[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SAGINAW BAY CURRENT CONDITION OF SAGINAW BAY PUBLIC ACCESS SITES AND IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED BASED ON PRESENT USER ACTIVITY AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEMAND DEC 1982 ov CZp GV 191.42 G68 1982 MICHIGAN OCZM GRANT #NA-80-AA-H-CZ157 SUBTASK 4D-7.7-A SAGINAW BAY CURRENT CONDITION OF SAGINAW BAY PUBLIC ACCESS SITES AND IMPROVEMENT NEEDED BASED ON PRESENT USER ACTIVITY AND ANITICIPATED FUTURE DEMAND by Greg W. Goudy and William L. Yocum December 13, 1982 East Central Michigan Planning and Development Region David Wm. Gay Executive Director for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land Resources Division Coastal Zone Management Program US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following people for their assistance on this project: Charles Kotz, Sue Fortune, Don Platt, and Shelly.Rajewski of Region staff; Bob Peter of the Huron Intermediate School District and Dawn Ellison of Region 7B Employment and Training Consortium for their cooperation and administration of the Youth Employment Program personnel who served as field survey clerks; Scott Jordan of Michigan State University for providing us with additional field personnel to conduct the interviews in Bay County; the field survey clerks - particularly Dave Richardson and Robert Buschlen; Leo Mrozinski and Bill Deephouse, Michigan Department of Natural Resources District Fisheries Biologists for their encouragement and support; and special than""@s to James Ryckman and the staff of the Institute for Fisheries Research, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, for their assistance in data processing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Ack3owledgemeats List of Tables .............. ............ List of Figures ................................................. iv Introduction ......... * ......... * ............................. 1 Saginaw Bay Area Summary ................. o .............. * ........ 7 Area Summaries by County .................................. 20 Huron County o ......... * ............ o ........................ 20 Tuscola County ....................................... o ........ o 24 Bay County - ........ --.oo .... o..o..o .................... 28 Arenac County ..... ............. ......... 33 Individual Site Summaries ............. o...................... o .... 38 Grindstone City .................................. o .............. 38 Port Austin ................. *..0 ........... 0......0 ......... 39 Oak Beach ............................ I................... 0 41 Caseville ................................................. 42 Filion Road ................. ............................... 44 Fin aad Feather ................. ............................... 45 Sumac Island ................. ............................... 46 Sebewaing ................................................. 48 Allen Drain ............................................ o .... 49 Tietz Drain ................................................. 50 Ouanicassee ................................................. 51 Smith Park/Essexville ........................................... 52 Veterans Park ...................... o .......................... 54 Linwood ................................................. 55 Coggins Drain ..................................... I ........... 56 Pinconc,*.ng .......................................... o ...... 57 Pine River ................................................. 59 Au Gres ........ o ........................................ 60 Conclusion ................................ I ................ 62 Public Participation .... ......................................... 70 Preliminary Engineering ................................. ......... 71 Literature Cited ................................................. 72 Appendix A ................................................. 73 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Percent of interviews obtained from each month for each site ....... 8 2 Percent of interviews on weekends and percent of each month's interviews obtained on weekends for each site ..... 9 3 Type of activity conducted by site users on the day interviewed for each site ................. 0 .............. 10 4 Percent of interviews obtained on weekends for each activity type at each site ... ........... 5 Miles traveled by site users to reach each site ............ 14 6 Length in feet of boats launched at each site .... o ........ 16 7 Motor horsepower of boats launched at each site. ... oo ..... 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Saginaw Bay public access sites surveyed ....... ......... 4 2 Questionnaire returned by mail or asked of each person 5 interviewed at Saginaw Bay public access sites ........... 3 Michigan counties of origin of all Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed ...................... 12 4 Michigan counties of origin of all Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed in Huron County ................................................... 21 5 Michigan counties of origin of all Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed in Tuscola County ................................................... 25 6 Michigan counties of origin of all Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed in Bay County ...... 29 7 Michigan counties of origin of all Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed in Arenac County ................................................... 34 iv CURRENT CONDITION OF SAGINAW BAY PUBLIC ACCESS SITES AND IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED BASED ON PRESENT USER ACTIVITY AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEMAND INTRODUCTION This survey was conducted in order to assess the current condition of public access sites around Saginaw Bay and to deterydine where and what improvements should be made to meet increased user demand. Higher user activity in the future is predicted on the basis of three premises - significant improvements in Saginaw Bay water quality since the early 1970's,- a recovery of the walleye fisheries populations, and the continuing increase in the number of registered watercraft and fishing license holders in Michigan. Significant reductions in phosphorus loadings to Saginaw Bay (on the order of 50% since 1974), due to the phosphate detergent ban and improvements in municipal wastewater treatment facilities, have resulted in appreciable improvements in water quality. Levels of algal biomass have been reduced throughout the bay and prevalent blooms of nuisance blue-green algae populations, which generated low dissolved oxl,fgen levels, decreased water clarity, and caused taste and odor problems in maay areas of the bay, have been reduced or eliminated (Stoermer, personal communication). This has produced beneficial effects on the aesthetic qualities of the bay, as well as better living conditions for most biological organisms. The improved water quality recently led the International Joint Commission to remove Saginaw Bay from a Class A area of concern with respect to eutrophication. Historically, Saginaw Bay supported the second largest walleye fishery on the Great Lakes until the 1940's when it collapsed as a result of a series of year class failures primarily related to overharvest by commercial fishermen and poor water quality (Schneider and Leach, 1979). It is now believed the potential for an immense walleye fishery in Saginaw Bay once again exists due to improvements in water quality and changes in commercial fishing regulations. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has begun a massive walleye fingerling stocking program to rejuvenate the fishery with the assistance of local sportsmen organizations. It is hoped the walleye populations in the bay will recover as successfully as those in Lake Erie, which increased 1300% from 2 million walleye in 1960 to 26 million in 1982 and now support a substantial recreational fishery. It Is expected that as the walleye populations increase, Saginaw Bay will not only draw anglers who now travel to Lake Erie to fish walleye, but that this 'Will stimulate increased fishing activity from area anglers as well. Michigan has more registered recreational watercraft (620,000) than any other state and this number continues to increase at an annual rate of 1.5 percent (MDNR Natural Resources Register, May 1982). There has been a similar increase in the number of paid license holders (currently 1.5 million) of 1.3% annually over the past 10 years (Sport Fishing Institute Bulletin, June 1982). At the present rate of increase for watercraft and anglers, it has been estimated that it will take expenditures of $145 million by 1989 on public boat launching facilities and moorages in Mi'chigan simply to meet boating demand at the same level as is currently provided (MDN" Natural Resources Register, May 1982). These three factors - improved water quality, a more numerous walleye population, and an increasing number of aquatic recreationists - make it very likely that there will be greater demand for Saginaw Bay public access facilities in the future. This survey was undertaken in an attempt to document that demand and to provide the basis on which plans for meeting the demand can be formulated. 2 A total of 18 public access sites were surveyed in the 4-county area that encloses Saginaw Bay. Eight of the sites surveyed were in Huron County, three were in Tuscola County, Bay County had five sites, and Arenac County had two (Figure 1). The survey information was generated in the form of responses to a questionnaire (Figure 2) that were either obtained by face-to-face interviews or from mailed returns of questionnaires that had been left on automobile windshields at access sites. Ten field survey clerks were stationed at various public access sites on Saginaw Bay on a 5-day-per-week random schedule for 40 hours per week from June 12, 1982 through August 23, 1982 to interview site users. The field clerk schedule was arranged so that in addition to the survey days being randomly selected, all hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on any particular survey day were randomly sampled.' Each survey clerk was instructed to check each location at least once each survey day. Survey clerks varied both the length of str,7 and the time of day spent at each site from one day to the next so as to gather interviews in as randomized a fashion as possible. The clerks interviewed shore users (shore anglers, picnicers, etc.) as well as boat launch users but concentrated their efforts on those that used the boat launches. When a clerk left a site, a questionnaire, in a stamped, pre-addressed envelope, wes placed on the windshield of towing vehicles with boat trailers attached. The response rate for mailed returns was 27%, well above average for mail surveys, indicating a strong interest in the survey. Prior to deployment of the field survey clerk team, Region staff distributed questionnaires for mailed return and interviewed site users twice a week (once on a weekend day and once on a weekday) from mid-April through mid-June. Ouestionnaires were distributed at access sites during October and November, 1981. Ouestionnaire distribution by Region staff for ice fishing 3 WEST L TAWAS TAWA IS, ARENAC Grindstone COUNTY Port Austin city Au Gres IkTAfdD4*M APine River A Beach Caseville CASI-L9 Filion'Road Pinconning ----------- Coggins Drain Fin & Feather Sumac Island Linwood Sebewaing Veterans Park A l' Drain ---------- ----- - - Smith Park/ Essex. Tietz Drain Quanicass ee --------- -- ----- --- -- SANDURK' SAGINAW AR VASS Figure 1. Saginaw Bay public access sites surveyed. 4 Telephone 517-752-oloo EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 930 - 500 FEDERAL - SAGINAW MICHIGAN 48606 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC ACCESS QUESTIONNAIRE No. The East Central Michigan Planning and Development Region is conducting a survey of public access launch site users to help determine if additional sites or improvements to existing sites are needed. You can help improve access to Saginaw Bay by filling out this questionnaire and mailing it to us in the stamped addressed envelope provided. Your opinions are important to us and your response will be greatly appreciated. Thank You Very Much. William L. Yocum Chief Planner 1. Which site did you use today? Today's date: 2. Which of the following categories describe your use of this site today? shore fishing boat fishing ice fishing waterfowl [email protected]_ recreational boating other 3. How many times in the past 12 months have you used this site for each of the following reasons? shore fishing boat f [email protected]_ ice f ishing_ waterfowl hunting recreational boating other 4. Did you launch a boat here today? a. Transportation method; Cartop Trailer b. Length of the boat: 1. Powerboat 2. Rowboat 3. Canoe or Kayak 4. Sailboat c. Horsepower of the motor, if any: 1. [email protected] 2. Outboard 3. Inboard/Outboard 4. No Motor Figure 2. Questionnaire returned by mail or asked of each person interviewed at Saginaw -2- 5. How long were you at this site today? a. Time arrived b. Time departed 6. How many other people were in your group today? 7. If you also used another site today, which one? 8. Did you or will you spend the night in the area on this trip? a. Motel b. Campground - public - private c. Vacation home - own - rent d. Stay with friends/relatives 9. What town/city do you live in or near? 10. What county do you live in? 11. How many miles did you drive to get here from your home? 12. How long did it take you to get here from your home? 13. Have you filled this questionnaire out before? If yes, how many times? ANSWER THE REMAINING QUESTIONS ONLY IF YOU HAVE NOT FILLED OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AT THIS SITE BEFORE. 