black 1 Green Landing to McKinnon s Bend Segment 1 Black 2 McKinnon s Bend to Tin Shanty Segment 1 Black 3 Tin Shanty to Chandler Dam Cul-de-sac Segment 2 Black 4 Chandler Dam Cul-de-sac to Town Corner Lake Segment 2 Black 5 Town Corner Lake to Blue Lakes Rd. Segment 2 Black 6 Blue Lakes Rd. to Clark Bridge Segment 3 Black 7 Clark Bridge to Crockett Rapids Segment 3 Black 8 Crockett Rapids to Black River Rd. near Tower Segment 3 Black 9 East Branch Co. Rd. 622 to Blue Lakes Rd. Segment 4 Black East Branch Blue Lakes Rd. to Confluence Segment 5 Black River Substrate Composition 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Hard Fine Figure 5. Black River Substrate Composition. Fine silt and sand. Hard clay, gravel, cobble, and boulder.

Black 1 Black 2 Black 3 Black 4 Black 5 Black 6 Black 7 Black 8 Black 9 Black Percent of River Black 1 Black 2 Black 3 Black 4 Black 5 Black 6 Black 7 Black 8 Black 9 Black Percent of River Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 13 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Black River Bedform Composition Pool Riffle Run Figure 6. Black River bedform structure. 6 Black River Fish Cover 5 4 3 Deep Vegetation Wood Figure 7. Black River in-stream fish cover.

14 Table 5. Description of the four Black River segments used for analysis. Segment Name Segment Description Segment Length (miles) Segment 1 Green Landing to Tin Shanty 4.6 Segment 2 Tin Shanty to Blue Lakes Rd. 9.2 Segment 3 Blue Lakes Rd. to Black River Rd near Tower 25.3 Segment 4 East Branch Co. Rd. 622 to Blue Lakes Rd. 9.1 Segment 5 East Branch Blues Lakes Rd. to Confluence 5.4 Segment 3 Segment 5 Segment 2 Segment 1 Segment 4 Figure 8. Map of the Black River, showing the 5 main segments of the river related to distinct differences in instream fish habitat conditions. Boundary descriptions found in Table 5. Habitat features for each segment were summarized (Table 6). For all analyses, percent of total streambed was used. For example, to determine what percent of the Black River is run, riffle, and pool the total area of run, riffle, and pool was calculated and then expressed as a percent of total streambed area. To calculate the area of each bedform section the mean bedform section width (top width + bottom width/2) was multiplied by bedform section length. Percent substrate and habitat was calculated by expressing the percent substrate or habitat as an area (i.e. (percent gravel/)*bedform section area). The total area of sand, gravel, cobble etc. was then summed and expressed as a percent of total stream or segment area. Thus, each percent presented on a graph represents the proportion of total stream bed occupied by that in-stream habitat element as estimated for this study. The deepest point in each bedform section was also recorded. This allowed for the calculation of minimum width to depth ratio. We were unable to calculate width to depth ratio in the traditional

15 format because we do not have a mean depth or bankfull width for each bedform section (width to depth ratio = bankfull width/mean depth). Therefore, we calculated minimum width to depth ratio = wetted width/maximum depth. This calculation results in a smaller number than a traditional width to depth ratio; thus, it is referred to as minimum width to depth ratio. In cases where maximum depth was listed as greater than 4 feet, 4 feet was used to calculate minimum width to depth ratio. Results and Discussion Table 6. Instream fish habitat summary data for the Black River. Percentages and proportions are mean values for all bedform segments in the river as a whole and within each section. All Sections Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Mapped Total Length (ft.) 283,681 24,254 48,711 133,819 48,246 28,651 Width (ft.) Mean Range 4 19-75 26 19-36 39 21-6 5 24-75 28 21-36 33 28-42 Percent Run Bedform Percent Riffle Bedform Percent Pool Bedform 77 12 11 8 2 18 % Deep Water (>2.5 ft.) 17 31 5 21 17 4 % Woody Debris 15 6 13 14 24 15 % Aquatic Vegetation 4 2 3 5 9 3 Total Section - % Clay Total Section - % Silt 8 3 9 6 12 3 Total Section - % Sand 58 63 4 62 69 48 Total Section - % Gravel 24 6 35 22 16 41 Total Section - % Cobble 8.5 14 9 3 7 Total Section -% Boulder 1.5 2 1 1 69 26 5 76 14 92 3 5 84 13 3 Black River Analysis: Whole River The Black River is dominated by run habitat (77%) (Table 6 and Figure 9), but ranks in moderate in percentage of run compared with other surveyed Michigan trout streams (Figure -A). The remaining bedform habitat is almost evenly split between riffle (12%) and pool (11%), also moderate in both cases when compared with other Michigan trout streams surveyed (Figure -A). Sand is the most common substrate (58%) followed by gravel (24%), with smaller amounts of silt and cobble (Table 6, Figure 9-B). While this level of sand does rank high relative to other Michigan trout streams surveyed, the percent gravel in the Black River is comparable to other rivers like the Little Manistee and Upper Manistee Rivers, where sand is dominant, but the available gravel is known to produce larger levels of trout reproduction (Figure -B). Cumulative fish cover (wood, deep water and aquatic vegetation) for the Black River was 36%, ranking it very low among other rivers surveyed (Figure -D). There is a lowmoderate amount of wood habitat available (15%) (Table 6, Figure -F) and limited deep water (17%) (Figure -E) and very little aquatic vegetation (4%) (Figure -G).

16 The Black River does have a higher percentage of fine substrate (predominantly sand) than several other streams in Michigan (Figure -B), but falls in the middle of the pack in terms of percent fine substrate. When substrate types are grouped into hard or fine groupings, based on the ecological function (fine = sand and silt), the Black River falls about in the middle of the group of analyzed rivers (Figure -C). To a large extent, the dominance of run habitat and sandy substrate in so many Michigan Rivers can be explained by geology and geomorphology. Most rivers in Michigan s Lower Peninsula are low gradient streams which limits the amount of riffle that will naturally occur in the stream. Taken as a whole river, the Black River seems to present reasonable levels of sediments and bedforms, indicating that morphologically, the river is in reasonable shape, without glaring impairments to its form. This does not mean that it could not be improved to more ideal conditions, but sediments and bedforms are not the clearest limiting factors for this river s trout fishery today. However, fish cover does appear to be the clearest deficiency for physical habitat in the Black River today. Out of all the trout streams we ve thus surveyed, the Black River ranks in the lowest 3 for all forms of fish cover. While % wood debris is somewhat low and should be targeted for increase, the relative lack of deep water and aquatic vegetation were most severe. Data for the whole river is useful comparing to other rivers in the region and identifying clear deficiencies, such as fish cover abundance. However, data from analysis of specific segments will be used in the next section to identify areas of need and potential projects.

Percent of River Percent of River Percent of River Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 17 A) Bedform Composition 8 6 4 Run Riffle Pool B) 7 6 5 4 3 Substrate Composition Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder C) 18 16 14 12 8 6 4 2 Instream Fish Cover Wood Vegetation Deep Figure 9. Black River bedform delineation, bottom substrate, and in-stream fish cover.

Percent of River Percent of River Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 18 Bedform Delineation 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Pool Riffle Run Figure -A. Proportions of bedforms in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan, ordered by percent run bedform (black). Substrate Composition 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt Clay Figure -B. Streambed substrate composition in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan, ordered by percent sand.

Percent of River Percent of River Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 19 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Substrate Composition - Hard & Fine Groups Hard Fine Figure -C. Hard and fine substrates composition in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan, ordered by percent fine substrate. 8 7 6 5 4 3 Cumulative Fish Cover Figure -D. Cumulative percent area of in-stream fish cover in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan, including deep water, wood debris and aquatic vegetation.

Percent of River Percent of River Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat Percent Deep Water (>2.5 ft) 45 4 35 3 25 15 5 Figure -E. Percent area of deep water (>2.5 ft.) in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan. 3 25 15 5 Percent Wood Debris Figure -F. Percent area of wood debris in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan.