14. Is there anything special you like or dislike about this site? 15. Does this site need any improvements? -if so, what? 16. Do you think there should be more, fewer, or no change in the number of public access sites on Saginaw Bay? Why? 17. Where would you like another site, if any? Why? 18. Do you have any other comments? Figure 2 (Continued) site users was prevented by staff vacancies during January, February, and early March. Responses from ice fishermen were obtained by mailed return questionnaires made available at bait shops located near the Bay. The survey data from each interview was compxiter coded, keypunched on to computer cards, and entered into a data file. The data were analyzed by computer using the Region's micro-computer as a terminal hookup to the Michgan Interactive Data Analysis System (MIDAS) at The University of Michigan. The data were grouped into three levels for analysis starting with all the data lumpe," together to get a summary for the entire Saginaw Bay area. Secondly, the inter-views from all sites within a specific county wdre combined to get a county-level analysis for each of the four counties. And finally, each site was analyzed separately. The results of surveys of this type can be influenced by the time of year (winter versus summer), time of week (weekday versus weekend), and what activity one is using the site for (shore fishing, boat angling, ice fishing, etc.). Therefore, a breakdown of when the interviews were obtained and the percent from each us,-r category (shore fishing, boat fishing, etc.) at each site is given in Tables 1-4. Most of the interviews came from the May-August time period with about 6.0% of these coming from weekends. The largest number of interviews came from boat anglers (54%) followed by shore anglers (34%) and recreational boaters (11%). SAGINAW BAY AREA SUMMARY From the 2,667 interviews obtained, it was found that people came use Saginaw Bay from 45 Michigan counties (Figure 3) and several other states including some as far away as Texas and Florida though less than 1% came from out-of-state. This is almost identical to the results of a 1980 MDNR survey of 10,916 fishermen in the Michigan waters of Lake Erie where anglers were found to have come from 46 Michigan counties to fish 7 Table 1. Percent of interviews obtained from each month for each site. Month Site N* Oct Nov Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Saginaw Bay 2667 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4 19 23 38 14 Arenac Co. 311 - 2 0.5 0.5 10 18 28 29 12 Bay Co. 841 - 1 1 1 26 29 32 10 Tuscola Co. 299 - 1 1 2 3 12 17 50 14 Huron Co. 1217 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5 15 19 42 17 Au Gres 286 - 2 - 1 10 16 29 29 13 Pine River 25 - 4 - 28 32 16 20 - Pinconning 46 - - - - - 7 22 51 20 Coggins Rd. 103 4 - 6 3 2 3 15 35 32 Linwood 64 2 - - 3 - 11 8 48 28 eterans Park 16 - - - 13 61 13 13 - Smith Park/Esxv. 562 - - - 1 - 32 33 30 4 V Quanicassee 195 - 1 1 1 4 8 15 50 20 Tietz Drain 37 - - - 3 3 16 38 40 - Allen Drain 62 - - - - 2 23 14 56 5 Sebewaing 119 1 1 - - - 11 19 47 21 Sumac Island 110 1 2 - 2 7 16 26 39 7 Fin & Feather 42 14 5 - - 2 31 2 41 5 Filion Rd. 115 - - 1 - 2 4 26 42 25 Caseville 367 - - - 1 12 19 20 37 11 Oak Beach 90 - - 1 - - 12 4 50 33 Port Austin 147 - - - 1 18 19 39 23 Grindstone City 217 - - 1 10 21 50 18 Number of site users interviewed 8 Table 2. Percent of interviews obtained on weekends and percent of each month's interviews obtained on weekends for each site. Total on Month Site N* Weekends Oct Nov Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Saginaw Bay 2667 62 - - 100, 0 0 85 55 63 56 Arenac Co. 311 66 - - - 0 0 100 42 81 100 Bay Co. 841 67 - - 100 0 0 71 60 72 61 Tuscola Co. 299 69 - - - - 0 100 48 71 79 Huron Co. 1217 56 - - 100 0 0 95 55 53 41 Au Gres 286 68 - - - 0 0 100 44 82 100 Pine River 25 46 - - - - - - - - Pinconning 46 65 - - - - - 100 70 67 44 Coggins Rd. 103 57 - - 100 0 0 100 50 '1 67 Linwood 64 75 - - - - - 100 60 81 61 Veterans Park 16 75 - - - - - - - - Smith Park/Esxv. 562 67 - - - - - 65 63 74 57 Quanicassee 195 70 - - - - 0 100 52 73 77 Tietz Drain 37 '13 - - - - 0 100 36 53 - Allen Drai-i 62 77 - - - - 0 100 56 74 100 Sebewaing 119 72 - - - - - 100 50 67 92 Sumac Island 110 49 - - - - 0 28 24 39 10 Fin & F ather 42 71 - - - - 0 92 100 59 50 Filion Rd. 115 43 - - 100 - 0 100 47 ro 17 Caseville 367 54 - - - - 0 97 54 .52 46 Oak Beach 90 43 - - - - - 91 33 47 20 Port Austin 147 59 - - - - 96 68 53 32 Grindstone City 217 58 - - - 0 100 64 53 42 Number of s1te users interviewed 9 Table 3. Typo of activity conducted by site users on the day interviewed for each site. Activity Shore Boat Ice Waterfowl Recreational Site N* Fishing Fishing Fishing Hunting Boating other Saginaw Bay 2661 34 14 0*1 0,1 11*1 0*1 Arenac Co. 311 21 70 - 8.3 0.7 Bay Co. 841 31 46 0.2 22.4 0.4 Tuscola Co. 299 45 46 - - 8.3 0.7 Huron Co. 1217 36 59 - 0.1 4.3 0.6 Au Gres 286 19 71 - - 9 1 Pine River 25 42 50 - - 8 - Pinconaing 46 9 63 - - 28 Coggins Rd. 103 24 74 1 - I Linwood 64 13 64 - - 23 - Veterans Park 16 19 13 - - 62 6 Smith Park/Esxv. 562 31 42 - - 27 - Quanicassee 195 30 57 - 12 1 Tietz Drain 37 74 23 - 3 - Allen Drain 62 69 26 - 3 2 Sebewaing 119 3 80 - 16 1 Sumac Island 110 35 62 - 1 1 Fin & Feather 42 15 79 - 3 3 Filion *:Id. 115 73 22 - 4 1 Caseville 367 42 55 - 3 - Oak Beach 90 2 81 - 7 17 Port A,-stin 147 54 45 - - - 1 Grindstone City 217 30 67 - 3 - Number of site users interviewed 10 Table 4. Percent of interviews obtained on weekends for each activity type at each site. Activity Shore Boat Ice Waterfowl Recreational Site N* Fishing Fishing Fishing Hunting Boating Other Saginaw Bay 2667 51 65 100 100 75 71 Arenac Co. 311 52 67 - - 93 100 Bay Co. 841 26 89 100 95 67 Tuscola Co. 299 62 74 - - 77 100 Huron Co. 1217 42 63 100 64 57 Au Gres 286' 55 67 - 96 100 Pine River 25 - - - - Pinconning 46 75 69 - 54 - Coggins Rd. 103 46 61 100 100 - Linwood 64 88 72 - 79 - Veterans Park 16 - - - - - - Smith Park/Esxv. 562 60 65 - - 78 - Quanicassee 195 53 78 - - 74 100 Tietz Drain 37 50 50 - - 100 - Allen Drain 62 81 63 - - 100 100 Sebewaing 119 67 72 - - 79 50 Sumac Island 110 29 67 - - 100 0 Fin & Feather 42 60 70 - - 100 100 Fillon Rd. 115 42 44 - - 20 100 Caseville 367 41 62 - - 82 Oak Beach 90 0 42 - - 53 - Port Austin 147 42 80 - - - 100 Grindstone City 217 42 66 - - 33 Number of site users interviewed 11 V g', R Figure 3. Michigan counties of origin of all Saginaw Bay public access site users inte,,vie-wed. 1.2 predominantly (71%) for walleye (Ryckman, personal communication). Sixty percent of the Saginaw Bay public access site users came from the four counties bordering the bay. Twelve percent came from the tri-county Detroit area (Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties) and the remaining 18%' from other counties with the number from each decreasing as its distance from the Bay increased. The average site user drove 51 miles to get to the site and 25% drove 100 or more miles (Table 5). The mean travel time was 1.2 hours (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.1-1.4). People ca,ae from further away during the summer vacation months of July and August. On average there were three people in the group of each individual interviewed (generally only one person from each group was interviewed). Twenty percent of the site users spent the night in the area in temporary accommodations witb 60% of overnight use occurring on weekends. The accommodations used by overnighters was broken down as follows: 34% stayed in public campgrounds, 27% in their own vacation homes, 18% with friends or relatives, 10% in motels, 7% at private campgrounds, and 4% in reated vacation homes. Of the 2,667 site users interviewed, 54% were boat fishermen, 34% were shore anglers, and 11% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The average person had been shore fishing at that site a mean of 3.3 tImes (95% CI 2.9-3.7), boat fishing 6.1 times (95% CI 5.6-6.5), ice fishing 1.3 times (95% CI 1.0-1.5), waterfowl hunting 0.18 times (95% CI 0.11-0.24), recreational boating 1.4 times (95% CI 1.2-1.7), or for some other use 0.14 times (95% CI 0.054-0.23) In the past 12 months. This indicates that the people interviewed used the public access si tes predominantly to launch a boat followed by shore angling and ice fishing. In fact, 52% launched a boat at the site where they were interviewed th-ee or more times in the past 13 Tz-'jle 5. Miles traveled by site users to reach each site. Miles 95% Confidence Site N* < 20 > 50 > 100 Mean Interval Saginaw Bay 25PO 16 51 25 50.7 (48.1, 53.4) Arenac Co. 304 6 61 24 70.9 (65.8, 75.9) Bay Co. 818 71 8 3 17.7 (14.6, 20.8) Tuscola Co. 287 42 17 5 29.0 (25.0, 33.0) Huron Co. 1171 3 71 36 73.9 (69.3, 78.5) Au Gres 279 8 77 24 72.8 (67.6, 78.0) Pine River 25 32 44 12 48.7 (30.9, 66.4) Pinconning 45 20 18 9 30.7 (20.3, 41.1) Coggins Rd. 99 23 11 - 26.3 (23.431 29.3) Linwood 62 58 6 18.3 (14.0, 22.5) Veterans Park 14 63 - - 9.7 ( 4.9, 14.5) Smith Park/Esxv. 549 86 6 3 12.5 (10.5, 14.5) Quanicassee 189 57 11 3 22.3 (18.1, 26.5) Tietz Drain 35 17 31 17 43.9 (25.9, 61.9) Allen Drain 58 25 28 8 41.8 (33.3, 50.2) Sebewaing 114 62 86 2 21.4 (16.2, 26.7) Sumac Island 104 15 46 9 48.4 (33.6, 63.3) Fin & Feather 38 31 44 21 59.5 (41.3, 77.7) Filion Rd, 29 11 62 30 78.5 (62.8, 94.2) Caseville 354 10 73 28 77.6 (69.7, 85.6) Oak Beach 86 18 59 41 70.2 (59.7, 80.7) Port Austin 141 9 84 57 104.9 (86.9, 122.9) Grindstone City 216 14 76 47 91.5 (80.0, 103.0) Number responding to the question 14 12 months and 27% had launched a boat there 10 or more times. Only 21% fished from shore three or more times and only 9% shore fished 10 times or more. Eleven percent had ice fished at the location interviewed and only 2% had hunted waterfowl there in the last 12 months. Ninety-nine percent of the boats had been trailered to the launch site and the remaining one percent were cartopped. Ninety-five percent were powerboats, 2.5% were sailboats, 2% were rowboats, and 0.5% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length was 16.9 feet with 55% being 16' or less, 19% at 18' or more, and 9% being 20' or more (Table 6). Seventy-four percent were powered by outboards, 18% by inboard/outboards, and 8% by inboards. The mean motor horsepower (hp) was 79.3 (Table 7). Eleven percent were under 20 hp$ 50% were less than 70 hp$ 31% were over 100 hp, and 16% were 150 hp or more (Table 7). The busiest arrival time at the sites was between 8:00 and 11:00 a.m. when 36% of the site users arrived. Sixteen percent came before eight in the morning. Seventy percent had arrived by 1:00 p.m. but only 14% had left by then, People stayed an average of 1.5 hours and the busiest departure time was between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m. when 41% departed. Twenty-five p,@rcent were still using the site after six in the evening. People arrived earlier and stayed longer in May during the spring yellow perch ruas and on weekends. In response to question 15 (Figure 2) fifty-seven percent of the site users wanted more public access :-Ltes on Saginaw Bay. Twenty-eight percent said there were enough sites but that they needed improving. This response was received more frequently at sites with shallow boat channels than at sites with deeper channels. Te.i percent did not respond to the question and 4% did not know. Of those that wanted [email protected] sit-_.s, the number one reason is Table 6. Length in feet of boats launched at each site. Boat Length 95% Confidence Site N* < 16 < 18 > 20 Mean Interval Saginaw Bay 1733 55 81 9 16.9 (16.7, 17.0) Arenac Co. 240 55 81 14 16.9 (16.5, 17.2) Bay Co. 572 56 84 5 16.6 (16.4, 16.8) Tuscola Co. 159 63 89 5 16.2 (15.9, 16.6) Huron Co. 762 52 77 13 17.2 (17.0, 17.5) Au Gres 227 53 81 10 16.9 (16.6, 17.3) Pine River 13 85 85 - 15.5 (14.1, 16.8) Pinconning 42 88 98 2 14.8 (14.3, 15.4) Coggins Rd. 1;0 90 98 1 14.9 (14.6, 15.2) Linwood 51 80 98 2 15.2 (14.6, 15.7) Veterans Park 13 23 62 31 18.1 (16.6, 19.6) Smith Park/Esxv. 384 43 78 14 17.2 (17.0, 17.5) Quanicassee 133 62 88 6 16.3 (15.9, 16.7) Tietz Drain 9 78 100 - 15.0 (14.0, 16.0) Allen Drain 17 59 88 12 16.2 (15.2, 17.3) Sebewai.qg 115 44 79 17 17.3 (16.9, 17.8) Sumac Island 69 49 88 3 15.6 (15.1, 16.1) Fin & Feather 34 94 100 - 15.1 (14.6, 15.7) Filion Rd. 31 81 97 - 15.0 (14.3, 15.7) Caseville 206 40 71 22 17.8 (17.4, 18.2) Oak Beach 88 78 94 2 15.8 (14.9, 16.7) Port Austin 62 27 44 50 19.4 (18.6, 20.3) Grindstone City 147 40 69 26 18.0 (17.5, 18.4) *Number of boats 16 Table 1, Motor horsepower of boats launched at each site. Motor Horsepower 95% Confidence Site N* < 20 < 70 > 100 > 150 Mean Interval Saginaw Bay 1689 11 50 31 16 79.3 (75.9$ 82.6) Arenac Co. 237 16 51 32 15 86.6 (76.2, 97.0) Bay Co. 544 14 49 33 20 82.1 (75.4, 88.7) Tuscola Co. 154 9 52 22 7 62.9 (55.4$ 70.5) Huron Co. 754 10 49 31 14 78.3 (73.8, 82.8) Au Gres 226 14 49 34 16 87.8 (77.03, 98.5) Pine River 11 31 85 8 8 62.3 (18.0$ 106.5) Pinconning 30 53 93 3 3 28.1 (16.4, 39.7) Coggins Rd. 77 49 96 3 - 25.2 (20.1$ 30.2) Linwood 44 45 90 2 - 26.5 (18.7$ 34.2) Veterans Park 13 - 31 61 54 142.6 (94.6, 190.6) Smith Park/Esxv. 378 10 41 40 24 102.3 (94.0$ 110.5) Quanicassee 131 18 53 21 7 67.6 (59.3$ 75.8) Tietz Drain 6 75 100 - - 18.2 ( 4.9$ 31.4) Allen Drain 17 8 77 15 8 43.1 (22.4, 63.9) Sebewaing 113 9 42 35 12 87.1 (76.6) 97.7) Sumac Island 69 22 89 3 - 33.6 (27.1$ 40.0) Fin & Feather 36 39 .92 - 28.5 (20.8$ 36.2) Filion, Rd. 29 34 93 4 - 32.2 (23.2$ 41.2) Caseville 204 7 41 39 17 94.4 ([email protected] 103.3) Oak Beach 83 30 80 1 1 36.4 ([email protected] 42.7) Port Austin 62 10 26 52 40 120.4 (99.8$ 141.0) Grindstone City 148 5 33 41 19 96.7 (86.95, 106.6) Number of motois 17 given (36%) was that there would then be*more places to go and more variety. The second largest response (29%) was that with more sites there would more of a chance of getting away from the crowds at the other sites. The place mentioned most often -or the addition of another site was between Caseville and Port Austin in Huron County (21%). The next preferred location was the Bay City area in Bay County followed by some place between Au Gres and Tawas in Arenac County. When the bay shoreline was divided into regions, 34% requested a site on the east side north of Sebewaing, 23% on the west side north of Pinconning, and 43% in the southern section between Sebewaing and Pinconning. There were three major responses as to why someone preferred an additional site in a particular location. Twenty-nine percent said there was a need for more or better access in that area, 29% said it was a good fishing zrea that needed access, and 24% said it would provide them with a usable boat ramp closer to their home or vacation cottage. When asked if there was anything in particular they liked or disliked about the site only 38% mentioned that they disliked something. More boaters had negative comments (41%) than did shore anglers (31%). But when asked if the site needed any improvements, 59% responded affirmatively. Of those that mentioned specific improvements, the largest group (34%) wanted improvements made on the size of the site including parking facilities and the number of boat launches. The second largest request (19%) was that the channel be dredged. More complaints and requests for improvements about inadequate site size were received in May and on weekends. Whereas the MO'3t common complaints from boaters dealt with either better or more launches or dredging the channel, the most prevalent concerns of shore anglers were the condition or absence of rest rooms and site [email protected]@nance. 18 Additional improvement requests that were received included the following: picnic tables at the site, pumps or water faucets for drinking water, better insect control, landscaping with more trees and shrubs, night lighting for parking areas and the end of the channel* channel markers, stocking more fish, better or more docks, camping facilities, and improving the access road. Favorable comments mentioned included the following: good fishing area, good boat ramp, good location, like the site in general, like maintenance, close to home or cottage, like deep channel, like docks, like restrooms, and like the aesthetics or peacefulness of the sites. In response to whether or not they had any other comments to make, the most common answer (other than no) was that somebody dredge or improve the other sites around the bay (22%). 19 AREA SUMMARIES BY COUNTY Huron County Huron County drew users of Saginaw Bay public access sites from more Michigan counties (35) than any of the other three counties bordering the bay (Figure 4). However, Huron County also has more public access sites on Saginaw Bay (8) than any other county. The sites surveyed in Huron County were Sebewaing, Sumac Island, Fin and Feather, Filion Road, Caseville, Oak Beach, Port Austin, and Grindstone City (Figure 1). Forty-one percent of the 1,217 site users interviewed came from the local area of Huron (23%), Tuscola (16%), and Sanilac (2%) counties. The next largest group came from the 3-county Bay City-Saginaw-Flint area (27%). Twenty-three percent journeyed from the tri-county Detioit area of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. The remaining 9% arrived from the other counties with the number from each decreasing as its distance from'the bay increased. There was a slightly greater portion (5% greater) of non-local anglers on weekends. The average Huron County site user drove 74 miles, similar to the mean of 71 miles for Arenac County but significantly greater than the 18 and 29 mile means for Bay and Tuscola counties respectively (Table 5). Thirty-six percent of the Huron County site users drove 100 or more miles,while only 8% drove less than twenty miles. The mean travel time to the site was 1.8 hours (95% CI 1.5-2.0) with 44% spending two or more hours on the road to get to the site and 13% taking three or r.)re hours. There was an average of three people in each group interviewed and they came from further away in July and August. Thirty-four percent of the people interviewed in Huron County spent the night in the area somewhere other than their own home with 55% of overnight 20 -04 [email protected] AIL 4k M! U r 4. Miciln [email protected] count @,@s ori,-in publ ic access site users i )rer:; in Count-, 4 use occurring on weekends. Thirty-one percent of those that spent the night stayed at public campgrounds, 28% in their own vacation homes, 18% with relatives or friends, 11% in motels, 7% at private campgrounds, and 5% in rented vacation homes. Fifty-nine percent of the Huron County site users Interviewed were boat fishermen, 36% were shore anglers, and 4% were recreational boaters (Table 3). From this composite of 1,217 site users, the average person was found to have used the site where interviewed a mean of 3.0 times (95% C1 2.5-3.5) for shore angling, 7.1 times (95% CI 6.3-7.9) for boat fishing, 1.3 times (95% CI 0.95-1.7) for ice fishing, 0.24 times (95% CI 0.12-0.37) for waterfowl hunting, 0.80 times (95% CI 0.59-1.0) for recreational boating, and 0.23 (95% CI 0.052-0.42) for some other reason in the past twelve months. Fifty-one percent had launched a boat at least three times in the past 12 months at the site where interviewed and 36% bad launched a boat 10 times or more indicating a large amount of repeat use by boaters. Though 56% had not fishzd from shore at the site where interviewed, 21% had done so three or more times and 9% at least 10 times in the past year. Twelve percent had ice fished at the location where interviewed and o nly 3% had hunted waterfowl there within the prior 12 months. Ninety-nine percent of the boats had been trailered to the Huron (,)uqty launch sites and the remaining one percent were cartopped. Ninety-six percent were powerboats, 2% were rowboats, 1.5% were sailboats, and 0.5% were canoes or kayaks* The mean boat length was 17.2 feet - the largest mean boat length for any of the four bay counties (Table 6). Fifty-two percent of the launched boats were 161 in length or less, 23% were 18' or more, and 13% were greater than or equal to 20 feet (Table 6). Seventy-four percent were powered by outboard motors, 21% by inboard/outboards, and 5% by inboards. 22 The mean motor horsepower was 78.3 (Table 7). Ten percent were under 20 hp, 49% were less than 70 hp, 31% were 100 hp or larger, and 14% were 150 hp or more (Table 7). The busiest arrival time at the Huron County sites was between 8:0., and 11:00 a.m. when 33% of the site users arrived. By eight in the morning, 22% had arrived. Eighty-one percent had come by 1:00 p.m. but only 12% had gone by then. People stayed an average of 6.0 hours and the busiest departure time was between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m. when 40% departed. Twenty-nine percent were still using the site after six in the evening. People arrived earlier and stayed linger in May during the yellow perch runs and on weekends. Fifty-four percent of those interviewed at Huron County sites said th:'@.'! would like more public access sites on Saginaw Bay. Thirty-three percent felt there were enough sites but that they needed improving. Nine percent did not respond to the question and 3% did not know. The two major reasons given for wanting more sites were that this would provide more places to go (36%) and give one a better chance at getting away from the crowds at the other sites (30%). The location mentioned most often in response to where the Huron County site interiJewee would prefer an adO.Itional access site was the area between Caseville and Port Austin (42%). The next most common area mentioned was that between Au Gres and Tawas in Arenac County (17%). When the bay shoreline was divided into regions, 61% requested an additional site for somewhere in Huron County, 24% on the west side north of Pinconning, and 15% in the southein area between Pinconning and Sebewaing. When asked why tLey preferred an additional site in the particular location given by them, 30% of those responding to the question said it was because there was a need for more or better access in that area. Twenty-six 23 percent said it would put them closer to a good fishing area, and 17% mentioned it would provide them with a site closer to their home or vacation cottage. When asked if there was anything in particular they liked or disliked about the site, only 37% mentioned a dislike. Forty-three percent of the boaters had negative comments but only 26% of the shore anglers disliked something. However, when asked if the site needed any improvements, 57% n said that it did, Thirty-seven percent wanted improvements made or the launch or docks. Thirty-five percent said the site needed enlarging in terms of more parking area, more boat launching ramps, or both. The last major category of improvement requests was that the site be dredged (19%). Requests for enlarging the site were three times more numerous in May taan any other month and twice -s great on weekends versus weekdays. Of those that had other comments to make at the end of the questionnaire, the comment made most often was that the other sites around the bay should be dredged and improved. Tuscola County People came to Saginaw Bay public access sites in Tuscola County from 22 Michigan counties (Figure 5). The thre.; sites in Tuscola County where interviews were obtained were Ouanicassee, Tietz Drain, and Allen Drain (Figure 1). Thirty-two percent of the 299 site users interviewed had come from Tuscola County. The tri-county area (Bay, Saginaw, and Genesee) containing Bay City, Saginaw, and Flint provided another 59 percent. The remaining 9% came from the other 18 counties with the number from each decreasing as its distance from the Bay increased. The average site user drove only 29 miles to reach a Tuscola County 24 A-,[email protected] . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] C /tn Fiaure S. Michigan counties of origin of Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed in Tuscola Coulity. 25 site and just a few (5%) drove over 100 miles (Table 5). This was much less than both the Saginaw Bay area mean of 51 miles and the proportion that drove 100 or more miles (25%) to get to a site in the 4-county bay region. The mean travel time to a site in Tuscola County was 38 minutes (95% CI 33.6-43.2) and 69% spent less than an hour on the road to get there. There was an average of three people in each group interviewed and they came from a greater distance in June. Only 7% spent the night in the area compared to a bay-wide average of 20 percent. Fifty-five percent of the temporary overnight use occurred on weekends. The facilities used as transient accommodations were public campgrounds (46%), owned vacation homes (27%), friends or relative's home (23%), and motels (4%). Forty-six percent of the people intervie-,ed in Tuscola County were boat fishermen,' 45% were shore anglers, and 9% were recreational boaters (Table 3). Among the composite of 299 site users, the average person had used the site where interv-'Lewed.a mean of 4.4 times (95% CI 3.1-5.7) for shore fishing, 5.0 times (95% CI 4.0-6.0) for boat angling, 1.0 times (95% CI 0.50-1.60) for ice fishing, 0.24 times (95% CI 0.079-0.400) for waterfowl hunting, 0.80 times (95% CI 0.59-1.00) for recreational boating, and 0.23 times (95% CI 0.052-0.420) for some other activity such as picnicing, during the past 12 months. Fifty-one percent had launched a boat at least three times in the last year at [email protected] site where interviewed and 27% had launched a boat 10 or more times. Only 49% had not fished from shore at the site and 29% had done so three or more times. Eleven percent had ice fished at the location where interviewed and 4% had hunted waterfowl there within the last 12 months. Ninety-eight percent of the boats had been trallered to the Tuscola County launch sites with the remaining two percent having been cartopped. 26 Ninety-five percent were powerboats, 2.4% were rowboats, 1.2% were sailboats, and 1.2% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length, at 16.2 feet, was the smallest of the four counties surveyed (Table 6). Sixty-three percent of the launched boats were 16' or less in length and 89% were 18' or less (Table 6). Only 5% were 20' long or longer. Most of the boats were powered by outboards (82%), followed by inboard/outboards (12%), and inboards (6%). The 62.9 mean horsepower of the motors was also the smallest of the four surveyed counties (Table 7). Nine percent of the motors were under 20 hp, 52% were smaller than 70 hp, 78% were less than 1QO hp, and only 7% were larger than 150 hp (Table 7). The largest influx of people at the Tuscola County nites occur-ed between 9:00 a.m. and noon when 32% of the daily site users arrived. People ten'ed to arrive later but then leave later at Tuscola County sites than they did in the other three counties. Only 7% had arrived by 8:00 a.m. in Tuscola County versus 22% in Huron County. Though the largest number of people departed between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m. (44%) as was found to be the case in the other counties as well, 34% still remained at the site after 6:00 p.m. versus a bay-wide average of 25 percent. Additionally, people stayed an average of only 4.2 hours, the least amount of time for any of the four counties. Fifty-four percent of the Tuscola County site users interviewed thought there should be more public access sites on Saginaw Bay. The two major reasons -iven for wanting more sites were so there would be more places. to go (35%) and so the crowds at each individual site would be less (20%). Another 21% responded that no new sites need to be added but that the ones that are there currently should be improved. Fifteen percent did not aasw-r the question and 9% did not have an opinion. Of those people who mentioned a particular location for a new sit-,, the 27 greatest percentage (21%) wanted one in Tuscola County. On a region basis, 23% wanted a new site on the west side of the bay north of Pinconning, another 23% would prefer one on the east side north of Sebewaing, but most (54%) wanted a site in the southern portion between Pinconning and Sebewaing. Thirty percent chose the area they did because it was a good fishing area that they would like better access to. Twenty-five percent said their favored area would be closer to their home or vacation cottage. Nineteen percent said that the area they specified simply needed more access. Only 11% of those interviewed at Tuscola County public access sites o)--iginally mentioned that th2y disliked [email protected]',ng about the site but when asked if the site needed any improvements 44% said that it did (41% of shore anglers and 44% of boat fishermen). Of those that wanted improvements made, 41% would like to see the site enlarged in terms of more parking (13%) and more boat launching ramps (28%). Twenty-five percent said the channel should be dredged and another 25% wanted more or improved docks. Twice as many requests, in proportion to the others, were received for more or bigger ramps in July and August and on weekends, Of those that had o ther comme nts to make at the end of the interview, the largest single category of iesponse (24%) was that other sites around the bay be dredged a-,,d improved. f�X County People were interviewed at five public access sites in Bay County. These sites included Pinconning, Coggins Roa3, Linwood, Veto ans Memorial Park in Bay City, and Smith Park in Essexville (Figure 1). The 841 site users interviewed were found to have come from 14 Michigan counties (Figure 6). Seventy-six percent had come from Bay County, 14% from the 28 M ,71 4; IWI_,; WAU, I W?,, "N' e0 , M g W45i jiw OR., QI,,kV.k 11 [email protected] rg MNI A P Z3 A Figure 6, Michigan counties of origin of Saginaw Bay public access site users interviewed in Bay County. 