Percent of River Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 21 Percent Aquatic Vegetation 3 25 15 5 Figure -G. Percent area of aquatic vegetation in the 11 trout streams (surveyed by MITU) in Northern Michigan. Black River Analysis: By Segment The habitat mapping sites in the Black River were organized into 5 distinct segments for in-depth habitat analysis. Segments were grouped based on distinct changes in river habitat to allow for analysis of similar sections of river. Segment 1 consists of sites 1-2. These sites were grouped because of their relatively high abundance of run habitat and fine substrates. Segment 2 consists of sites 3-5 and were grouped because of the relatively high abundance of riffle habitat and hard substrate compared to sites 1-2. Segment 3 is sites 6-8 and was offset from segment 2 because of the dominance of run habitats and fine substrates. Segment 4 is site 9 which is the upper portion of the East Branch, it was separated from site because of the dominance of run and fine sediments in site 9. Segment 5 is site, the lower portion of the East Branch where hard substrates dominate and riffle habitat in more prevalent than in the adjacent segment (Table 4, Figures 5, 6, and 7). Bedform Structure In the Black River as a whole there is limited riffle and pool habitat; however, when the river is looked at in smaller segments better bedform diversity becomes apparent (Figure 11). Segment 1 is mostly run habitat, with nearly % pool habitat as well (Figure 11), but offers almost no riffles. Segment 2 is unique in the Black River, as it offers the majority of available riffle habitat. The riffle habitat in segment 2 should be assumed to be the key critical spawning habitats for trout, and treated as key reproduction areas by ensuring sedimentation does not impact these segments in the future. Segment 3 has a modest diversity of bedform habitats available with % riffle and 14% pool (Table 6). In Segment 4, the upper portion of the East Branch of the Black River, run bedforms are more dominant than in the Black

Percent of Segment Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 22 River, while the lower portion of the East Branch has more diversity (Figure 11). Segment 5 contained most of the riffle habitats in the East Branch, though was still dominated by run habitat (Figure 11). Bedform Structure by Segment 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Pool Riffle Run Figure11. Bedform structure of segments in the Black River. In-stream Habitat Availability The Black River as a whole has fairly limited in-stream fish habitat. Segments 1, 3, and 4 all have over 3% cumulative fish habitat, which is relatively low (Figure 12, Figure -D). Segments 2 and 4 trail further behind with only % cumulative fish habitat (Figure 12). The amount of aquatic vegetation throughout the river is very low, although sampling was completed in June therefore the vegetation may have not been at seasonal peak. Aquatic vegetation is critical high quality habitat for juvenile fish; given the very low documented amount of it here, closer inspection could be warranted to determine the distribution and abundance. Segment 1 provides abundant deep water cover (>3%), the largest percentage of any segment of the Black River; while wood debris remains low, and aquatic vegetation nearly absent (Figure 12). Segment 2 has little deep water cover, moderate wood debris, and little aquatic vegetation. Segment 3 provides a relatively good mix of fish cover, with moderate amounts of deep water, wood, and slightly more aquatic vegetation. Overall, Segment 4 offers relatively good fish cover, and had the highest abundance of wood debris of any segment. Segment 5 was relatively poor in fish cover, with minimal vegetation and deep water (Figures 7 and 12).

Percent of Segment Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 23 Fish Cover by Segment 6 5 4 3 Vegetation Wood Deep Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Figure 12. In-stream habitat structure in the Black River. Substrate Composition Sand is the most common substrate in all segments of the Black River. However, hard substrate (gravel and cobble) is dominant in segments 2 and 5. The remaining segments are dominated by fine sediment, largely sand (Figure 13). Segment 1 has over 9% fine substrate, while segments 2, 3, 4 and 5 have a greater proportion of hard substrate, between and 5% (Figure 14). We know this abundance of sand is due both to the geology and slope of the river and to historic logging and land use practices which contributed large amounts of sand. Although there is clearly an overabundance of fine sediment in segment 1 (Figure 14), there are also some sizeable areas of gravel in segments 2, 3 and 5 (Figure 13). It is difficult to determine if the gravel present in these segments is sufficient for the coldwater fishery. The abundance of gravel and riffles present, is similar in scope to other northern Michigan trout streams surveyed, that are known for good reproduction and recruitment (e.g., Upper Manistee, Little Manistee River). While additional hard substrates and riffle habitats may increase the spawning and reproduction capacity of the river, commensurate increases in juvenile rearing habitat would also need to be provided in order to realize an overall increase in fish abundance. An in-depth look at existing fisheries data from the different segments of this river may be needed to help verify limiting factors; or new surveys may be needed to help fill data gaps for some stream segments.