29 Saginaw-Flint tw o-county area and 4% from the tri-county Detroit area of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. The remaining 6% came from the other eight counties. The average site user drove only 18 miles to reach a Bay County site and only 6% traveled from 100 or more miles away (Table 5). The 18 mile mean for Bay County was well below the 74 and 71 mile averages for Huron and Arenac counties respectively and lower than the 29 mile mean for Tuscola County as well. It took the average site user only 31 minutes (95% CI 22-38) to reach the site versus a bay-wide mean of one hour and 18 minutes. There was an average of three people in each group interviewed and they came from further away in May and July. Only 2% spent the night In the area at transient accommodations versus 34% of Huron County site users, 25% of those at Arenac County sites, and 7% of the people interviewed in Tuscola County. Seventy-eight percent of the overnight use in Bay County occurred on weekends. Of the 2% that spent the night, 37% stayed in public campgrounds, 32% with relatives or friends, 16% in their own vacation homes, 10% at private campgrounds, and 5% in motels. Forty-six percent of the Bay County site users interviewed were boat anglers, 31% were shore fishermen, and 23% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The responses of the 841 people interviewed showed that the average person had been shore fishing at the site where interviewed 3.9 times (95% CI 3.1-4.8), boat angling 5.1 times (95% CI 4.3-5.9), ice fishing 1.4 times (95% CI 0.92-1.80), waterfowl hunting 0.13 times (95% CI 0.045-0.21), recreatio:.al boating 2.6 times (95% CI 2.0-3.1), or for some miscellaneous reason 0.03 times (95% CI 0.0048-0.0570) during the past year. Fifty-tLree percent had launched a boat three or more times at the location where interviewed in the prior 12 mon'-hs and 28% had launched a boat at least 10 30 times. Sixty-seven percent of those interviewed had never shore fished at that site in the last year but 22% had done so three times or more and 10% had a minimum of 10 times. Eleven percent had ice fished at the site where interviewed and 2% had hunted waterfowl from there within the previous 12 months, All the boats launched at the Bay County sites had been trailered, none had been cartopped. Ninety-two pp7cent were powerboats, 4% were sailboats, 3% were rowboats, and 1% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length was 16.6 feet (Table 6). Fifty-six percent of the launched boats were 16' in length or less, 84% were 181 or less, and only 5% were 20' or larger (Table 6). Seventy-two percent of the boats were powered by outboard motors, 16% by inboard/outboards, and 12% by inboards. The average size of the motors was 78.9 hp (Table 7). Fourteen percent were under 20 hp, 49% were less than 70 hp, 33% were 100 hp or more, and 20% were at least 150 hp (Table 7). Arrival times at the Bay County sites were evenly distributed between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. with only 20% of the site users arriving after one in the afternoon. People staye" an average of 4.4 hours with 42% leaving sometime between 2:00 p.m. and five in the afternoon. Only 19% had left the site by 1:00 p.m. but by 6:00 p.m. 81% had departed. Site use.rs arrived earlier and 61ayed longer in May during the yellow perch spawning runs* Sixty-eight percent of the people interviewed in Bay County thougat there should be more public access sites on Saginaw Bay. The major reasons given for wanting more sites were so there would be more places to go (39%) and so each individual site would be less crowded (37%). Twenty-four percent thought there was no need for more sites if existing sites were improved. ki additional 5% did not respond to the question and 2% did not have an opinion. Of those that specified a particuli-,r location where they would like to 31 have a new site, 85% said they would prefer one in the Bay City area. When the Saginaw Bay shoreline area was divided into regions, only 4% wanted a new site on the east side north of Sebewainrg, 7% would like one on the west side north of Pinconning, but 89% wanted one in the southern portion between Pinconning and Sebewaing. With respect to why a person preferred a site at a particular location, the leading response (33%) was that it would be closer to their home or vacation cottage. The next most common reasons given were that it was a good fishing area (27%) or that the area mentioned simply needed more access (20%). Thirty-four percent of the people interviewed in Bay County mentioned a specific dislike when asked if there was anything they liked or disliked about the site. However, when asked if the site needed any improvementsP 74% said that it did (79% of recreational boaters, 75% of boat fishermen, and 69% of shore anglers). Requests for improvements to the boat launch and docks (34%) was the largest request category. Eighteen percent wanted the site enlarged in terms of more parking space or more launches. Thirteen percent said there was a need for restrooms or better maintenance of existing restrooms; this was the leading request of shore anglers. It also ranked high for both recreational boaters and boat fishermen falling in second place for each group after the desire for more or improved docking facilities. The proportion of complaints receiv.ed about restroom facilities was twice as great in May and June. The proportion received about the site being too small in terms of parking and number of launching ramps was twice as great in June and July and three times as numerous on weekends. When asked if they had any other comments to me',e at the end of the interview, the most common response was the request for more patrols by law enforcement officers to curtaLl the excessive speed of boats in designated low speed 32 areas. This comment was mostly received from anglers at the Smith Park site in Essexville. Arenac County People were interviewed at the Au Gres and Pine River public access sites on Saginaw Bay in Arenac County (Figure 1). The 311 site users interviewed were found to have come from 28 Michigan counties (Figure 7). Twelve percent had come from Arenac County, 54% from the Bay City-Saginaw- Flint three county area, and 5% from the tri-county Detroit region of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. Twenty-nine percent came from the remaining counties with the largest share (7%) coming from Midland County. The average site user drove 71 miles to reach an Arenac County site (Table 5). This was second only to the 74 mile mean for Huron County. Sixty-one percent drove 50 miles or more and 24% traveled over 100 miles to reach the site (Talble 5). The average travel time was 1.5 hours (95% CI 1.4-1.7) with 85% of the site users taking more than an hour to get to the site. Twenty-nine percent took over two hours and twelve percent spent over three hours. Again, there was an average of three people in the group of each person interviewed and they came from slightly further away on weekends. Twenty-five percent of the Arc ac County site users spent the night in the area at temporary accommodations. This was less than the 34% that stayed overnight In Huron County but was significantly greater than the 7% and 2% figures for Tuscola and Bay counties respectively. Seventy-six percent of overnight use in Arenac County occurred on weekends. Of those that spent the night, 43% stayed in public campgrounds, 23% in their own vacation homes, 14% with relatives or friends, 9% at motels, 8% in private campgcounds, and 3% at rented vacation homes. 33 RIP Figure 7. [email protected] of origin of Saginaw Bay I)Qblicacces5 site users interviowed in Aronac County, 34 Seventy percent of the site users interviewed were boat anglers, 21% were shore fishermen, and 8% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The combined information from the 311 interviews showed that the average site user had used that location for shore fishing 1.5 times (95% CI 0.79-2.20), boat angling 5.7 times (95% CI 4.5-6.9), ice fishing 1.4 times (95% CI 0.26-1.50), waterfowl hunting 0.023 times (95% CI 0.005-0.050), recreational boating 1.1 times (95% CI 0.60-1.60), or for some other reason such as picnicing 0.045 times (95% CI <0-0.11) in the past 12 months. Fifty-seven percent had launched a boat at that site three or more times in the last year and 38% had launched one at least 10 times. Sixty-nine percent had not shore fished at the site Lnd only 10% had done so three times or more. Eleven percent had ice fished at the site but only 1% had gone waterfowl hunting from that location, Ninety-nine percent of the boats launched at the Arenac County sites had been trailered there and 1% had been cartopped. Ninety-five percent were powerboats, 3% were sailboats, 1% were rowboats, and 1% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length was 16.9 fe:2t, second only to Huron County's average length of 17.2 feet (Table 6). Fifty-five percent of the launched boats were 16' or less in lepgth, 81% were 18' or smaller ., and 14% were 20' or larger (Table 6). Seventy-three percent of tI,_; boats were powered by outboard motors, 17% by inboard/outboards, and 10% by inboards. The average size of the motors was the largest of the four counties at 86.6 hp (Table 7). Sixteen percent were less than 20 hp, 51% were smaller than 70 hp, [email protected]% were 100 hp or larger, and 15% were at least 150 hp (Table 7). Most people arrived at the Arenac County sites earlier in the day than at any of the other three counties. Fifteen percent came before 8:00 a.m. and by 1:00 p.m. all but 13% of the site users for the day had arriv The 35 busiest arrival time was from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. when 51% arrived. People also left the sites in Arenac County earlier than at the others with the greatest percentage (51%) leaving between 1:00 p.m. and four in the afternoon. Though only 13% had departed by 1:00 p.m., all but 16% had left by six in the evening. People were at the site an average of 5.9 hours but stayed [email protected] longer in August. They also stayed longer on weekends with 44% of weekend site users staying six or more hours versus only 26% of weekday users remaining tha'-- long. During the week 50% of the site users had departed by 2:00 p.m. compared to only 26% of weekend users leaving by then. Fifty-one percent of the people interviewed in Arenac County felt that there should be more public access sites on Saginaw Bay. Again, the reasons given most often for desiring more sites were that there would be more places to go (30%) and more of a chance to get away from the crowds (18%). Twenty percent thought there were enough existing sites but that they should be improved. A rather large number (21%) did not answer the question and 8% had no opinion. The area whe-ze the largest number of people interviewed at Arenac County sites (33%) would prefer to have another site was between Au Gres and Tawas. The second largest group (21%) wantcd a site between Pine River and Au Gres. When the Saginaw Bay shoreline was divided into region,-.., 62% of people responding to the question requested a site on the west side north of Pinconning, 31% wanted one in the southern portion oLI the bay between Pinconning and Sebewaiig, and 7% would like one on the east side north of Sebew,Lng. Three categortes received an equal number of responses (23%) as to why someone preferre,@ an additional site in a particular location. That a site in the area mentioned would be closer to home was one. Another was 36 that it was a good fishing area, and the third was that the area needed more public access. Forty percent of the Arenac County site users interviewed originally complained about some aspect of the site and when asked specifically if the site needed any improvements, 47% said it did. Again, a lesser proportion of shore anglers had negative comments about the site (25%) than did boat fishermen (44%). Fifty-one percent of the negative comments received .'ealt with the $3.00 daily site use fee at the Au Gres site. On what improvements the site needed, the most people (35%) wanted better boat launching ramps and docks. Thirty-one percent said the site should be enlarged with either more launching ramps or more parking. Sixteen percent wanted the access road graded or paved and 8% would like the addition of a water faucet or pump to provide drinking water and a fish cleaning station. Proportionally there were three times as many complaints about too few launching ramps during weekends and in July. Of those people who desired to make other comments at the end of the questionnaire, 41% complained about the $3.00 daily use fee at the Au Gres site. 37 INDIVIDUAL SITE SUMMARIES Grindstone City Sixty-seven percent of the 217 people interviewed at this state-owned site were boat fishermen, 30% were shore anglers, and the remaining 3% were recreational boaters (Table 3). When the number of visits to this site by each person in the last 12 months were tallied, it was found that the average person used the site 2.6 times for shore fishing, 8.0 times for boat angling, 0.31 times for ice fishing, none for waterfowl hunting, and 0.42 times for recreational boating. Forty-nrine percent had launched a boat three or more times and 30% had launched one 10 times or more. Forty percent of the site users had shore fished at the site but only 18% had done so at least three times and just 7% had 10 or more times. Only 5% had ice fished at the site in the last year. All but 1% of the boats bad been trailered to the Grindstone City site. Ninety-nine percent of the boats were powerboats with sailboats making up the remaining one percent. The mean boat length for this site was 18.0 feet - second only to the Port Austin average of 19.4' for Huron County sites (Table 6). Sixty percent of the boats launched were over 161 and 26% were 20' or larger (Table 6). Sixty-six percent of the bczits were powered by outboard motors, 24% by inboard/outboards, and 10% by iiboards. The average motor horsepower was 96.7 - again, second only to Port Austin's mean of 120.4 hp for sites in Huron County (Table 7). Oaly 5% were less than 20 hp, just 33% were under 70 hp, 41% were 100 hp or more, and 19% were greatel- than or equal to 150 horsepower (Table 7). People arrived at the Grindstone City site rather early with 28% of the daily site users coming before 8:00 a.m. and 51% there by 10:00 in the morning. Though they stayed an average of 6.0 hours, quite a few (34%) were 38 still at the site after 6:00 in the evening. As with most sites surveyed, site users tended to arrive earlier and stay longer on weekends than weekdays. Sixty-one percent of the people interviewed at Grindstone City mentioned specific improvements they thought the site needed* Thirty-three percent of the improvement requests were for a larger site in terms of more parking (16%), more launching ramps (8%), or both (9%). Twenty-three percent wanted improvements made to the ramp or docking facilities. Eighteen percent thought the channel should be dredged. Th- porportion of complaints about lack of parking facilities was five times larger in May than other months. - If improvements were to be made to the Grindstone City public access site, priority should be given to enlarging the site by first increasing the parking area and then adding another launching ramp. Though having the channel dredged was mentioned as a need by many, this is probably secoa 3ry to enlarging the site as rather large boats were launched here indicating a useable channel depth, if not an optimum depth. Another significant improvement would be the placement of a foghorn at the end of the channel as was requested by 7% of those interviewed. A foghorn would be Yery useful at this site as it often becomes fog-bound and boaters have difficulty locating the channel from the lake. Port Austin Fifty-four percent of the 147 people interviewed at this public pier and adjacent private ramp were shore fishermen and 45% were boat anglers (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 3.8 times for shore fishing, 8.3 times for boat angling, 0.22 times for ice fishing, none for 39 waterfowl hunting, 0.075 times for recreational boating, and 0.61 times for miscellaneous reasons such as picniciqg in the last 12 months. Though only 35% had launched a boat three times or more, 22% had done so at least 10 times. Twenty-two percent had been shore fishing three or more times and 8% had been shore fishing there more than 10 times. Only 1% had gone ice fishing from this site and none had used it for waterfowl hunting. All the boats had been trailered to the Port Austin launch site. Ninety-six percent were powerboats, 3% were rowboats, and 1% were canoes or kayaks. The mean length of 19.4 feet for boats launched at this site was the largest average for all the sites surveyed (Table 6). Only 27% were 15' or less, just 44% were 18' or smaller, and 50% were 20' or more (Table 6). However, this site had only the second largest mean motor horsepower at 120.4 hp (motors averaged 142.6 hp at Veterans Park in Bay County) (Table 7). Ten percent of the motors were smaller than 20 hp, 26% were under 70 hp, 52% were 100 hp or more, and 40% were 150 hp or larger (Table 7). Only 49% of the people interviewed thought this site needed any improvements. The improvement requests were equally divided between those that wanted the site enlarged (47%) and those that wanted the launching and docking facilities improved (47%). The proportion of complaints about'the size of the site quadrupled in May and on weekends. The .1lanied construction of public launching ramps and more parking facilities by the MDNR should do much to alleviate the present crowded conditions and provide improved launching facilities, No further recommendations for improving this site are made at this time. Consideration should be given to replacement of the portion of sand beach lost to the construction of dual ramps and access drive. One pair of ramps may not be sufficient to handle peak demand during the salmon and 40 trout fishing season, particularly early in the morning aid following sudden storms or fog. Future surveys should be conducted to assess potential need for more ramps at this location. Oak Beach Eighty-one percent of the 90 people interviewed at this county-owned site were boat anglers, 17% were recreational boaters, and only 2% were shore fishe7.-men (Table 3). The average person at the Oak Beach site had used it for shore fishing 0.07 times, boat angling 14.5 times, ice fishin', 2.2 times, none for waterfowl hunting, and 2.5 times for recreational boating in the last 12 months. Eighty-nine percent had launched a boat three times or more and 58% had launched one at least 10 times. Only 3% had shore fished at the site and none more than tw'ce. Thirteen percent had been ice fishing there. All the boats had been trailered to the Oak Beach site. Ninety-one percent were powerboats, 6% were sailboats, and 3% were rowboats. The mean boat length was 15.8 feet (Table 6). Seventy-eight percent of the boats launched were 16' or smaller, 94% were under 18', and only 2% were equal to or greater than 20 feet (Table 6). Ninety-seven percent of the boats were powered by outboard motors, 2% by inboards, and 1% by inboard/outboards. The average motor horsepower was only 36.4 with 30% less than 20 hp, 80% under 70 hp, and only 1% being 100 hp or more (Table 7). Ninety-six percent of the people interviewed at the Oak Beach site thought that improvements needed to be made. Fifty-two percent said that improvements should be made to the launching facility in terms of a better ramp or providing a dock at the ramp. Thirty percent said the channel needed dredging and 24% wanted the site enlarged. 41 Currently, this site is completely exposed to wave action from the bay. This causes two major problems. First, the wave action continually shifts sand around the site area covering the steel mat that is presently used at the site. Second, the wave action at the site makes launching and retrieving a boat difficult most of the time and extremely hazardous on rough days. No improvements should be made to this site unless breakwalls are constructed to prevent sand from covering the ramp and filling in a channel. If breakwalls were constructed, a channel could be dredged and a permanent launch and dock installed. This site would be relatively expensive to improve in such a way that it would provide acceptable boat launching conditions from a safety standpoint. The exposed nature of the shoreline of this area is a major reason no other public access sites exist in the region. However, because there are no good public boat launching facilities here and the close proximity of productive fishing grounds, this was the area mentioned most often by Saginaw Bay public access site users as the place where they would most like to have a new site constructed (21% of all those interviewed and 42% of those surveyed in Buron County). We believe there is a definite need for a saf- public access site in this area and strongly urge the construction of an adequately protected launch site midway between Caseville and Port Austin. A potential site exists at the mouth of the Pinnebog River. Caseville Fifty-five percent of the 367 people interviewed at this township-owned site were boat fishermen, 42% were shore anglers (fishing from the pier), and 3% were recreational boaters (Table 3). This site was by far the most heavily used public access facility on the eastern side of the bay. The 42 average site user had used this site 4.3 times for shore fishing, 4.7 times for boat angling, 1.3 times for ice fishing, none for waterfowl hunting, and 0.46 times for recreational boating in the last year. Forty-four percent had launched a boat at the site three times or more and 21% had done so at least 10 times* Twenty-six percent had been shore fishing a minimum of three times and 13% had been shore fishing over 10 times. Thirteen percent had gone ice fishing at the site. All the boats had been trailered to the Caseville launch site and all were powerboats. The average boat length was 17.8 feet - third largest for Huron County sites behind Port Austin and Grindstone City (Table 6). Forty percent of the boats were 16' or smaller, 29% were 18' or longer, and 22% were at least 20' long (Table 6). Sixty-eight percent of the boats were powered by outboard motors, 28% by inboard/outboards, and 4% by inboards. The mean motor horsepower was 94.4 with only 7% less than 20 hp (Table 7). Forty-one percent were under 70 hp, 39% were 100 hp or more, and 17% were greater than or equal to 150 horsepower (Table 7). Forty-nine percent of the people interviewed at the Caseville site wanted improvements made. The largest group (57%) said the site needed enlarging in terms of more boat launching ramps (29%), more parking area (18%), or bot% (10%). Twenty percent wanted improvements made to the launching ramp or the ramp dock. Fourteen percent complained about the lack of adequate restroom facilities. Complaints about there not being enough boat launches were proportionally six times greater in .,fay and three times greater on weekends compared to other times. Requests for making the site larger were nine times greater on weekends and 10 times as numerous in May than other times. The best improvement that could be made to the Caseville site would be the addition of at least one additional boat launching ramp. This is a very 43 busy site and complaints about having to wait an hour or more to launch or retrieve a boat were not uncommon. The parking problem is another condition that needs to be resolved. Better use could be made of the parking area near the current boat launch by paving and marking parking spaces on the new pavement. This would provide more efficient use of the area by preventing the random parking patterns of overflow parking conditions that waste potential parking area. A third need is the placement of permanent restroom facilities at both the base of the Caseville fishing pier and near the Caseville boat launch. Filion Road (Mud Creek) Seventy-three percent of the 115 people interviewed at this state-owned site were shore anglers, 22% were boat fishermen, and 4% were recreational boaters (Tabl- 3). The average person at this site had used it 3.4 times for shore fishing, 1.5 times for boat angling, 0.70 times for ice fishing, none for waterfowl hunting, and 0.43 times for recreational boating in the last year. Only 15% had launched a boat here three or more times and just 5% had [email protected] so 10 times or more. Tbirt) percent bad used the site for shore fishing at least three times and 13% had a minmum of 10 times. Eight percent had been ice fishing at the site. Ninety-eight percent of the 1-:7ats had been trailered to the Filion Road site and 2% were cartopped. Eighty-eight percent were powerboats, 9% w,'@e sailboats, and 3% were rowboats. The mean boat length was only 15.0 feet the smallest for any Huron County site surveyed (Table 6). Eigbty-one percent were 16' or less in length, only 3% were 18' or longer, and none were over 20 feet (Table 6). Ninety-three percent of the boats were powered by outboard motors, 3% by inboard/outboards, and 2% by inboards. The 44 average motor horsepower was only 32.2 with 34% under 20 horsepower (Table 7). Ninety-three percent were smaller than 70 hp and only 4% were 100 hp or more (Table 7). Fifty-six percent of the people interviewed thought that the Filion Road site needed improvements (84% of boat anglers). Thirty-nine percent of those that wanted improvements made said the channel needed dredging (75% of boat anglers). Another 15% wanted channel markers to delineate the edges of the channel. Fourteen percent would like some picnic tables placed at the site. Only 9% said the ramp or dock needed improving. Potential improvements to the [email protected] Road site include lengthening the present ramp, dredging the channel, and installing channel markers. This would vastly improve access from the site to Wildfowl Bay and offshore water, and allow larger boats to use the facility. The addition of a fe'. picnic tables and shade trees for the benefit of picnicers and shore anglers would further enhance the site. Fin and Featfter Only 42 people were interviewed at this state-owned site - the least of any Huron County @,_Ite surveyed (Table 3). Seventy-nine [email protected] of those interviewed were boat fis',rmen, 15% were shore anglers, and 3% were recreational b,Daters (Table 3). The avera-e person at this site had u.