Percent of Segment Percent of Segment Black River Habitat A report on Black River fisheries habitat 24 Substrate Composition by Segment 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Bouder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt Clay Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Figure 13. Black River substrate composition by segment. Substrate Composition by Segment 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Hard Fine Figure 14. Black River fine (clay, silt, and sand) and hard (gravel, cobble, and boulder) substrate composition by segment. Recommendations and Management Actions Segment 1 Segment 1, from Green Landing to Tin Shanty is dominated by run habitat and pool habitat, fine sediments, abundant deep water fish cover, but low amounts of wood and almost no aquatic

25 vegetation. This section of river should not be expected to support much spawning, but should be considered to offer the majority of deep water cover needed by large sizes and older age classes of trout. However, the wood and vegetation in this deep water section is limited, making much of the deep water habitat here likely less productive than it could or should be. Actions to be considered: - Increase instream wood material in this section to provide better fish cover. Wood material additions here would be primarily for the objective of fish cover, not necessarily for channel morphology changes. - Protection of key pool habitat from sedimentation. Ensure that sand from severe bank erosion sites, road stream crossings, and other sources is prevented from entering this section of stream; if sedimentation of pools is observed, consider wood installations that focus flows for scouring to ensure pools and deep water are maintained. Segment 2 Segment 2, Tin Shanty to Blue Lakes Road, is unique in that it has relatively abundant hard substrates (51%) and the highest abundance of riffle habitats. Given this, this segment should be considered to be key spawning and reproduction habitat within the Black River. There is less fish cover in this segment than most (5% deep water, 13% wood, and 3% vegetation). This combination of factors provides an opportunity for improvement which could boost the abundance of juvenile trout production Work in segment 2 would be well-served to focus on increasing the complexity of fish habitat, specifically for trout in their first and second years after hatching. It is worth noting that the Upper Black River Council has been engaging in this type of work in this segment in recent years, including years since this survey was completed. The data gathered for this report supports their work and provides some ideas for possible actions to be taken: - Increase instream wood debris material, to increase juvenile fish habitat and cover. Wood installation should be designed as not to disrupt the riffle bedforms unintentionally. One strategy for this would be installation of small medium wood material in run habitats for fish cover. While pool habitat augmentation could be beneficial to trout in this segment, wood designed for this purpose would need very careful design and placement to avoid unintended disruption of the riffles present. - Protect critical spawning habitat from sedimentation by ensuring that fine sediment is not entering the stream from upstream, severe bank erosion sites, road stream crossings, or other sources. Consideration should be given to implementing longterm monitoring of the substrates in segment 2 riffles to ensure sedimentation does not occur, or is detected to allow for response. Segment 3

26 Segment 3, Blue Lakes Road to Black River Road has relatively diverse habitat with the highest amount of combined fish cover. This segment appears to be relatively high quality habitat, to be monitored and protected from degradation. There is room for improvement in segment 3 (wood augmentation), but it is also one of the more intact areas of the river; therefore protection should be a primary goal as well. Habitat enhancement efforts on other river segments should be higher priority than here in segment 3. Possible actions to be taken: - Ensure that sand from either upstream, severe erosion sites, roads, or other sources are prevented from delivering sand to this area. - Establish long-term monitoring sites within this segment, where substrate conditions would be periodically monitored to detect any sedimentation that might occur. This could be done through monumented cross-sections at several riffles, where pebble count methods would be used, analyzed, and repeated annually or semi-annually. - Wood material augmentation would be undertaken to increase fish cover beyond the 15% current average and provide additional areas for sediment storage. The entire reach may benefit from an overall increase in wood material for fish cover. Segment 4 Segment 4, the East Branch of the Black River from County Road 622 to the confluence with the Black River is dominated by run habitat (9%), with minimal riffle and pool habitat present. Segment 4 does have about 16% gravel substrate. This segment has relatively high amounts of fish cover. In fact it has the most wood (24%) and vegetation (9%) of any Black River segment. The abundance of wood is no doubt in part due to the work the Upper Black River Council has completed in the East Branch. - Protect critical spawning habitat from sedimentation by ensuring that fine sediment is not entering the stream from upstream, severe bank erosion sites, road stream crossings, or other sources. Consideration should be given to implementing longterm monitoring of the substrates in segment 2 riffles to ensure sedimentation does not occur, or is detected to allow for response. - Protection of key pool habitat from sedimentation. Ensure that sand from severe bank erosion sites, road stream crossings, and other sources is prevented from entering this section of stream; if sedimentation of pools is observed, consider wood installations that focus flows for scouring to ensure pools and deep water are maintained. Segment 5 Segment 5, the East Branch from Blues Lakes Rd. down has relatively limited fish cover. However, there is a fairly high percentage of hard substrate and riffle habitat present in this section. If future work is pursued in the East Branch of the Black River, it would be advisable to focus efforts on Segment 5 in the future. Possible actions to be taken include:

27 - Add larger instream wood debris structures with designs that would promote localized bed scouring, adding cover but also unique deep water habitats. Many possible designs exist for these purposes. The key elements would be stable installation with the objective of addressing the wide/shallow stream shape with localized areas that are narrower/deeper and sustainable. This work would most likely be an extension of the type of work the Upper Black River Council is already actively conducting. - Use of brush bundles and smaller wood material placed on the shallow stream margins to foster deposition of fine sediments within them to promote narrower/deeper stream channels in select locations. This work should not be pursued in key spawning areas (gravel dominated riffle habitat); however there is a general need for more deep water habitat in this segment. The use of these brush bundles for sediment capture and stream narrowing could be downstream of larger installations done for the purpose of creating localized scour and pools (to capture the sediment scoured rather than sending it downstream into other portions of the Black River). Overall Prioritization Prioritizing protection and enhancement efforts is often a difficult process, which by necessity needs to explicitly consider: 1.) current status of the river and its fisheries, 2.) certainty of benefits to be derived by the activities, 3.) risk of creating unintended negative consequences, 4.) feasibility of the projects contemplated including coordination & management, funding, permitting and regulations, and access, 4.) the array of stakeholder values and motivations for undertaking such efforts. This habitat assessment report is intended to help contribute to elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5, along with the others, will be up to all those engaged in stewardship of the Black River to consider. With that said, from the results of this instream fish habitat assessment, the following general priorities are offered as a starting place for further discussions that follow. Tier 1 Priorities - Increase juvenile fish cover (wood and vegetation) within run bedforms in Segment 2. - Increase adult fish cover (wood) in Segment 1. - Increase fish cover, and bedform diversity promoting structures in the lower portion of the East Branch of the Black River. - Institute long-term sedimentation monitoring strategies described for segments 2 and 3. MITU would be glad to work with others to set this up and provide analysis of results. It would involve a dedicated volunteer to do the monitoring, or several riparian landowners able to monitor one site annually or semi-annually. Tier 2 Priorities

28 - Consider conducting fishery population estimates at several locations throughout the Black River. Fishery population data will help relate what we see as opportunities for habitat improvement with current fishery conditions. MITU will be glad to help select sites and conduct sampling, if desired. Focus should be on filling gaps in available fish sampling done by the MDNR. - Consider possible enhancement efforts mentioned for segment 3, targeted in specific locations. - Consider expanding the instream fish habitat assessment to any other significant tributaries of the Black River. MITU will be glad to assist in identifying all the tributaries, and developing a practical and feasible strategy towards their assessment. Literature Cited Our purpose was not to summarize all pertinent information and data for this river, so these references are limited and should not reflect all the applicable information available on this topic or for this river. Bryant, M.D. 1983. The Role of Management of Woody Debris in West Coast Salmonid Nursery Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:322-33. Roni, P and T.P. Quinn. 1. Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to placement of large woody debris in western Oregon and Washington streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:282-. Tonello, M. 5. Little Manistee. Status of the Fishery Resource Report. MI DNR. 5-8. Found at https://www.michigan.gov/documents/5-8_little-manistee_river_14467_7.pdf. Zorn, T.G., P.W. Seelbach, and M.J. Wiley. 9. Relationships between habitat and fish density in Michigan streams. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Report 91, Ann Arbor. Zorn T.G. and M.J. Wiley. 4. Untangling relationships between river habitat and fishes in Michigan s Lower Peninsula with covariance structure analysis. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 73, Ann Arbor.