-,-.d it 2.0 times for shore fishing, 6.1 timcs for boat angling, 1.4 times for ice fishing, 3.6 times for w;@-erfowl hunting, and 1.5 times for recreational boating in the past 12 months. Fifty-nine percent had launched a boat at this site three times or more and 31% had launched one 10 or more times. Only 14% had been shore fishing here at least three times in the last year. Twenty-one percent had used the site for ice fishing and 9Z had used it for 45 waterfowl hunting. In fact, this was the site where the most people interviewed had hunted waterfowl at the location than any of the other surveyed sites. Ninety-seven percent of the boats had been trailered to the Fin and Feather site and 3% had been cartopped. Ninety-two percent were powerboats an 8% were rowboats. The 15.1 feet average boat length was almost as small as the 15.0 feet mean at Filion Road (Table 6). Only 6% of the boats were larger than 16' and none were over 18 feet (Table 6). Ninety-seven percent were powered by outboard motors and 3% by inboards. The mean motor horsepower of 28.5 was the smallest of any Huron County site (Table 7). Thirty-nine percent were less than 20 hp, 92% %,---re under 70 hp, and none were over 100 horsepower (Table 7). Eighty-one percent of the people interviewed wanted improvements m de to the site. Seventy percent of these said the channel needed to be dredged, other comments included a desire for camping facilities (6%), channel markers (6%), and picnic tables (6%). Again, as at Filion Road, having the channel dredged would be the most significant improvement that could be made at this site. Channel markers would be useful if the channel were dredged. Improvcments to the launching ramp) dock, and parking facilities would depend upon the depth the channel were dredged to and the resultant size of boat that could navigate it. A picnic table or two and some shade trees could be added to the site regardless of the undertaking of any other improvements. Sumac Isla-id Sixty-two percent of the 110 people interviewed at this state-o.,med site were boat fishermen, 35% were shore anglers,and 1% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 3.0 times 46 for shore fishing, 6.6 times for boat angling, 3.6 times for ice fishing, 1.0 times for waterfowl hunting, and 0.35 times for recreational boating in the previous 11 months, Fifty-five percent bad launched a boat here three times or more and 25% had done so at least 10 times. Twenty-nine percent had been shore fishing here a minimum of three times and 12% had been 10 or more times. Thirty-two percent had been ice fishing here and 15% had used the site for hunting waterfowl. This site ranked second only to Filion Road among all sites surveyed in the number of people interviewed who sa id they had hunted waterfowl from the site. Ninety-six percent of the boats had been trailered to the Sumac Island site and the remaining 4% had been cartopped. Ninety-two percent were powerboats, 6% were rowhoats, an 2% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length was 15.6 feet (Table 6). Forty-nine percent were 16' or less, 88% were 18' or smaller, and only 6% were greate,: than or equal to 20 feet (Table 6). Ninety-four percent were powered by outboard motors, 3% by inboard/outboards, and 3% by inboards. The average motor horsepower was 33.6 with 22% less than 20 hp, 89% were smaller than 70 hp, [email protected] only 3% wer 100 hp or larger (Table 7). Fifty-four percent of the people interviewed thought the 'Sumac Island site needed improving. Thirty-sevea percent of those w anted the channel dredged. Nineteen percent wanted the site enlarged in terms of more boat launching ramps (13%), more parking area (2%), or both (4%). Nine percent requested channel-markers, 9% said the access road needed grading more often or paving, and 4% wanted the docking facilities improved. Potential improvements for the Sumac Island site include widening and lengthening the boat launching ramp, adding a skid pier, dredging the 47 channel, installing channel markers and range poles, and constructing additional parking. These improvements will greatly increase the usefulness of the site as a boat launching facility. Additionally, arrangements should be made to grade the access road more often or to pave the road. A light in the vicinity of the ramp would enable a smoother launch flow during pre-dawn congestion during the duck hunting season. Sebewaing Eighty percent of the 199 site users interviewed at this city-owned site were boat fishermen, 16% were recreational boaters, and 3% were sh(.,.:e anglers (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 1.0 times for shore fishing, 10.5 times for boat angling, 2.8 times for ice fishing, 0.18 times for waterfowl hunting, and 2.7 times for recreational boating in the prior year. Seventy-six percent had launched a boat here three times or more and 50% had launched one at least 10 times. Only 14% had been shore fishing at the site a minimum of three times and a mere 3% had done so 10 or more times. Twenty-one percent had been ice fishing at the site but only 2% had used it for hunting waterfowl. All the boats were trailered to the Sebewaing site. Ninety-seven percent were powerboats, 2% were @@ailboats, and 1% were rowboats. The mean boat length here was 17.3 feet - comparable in size to those launched at Caseville (Table 6). Forty-four percent were 16' or smaller, 21% were.over 18', and 17% were [email protected] than or equal to 20 feet (Table 6). Seveaty-two percent of the motors were outboards, 26% were inboard/outboards, and 2% were inboards. The average motor horseT---,wer was 87.1 - again most closely comparable to Caseville's mean (Table 7). Nine percent were under 20 hp, 42% were less than 70 hp) 35% were 100 hp or larger, and 12% were equal to or greater than 150 horsepower (Table 7). 48 Fifty percent of the people interviewed at the Sebewaing ramp wanted improvements made at this site. Fifty percent of those wanted the site enlarged with more boat launching ramps (12%), more parking area (20%), or both (18%). Eighteen percent said the channel needed dredging, 8% wanted channel markers, and 8% wanted more or better docks. The Sebewaing site needs to be enlarged with an additional boat launching ramp with a dock and more [email protected] area. There were requests for dredging the channel but this site currently handles boats as large as those at Caseville and though dredging may be desirable, it is not the serious necessity it is at other sites. Allen Drain Sixty-nine percent of the 62 people interviewed at this state-owned site were shore fishermen, 23% were boat anglers, and 3% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The average rerson interviewed at this site had used it 5.3 times for shore fishing, 2.7 times for boat angling, 0.19 times for ice fishing, 0.08 times for waterfowl hunting, and 0.74 times for recreational boating in the last year. Thirty-two percent of those interviewed had launched a boat here three or more times and 17% had done so at least 10 times. Thirty-one percent had used the site for shore fishing at least three times and 18% had been shore fishing 10 times or more. Only 3% and 2% had gone ice fishing or wat -fowl hunting respectively here in the past 12 months. This site hid more boats cartopped to it (16%) than any other site surveyed. The remaining 84% were trailered to the site. Seventy-nine percent wer2 powerboats, 16% were rowboats, and 5% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length was 16.2 feet ([email protected] 6). Fifty-nine percent were 16' or smaller, 88% were 18' or less, and 12% were 20' or more (Table 6). Most 49 of the boats wer2 powered by outboard motors (88%), 6% by inboard/outboards, and 6% by Inboards. The average size of the motors was 43.1 horsepower (Table 7). Eight percent were smaller than 20 hp, 77% were under 70 hp, 15% were 100 hp or more, and 8% were 150 hp or larger (Table 7). Forty-six percent of the people interviewed felt the Allen Drain site needed improving. Despite the fact that many more shore anglers were interviewed than boat fishermen, 22% wanted the channel dredged. Another 22% said the boat launch should be improved. Fifteen percent requested better rest room facilities. Potential site improvements includ e lengthening the ramp, dredging a channel, and installing channel markers. The ramp should also be widened at least six feet so the skid pier could be placed in the middle of the ramp instead of at one' edge. This would allow two boats to be launched or retrieved at the same time instead of only one. A second toilet should also be placed at the site. Tietz Drain This state-owned site was used predominately for shore fishing as 74% of the 37 people interviewed here were shore anglers (Table 3). Twent.-three percent were boat fishermen and the final 3% were recreational boaters. The average person at this site had used it 9.1 times for shore fishing, 3.5 times for boat angling, 1.8 times for ice fishing, 0.30 times for waterfowl hunting, and 0.33 times for recreational boating in the previous year. Thirty-four percent had launched a boat at this site three or more times and 11% had launched one at least 10 times. Fifty-four percent had shorefished here a minimum of three times and 40% had done so 10 times or more. Eight percent had used the site for ice fishing and 5% had used it for -unting waterfowl. 50 All the boats had been trailered to the Tietz Drain site with 80% being powerboats, 10% canoes or kayaks, and 10% sailboats. The mean boat length was 15.0 feet - the smallest average length of the three Tuscola County sites (Table 6). Seventy-eight percent of the boats were 16' or less in length and all were 18' or smaller (Table 6). All the boats were powered by outboard motors with an average horsepower of 18.2 - the smallest mean horsepower of all the sites surveyed (Table 7). Seventy-five percent were under 20 hp and none were larger than 70 horsepower (Table 7). Sixty percent of the site users surveyed mentioned specific imprcqemeqts they would like made to the Tietz Drain site. Of those that wanted improvements made, the largest number (27%) requested that the channel be dredged. Thirteen percent said the foad needed grading or paving and another 13% requested some picnic tables. Eight percent wanted improvements made to the launch itself. If this site were to be improved, the channel should be dredged, channel markers installed, and a better boat launching ramp constructed. Quanicassee This state-owned site was the most heavily used of the three Tuscola County sites. Fifty-seven percent of the 195 people interview ed were boat fishermen, 30% were shore anglers, and 12% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The average person at the site had used it 3.2 times for shore fishing, 6.1 times for boat angling, 1.2 times for ice fishing, 0.28 times for waterfowl hunting, and 1.7 times for recreational boating in the last 12 months. Fifty-eight percent had launched a boat here three or more times and 34% had done so a minimum of 10 times. Tweaty-four percent had been shorefishing at the site three times or more and 9% had shore fished there at least 10 times. Thirteen percent had gone ice fishing at the site and 5% 51 had used it for hunting waterfowl. All the boats had been trailered to the Quanicassee launch site. Ninety-eight percent were powerboats, 1% were rowboats, and 1% were sailboats. The average boat measured 16.3 feet in length - the largest mean length for Tuscola County sites (Table 6). Sixty-two percent were 16' or smallerP 12% were over 18', and 6% were 20' or larger (Table 6). Eighty-one percent of the boats were powered by outboard motors, 13% by inboard/outboards,, and 6% by inboards. The average motor size was 67.6 horsepower - also the largest in Tuscola County (Table 7). Eighteen percent were under 20 hp, 53% were smaller than 70 hp, 21% were at least 100 hp, and 7% were 150 hp or more (Table 7). Only 41% of the people intervic.,ed felt that the Quanicas,-ee site needed any improvements. Of those that did want improvements made, 39% would like the site enlarged with more ramps (15%), more parking (12%), or both (12%). Twenty percent said the ramp dock needed to be improved. The primary factor limiting public access at this location is the lack of parking space. This should be the first thing addressed as far as improvements to this site are cone:-:,-ned. Secondly, the ramp and the ramp dock should be improved i' the parking area is expanded significantly. Smith Park/Essexville Interviews at this city-owned site in Bay County were gathered from two distinct locations about 200 yards apart on the Saginaw River in Essexville. Both locations had a boat launching ram,r) but road access between the two areas was rather indirect. [email protected] location should technically be considered separately but due to the tendency of anglers to refer to either location as "Essexville" it was not possible to differentiate between the two during data analysis. Therefore, interviews from both sites were combined and a 52 single analysis conducted for the combined data. These two sites received far greater use than any other site in Bay County or the southern portion of the Bay. The 562 site users interviewed here were fairly evenly divided into three groups with 42% using the location for boat fishing,- 31% for shore angling, and 27% for recreational boating (Table 3). The average person at the site used it 3.8 times for shore fishing, 4.9 times for boat angling, 0.05 times for ice fishing, none for waterfowl hunting, and 9.7 times for recreational boating in the last year. In fact, this site was the most heavily used site by recreational boaters of all the sites surveyed. Fifty-two percent of the people interviewed had launched a boat here a minimum of three times and thIrty-nine percent had launched one at least 10 times. Twenty-three percent had used the site for shore fishing three or more times and 11% had done so 10 times or more. Only 1% had gone ice fishing from this site and none had used it to hunt waterfowl. All the boats had been trailered to the Essexville/Smith Park launching site. Ninety-seve.. percent were powerboats, 2% were rowboats, and 1% were sailboats. The average boat length of 17.2 feet was second in size in Bay County only to the Veteran's Park mean of 18.1 fe L- (Table 6).. Forty-three percent were 16' or less, 78% were 18' or less, and 15% were 20' or more (Table 6). Sixty-three percent of the boats were powered by outboard motors, 21X by Inboard/outboards, and 16% by inboards. The average motor horsepower at 102.3 was the third highest mean motor size of the sites surveyed behind those at Veterans Park and Port Austin (Table 7), Ten percent were smaller than 10 hp, 41% were under 70 hpp 40% were 100 hp or more, and 24% were at least 150 horsepower (Table 7). 53 Seventy percent of the people intervi ewed said the site needed to be improved. Twenty-six percent of those wanted the site enlarged with more launching ramps (11%), more parking (6%), or both (9%). Nineteen percent would like more or improved ramp docking facilities. Twenty-seven percent complained about the lack of restrooms, The first improvement r-quired here is the addition of some restroom facilities. Secondly, better docks should be provided as rather large boats are being launched at this site and good docks in sufficient number are needed as aids in launching and retrieving the bigger boats. Third, the parking area needs to be expaaded, And fourth, another dual launching ramp should be installed. Veterans Park Only 16 people were interviewed at this city-owned site as it was learned that few boaters used this site as access to tbi bay itself due to the several mile run down the Saginaw River to reach the bay. This seems to be borne out by the fact that 62% of the people surveyed were recreational boaters versus only 13% that were boat anglers though this was from a very small sample size (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 3.8 times for shore fishing, 1.2 times for boat angling, none for Ice fishing or waterfowl hunting, and 9.7 times for recreational boating in the last year. Eighty-one percent had launched a boat three times or more and 43% bad launched one a minimum of 10 times. Only 12% had been shore fishing at the site but each had been over 10 times. All the b,---ts had been trallered to the Veterans Park site and all were powerboats. The mean boat length was 18.1 feet which was the largest average length for boats at any site in Bay County and was second only to 54 Port Austin for the bay as a whole (Table 6). Twenty-three percent were 161 or smaller, 62% were 18' or less, and 31% were 20' or more (Table 6). Fifty-four percent of the boats were powered by inboard/outboard engines, 39% by outboards, and 7% by inboards. The average motor horsepower of 142.6 was the highest of any site surveyed with none less than 20 hp, only 31% smaller than 70 hp, 61% at 100 hp or more, and 54% equal to or greater than 150 hp (Table 7). Sixty-seven percent of the Veterans Park site users surveyed wanted the site improved. Forty percent of those said to improve the access road by grading it more often or by paving it. Nineteen percent wanted more boat launching ramps and docks. Another 19% would like the area near the docks dredged. At the present time, the site does not appear to receive enough use (based on visual observations when driving past the site at various times throughout the survey period) to warrant the addition of more launching ramps or docks. The docks appear to be adequate but could use some rubber bumpers to protect boats from [email protected], againsL them. The access road definitely needs grading more often or paving as it was severely rutted during the entire summer. Linwood Sixty-four percent of the 64 people in'.2rviewed at this site were boat anglers, 23% were recreational boaters, and 13% were shore fishermen (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 1.2 times for shore fishing, 8.1 times for boat angling, 4.6 times for ice fishing, 0.43 times for waterfowl hunting, and 2.0 times for recreational boating in the past 12 months. [email protected]@, percent had launched a boat at this site three times or 55 more and 33% had done so 10 or more times. Nineteen percent had used the site for shore fishing, 36% for ice fishing, and 6% for waterfowl hunting. All the boats were trailered to the site. Seventy percent were powerboats, 23% were sailboats, and 7% were rowboats. The average boat length was 11.2 with 80% being 16' or less in length, 98% at 18' or under, and only 2% being 20' or over (Table 6). Ninety-eight percent of those with motors were powered by outboard engines and 2% by inboards. The mean size of the motors was 26.5 horsepower (Table 7). Forty-five percent were less than 20 hp, 90/. were smaller than 70 hp, and just 2% were 100 hp or more (Table 7). Eighty-six percent of the people interviewed thought the site needed improvements. Twenty-nine percent wanted the chennel dredged, 24% wanted a boat launching ramp put in, and 9% said the road needed improving. This site needs to have the channel dredged first. Then a boat launching ramp could be installed as this site currently has only 8 g" "2d gravel area serving as the launch. If these two improvements [email protected], made, the parking area would probably need enlarging to handle the additional use the site would get. Coggins Drain Seventy-four percent of the 103 site users interviewed at this state-owned location were boat fishermen, 24% were shore anglers, and 1% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 1.5 times for shore fishing, 6.9 times for boat angling, 5.5 times for ice fishing, 0.67 times for waterfowl hunCing, and 0.56 times for recreational boating in the previous year. Fifty-one percent of those interviewed ha4 launched a boat three times or more and 26% had launched one 56 over 10 times. Twenty-seven percent had been shore fishing at the site, 42% had used it for ice fishing, and 6% had used it for hunting waterfowl. Ninety-eight percent of the boats had been trailered to the Coggins Drain site and rest had been cartopped. Ninety-eight percent were powerboats, 1% were rowboats, and 1% were canoes or kayaks. The average boat length of 14.9 feet was the second smallest mean boat size of all the sit2s surveyed (Table 6). Ninety percent were 16' or smaller, 98% were 18' or less, and only 1% were 20' or larger (Table 6). Ninety-five percent were powered by outboard engines, 4% by inboard/outboards, and 1% by inboards. The 25.2 mean horsepower of the motors was the smallest average motor horsepower of any site surveyed (Table 7). Forty-nine percent were under 20 hp, 96% were less than 70 hp, and only 3% were 100 hp or more. Eighty-one percent of the people interviewed wanted the Coggins Drain site improved. Sixty-four percent of those said the channel needed dredging. Seventeen percent wanted the boat launching ramp improved. Six percent wou.Id like a dock installed, and 5% requested more parking area. Potential improvements to this site include the construction of a dual launching ramp with a skid pier, increasing the parking area, dredging the channel, and putting in channel markers. These improvements would enhance the site considerably in terms of providing boaters access to Saginaw Bay. No other improvements to this site seem necessary at this time. Snow should be cleared from the parking lot to provide parking for ice fishermen. Pinconning Sixty-three percent of the 46 people interviewed at this state-owned site were boat anglers, 28% were recreational boaters, and 9% were shore fis'iermen (Table 3). The average person at this site had used it 1.5 times 57 for shore fishing, 5.8 times for boat angling, 2.1 times for ice fishing, 0.07 times for waterfowl hunting, and 1.2 times for recreational boating in the last 12 months. Sixty-nine percent had launched a boat three or more times at this site and 35% had launched one at least 10 times. Seventeen percent of those interviewed had used the site for shore fishing, 26% for ice fishing, and 4% for hunting waterfowl. Ninety-eight percent of the boats had been trailered to the Pinconning site and 2% had been cartopped. Sixty-two percent were powerboats, 21% were sailboats, 14% were rowboats, and 3% were canoes or kayaks. The average length of boats launched at this site of .14.8 f eet was the smallest mean boat length for any site surveyed (Table 6). Eighty-eight percent of the boats were 16' or less in len,_,-th, 98% were 18' or smaller, and only 2% were 20' or more (Table 6). All the boats were powered by outboard engines, the average size of which was 28.1 horsepower (Table 7). Fifty-three percent were under 20 hp$ 93% were less than 70 hp, and 3% were at least 150 horsepower (Table 7). Seveaty-four percent of the people intprviewed at the Pinconning site wanted improvements made. Fifty-five percent of those that would like the site improved requested that the channel be dredged., Twenty-three percent said the access road needed improving and 7w/. would like more parking area. Potential improvements to this site include reconstructI.ag a ramp with a skid pier to replace the existing cement ramp, increasing the parking [email protected], paving the parking and maneuver areas, dredging the channel, and installing channel markers. The ramp should be widened so that the skid pier could be placed in the center of the ramp to allow two boats to be launched at the same time. These improvements would make this 58 site adequate for boating access to Saginaw Bay and no other Improvements are currently deemed necessary. Pine River Fifty percent of the 25 people interviewed at this state-owned site were boat fishermen, 42% were shore anglers, and 8% were recreational boaters. In the last year, the average person had used the site 1.8 times to shore fish, 8.5 times for boat angling, 0.28 times for ice fishing, 0.28 times to hunt waterfowl, and 0.96 times for recreational boating. Sixty percent had used the site for boat fishing, 52% for shore fishing, 12% for ice fishing, 12% for waterfowl hunting, and 20% for recreational boating. Ninety-three percent of the boats had been trailered to the Pine River site and the remaining 7% had been cartopped. Eighty-six percent were powerboats, 7% were rowboats, and 7% were canoes or kayaks. The average boat length was 15.5 feet with -85% being 16' or less and the other 15% more than 18' but less than 20 feet (Table 6). Ninety-two percent of the boats were powered by outboard engines and 8% by inboards. The mean horsepower of the motors was 62.3 horsepower (Table 7). Thirty-one percent were less than 20 hp, 85% were under 70 hp, and 8% were at least 150 horsepower (Table 7). Sixty-four percent of the people interviewed said the Pine River jite needed improvements. Nineteen percent of these wanted the channel dredged and another 19% requested channel [email protected] Six percent wanted the boat launching ramp improved. Improvements this site needs are channel dredging and installation of channel markers. The launching ramp and doe': rday need improving if the channel is dredged to a depth such that it could accommodate larger boats. 59 Au Gres Seventy-one percent of the 286 people interviewed at this state-owned site were boat fishermen,, 19% were shore anglers, and 9% were recreational boaters (Table 3). The average person interviewed at this site had used it 1.5 times to shore fish, 5.5 times for boat angling, 0.93 times for ice fishing, none to hunt waterfowl, and 1.1 times for recreational boating in the last 12 months. Fifty-eight percent had launched a boat three times or more and 27% had done so at least 10 times. Thirty percent had used the site for shore fishing but only 9% had over three times. Eleven percent had gone ice fishing here but none had used this location for hunting waterfowl. All the boats had been trailered to the Au Gres site. Ninety-six percent were powerboats, 3% were sailboats, and 1% were canoes or kayaks. The mean boat length was 16.9 feet (Table 6). Fifty-three percent were 16' long or less, 81% were 181 or smaller, and 10% were equal to or greater than 20 feet (Table 6). Seventy-two percent were powered by outboard engines, 18% by inboard/outboards, and 10% by inboards. The average size of the motors was 87.8 horsepower (Table 7). Fourteen percent were smaller than 20 hp, 49% were under 70 hp, 34% were 100 hp or more, and 16% were at least 150 horsepower (Table 7). Forty-nine percent of the people interviewed mentioned specific improvf.,ilents they felt should be made to the Au Gres site. The most numerous request (22% of those that answered the question) was for more boat launching ramps. Sixteen percent wanted the access road improved. Ten percent would like a water faucet o,: pump installed for both drinking water and for washdown at a fish cleaning station. Eight percent said the site needed to be enlarged with more parking area. There were three times is 60 many complaints about there not being enough boat launching ramps received on weekends than during the week. Also, many people (21%) complained about having to pay a $3.00 daily fee in order to use the Au Gres site. The most pressing improvement needed at the Au Gres site is the addition of a third dual boat launching ramp to alleviate the congested conditions that exist early in the morning and on weekends. The construction of more temporary docking facilities would also be useful during times of intense launching or retrieval activity such as when a squall comes up and blows many boaters off the bay at the same time. Something should be done about either paving the access road or grading it more often as this site is heavily used and the road is badly rutted. The installation of a pump or faucet for drinking water would also be a worthwhile addition. Additional specific information for each site was gathered and processed but due to budget and time constraints was not interpreted in this report. This site-specific information includes the following: county of residence of the people interviewed, where they would prefer an additional site and why, the number that stayed overnight and the percent that used various types of accommodations, the times people arrived and departed as well as the total time at the site, how long it took them to get to the site, and how many miles they traveled to reach the site. 61 CONCLUSION The Saginaw Bay waters of Lake Huron were found to provide recreational activities not only for local residents, but for people from 45 Michigan counties and several other states. These waters, rather than being simply a regional asset, constitute a state resource and should be treated as such. Public access sites on Saginaw Bay are the means by which most people gain access to the bay and should be representative of the quality of access facilities provided in the State of Michigan to Great Lakes waters. In general, Saginaw Bay public access sites do not currently provide the access quality that should exist in an area of such recreational importance. Most public access sites on Saginaw Bay have a clientele of repeat users as well as a continual influx of people who have never used that particular site before but are looking for new recreational areas to use. The significant number of new users at each site could indicate one-or more of the following: first, that there are a large number of people seeking access to the bay for the first time and the quality of the access available at the site determines whether these people return again or not; second, that the more popular or favored sites are overcrowded and the new users @re trying to access the bay in a less congested area; or third, that these people have become dissatisfied with another site and are seeking one more suited to their desires or needs. The importance of providing good boat launchl.ag facilities can be seen in the fact that 99% of all boats had been trailered to the sites versus only 1% that were cartopped and which are able to use sites with poorer launching conditions. This is because the open waters of the Great Lakes require larger boats and more powerful motors than do inland lakes. The 62 bigger the boat the heavier and more unwieldly it becomes and the necessity of having good launching ramps and facilities increases. Four sites presently support the bulk of the demand for boat launching facilities on Saginaw Bay - Port Austin and Caseville in Huron County, the Smith Park/Essexville site in Bay County, and the Au Gres site in Arenac County (Figure 1). This is because they are among the few public access sites on Saginaw Bay with channels deep enough for large trailerable boats to navigate safely under a variety of lake levels and weather conditions. The single greatest obstacle to providing adequate access to bay waters is the wide shallow littoral zone with long distances between natural channels. All of the major access facilities are placed wher,2- natural channels occurred. Because Saginaw Bay users seek access to portions of the Bay which lie beyond prudent small boat cruising distance from these major access sites, additional adequate facilities should be provided. Several public access sites lie between the major sites and at selected sites, artificial channels should be dredged. Wave action and alongshore currents will result in sediment deposition in the chaanels and declining lake levels may require more extensive or more frequent dredging. At some locations berms or jetties may be necessary to protect channels from filling in. Some sites may have to be abandoned as the consequence oF rapid channel siltation or declining lake levels. Supplemental dredging may be required to maintain selected channels during periods of low water. Dredging of channels at sites not recommended in this report or abandonment of channels at recommended sites are alternatives which can be considered only after a subsequent survey shows that more access is required or that there is ins ufficient use to justify dredgi ng costs. 63 The few sites that currently have channels of adequate depth are overcrowded, as larger boats are restricted to using these sites because of the amount of water they draw, and need to be enlarged. The capacity of these sites should be increased by concurrently increasing the number of boat launching ramps and the area available for parking. Additional temporary docking facilities to provide temporary mooring sites while waiting in line are also needed at these sites to handle the overflow boat volume during peak boat launching and retrieving periods. Temporary mooring sites might enable launched boats to clear the ramp more quickly, thus providing for more efficient use of existing ramps. Launch ramp attendants trained to facilitate launching and retrieval and to control traffic might increase efficiency of ramp use during peak volume periods at the larger sites, There are many miscellaneous improvements that could be made to enhance the sites but these are not crucial to their suitability for launching boats. Many of the dirt access roads need to either be surfaced or graded on a more regular basis as they were severely rutted. The addition of edge channel markers and a lighted marker at the lakeward end of the channel would be appreciated by many users, as would the installation of a pump or faucet for drinking water. Many people would like lighted parking areas. Shore anglers in particular mentioned a desire for picnic tables, shade trees, and adequate toilet facilities at some of the sites. Scheduled Improvements Currently funds have been obtained by the MDNR Waterways Division to improve two Saginaw Bay public access sites and for creation of a thirC. The Port Austin site in Huron County is to be improved by the addition of a puI-I-ic boat launching ramp and increased parking area. Ve'llicular traffic 64 congestion at Au Gres in Arenac County will be reduced by the construction of an access road to the shore fishing parking lot next to the north pier which bypasses the boat launch access road and parking area. A double ramp and parking lot will be constructed near the commercial fishing dock in Bayportj Furon County. The MDNR Waterways Division has recently aquired property adjacent to the Caseville pier. Recommendations: The MDNR Waterways Division does not have sufficient funds to implement improvements at all Saginaw Bay sites which have impaired access. Local units of government could enhance chances for specific site improvements by providing funds to match MDNR Waterway Division resources. The following recommendations for site improvement are made in an attempt to reconcile the need for improvements with the present economic realities. Priority should be given to improving the following existing access sites: Sumac Island, Allen Drain, Smith Park/Essexville, and Coggins Road. These sites are located near popular or traditional fishing areas. Use of the Smith Park/Essexville site is impaired by inadequate parking and too few ramps of poor condition, Expanded parking and at least two additio nal launching ramps are needed at this location. The Sumac Island-site should have the channel dredged and an additional ramp installed. A concrete ramp should be installed at the Coggins Road site, the channel dredged, and a snow removal program implemented to provide parking for Ice fishermen. The north end of the Allen Drain channel needs to be dredged. *A MDNR creel census was conducted concurrently with this study and information on the total number of people using each site (instead of only the number interviewed) will be available from the Institute for Fisheries Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan by the spring of 1983. 65 At both Sumac Island and Coggins Road, range markers with lights should be installed at the onshore end of the dredged channels. At the Allen Drain, the mouth of the channel should be marked with buoys. In the event that all of these priority improvements cannot be funded in the near future, we recommend that further prioritization be established on the basis of the absolute number of site users which will be identified in MDNR creel census information which is expected to be available in spring,-1983. This more detailed prioritization should provide a high ranking for channel improvements at one of the three sites where dredging was recommended. Access sites at Caseville, Sebewaing, Quanicassee, Pinconning, and Au Gres also require improvements, but of lower priority. The Pinconning site needs channel dredging. At Caseville adequate toilet facilities and parking are required adjacent to the fishing pier. Parking at the public ramp needs to be better organized. This could be accomplished by gravel surfacing and delineation of drives and parking places with concrete bumpers. If overflow from the public site is to be directed to nearby private launching ramps, then a legible sign bearing a map showing the routes to the private sites should be placed in a prominent location at the public site entrance. At the private sites, public toilets should be available and well marked with signs. Expanded parking areas and one additional ramp each should be added to both the Sebewaing and Quanicassee sites. An additional double ramp should be added to the Au Gres site at the upriver end of the trailer parking area. If the user fee for Au Gres cannot eliminated, then a prominen t sign justifying the fee should beplaced at the entrance. Shade trees should be planted at the Filion Road site and picnic tables placed at Filion Road, Allen Drain, and Sebewaing on a trial basis. Strong interest has been expressed for new access sites at Bay City 66 State Park and between Caseville and Port Austin at the mouth of the Pinnebog River. The exposed shoreline and gently sloping bottom at these sites present significant construction and maintenance problems, Channels must be dredged from shore to deep water. These channels must be protected by breakwalls in order to prevent filling by sediments transported by wave action and alongshore currents. Launching ramps must be protected from wave action in order to enable safe retreival of boats during storms. Channels must extend lakeward to a sufficient depth to provide access during periods of low lake level. Development of these sites would require capital expenditures of about $750,000 each (MDNR estimate). The Bay City State Park site would require approximately 400 feet of breakwater and 1,100 feet of dredged channel. Since there would be no natural river current to flush the channel, frequent dredging is anticipated with an anticipated cost (MDNR estimate) of about $125,000 per year. Offshore sand bars at the Pinnebog site would require a longer channel. Epbmeral bars found at the river mouth would be displaced by breakwater constructiori, but could occur at the end of the breakwall. Bar formation could be disrupted during periods of high flow during spring runoff, but re-establishment from alongshore current deposition during summer could require frequent dredging to maintain safe access to the channel. Breakwater construction could result In siginIfIcant beach erosion along n adjacent beaches to the west of the river mouth, particularily during periods of high lake level. Both sites would provide significant increases in public access to Saginaw Bay in areas where demand is high. These sites lie within state 67 park boundaries with ample room for developmment of access roads and parking. The Bay City State Park site contains existing parking areas near potential ramp sites and includes approximately 250 campsites with toilets and showers. The proximity of this park to urban areas and to the 1-75 freeway enables ready access for large metropolitan populations in the southeastern part of Michigan. Strong local support exists for the addition of boat launching facilities to Bay City State Park. The potentially high dredging costs for maintaining these sites requires that feasibility studies to compare benefits with costs be conducted before further developm2nt can be justified . Coastal engineering studies are recommended to determine the rate at which channel sedimentation would occur, frequency and scheduling of dredging, and appropriate dredging methods to minimize cost and environmental impact. Dredging frequencies and costs for blind channels of similar configuration in Saginaw Bay should be reviewed. Alternative funding mechanisms for initial construction and annual maintenance should be identified. Initial feasibility work including review of existing Saginaw Bay dredging activity, methods, and costs, literature review, and preliminary engineering calculations using existing data should be funded. Preliminary projections of economic benefits should be made using output from an economic survey of anglers presently being conducted by Michigan State University. If the outcome of this preliminary work suggests that further effort is justified, then more comprehensive studies should be conducted to provide an accurate assessment of sedijitentation rates and related dredging costs. Sediment transport models incorporating alongshore transport, wave action resuspension, and s'.ioreline structure impact functions should be used to predict dredging frequency. 68 These predictions should include an assessment of the need for unscheduled dredging resulting from storms occurring at unusual frequencies and intensities. Appropriate field surveys sho .uld be conducted to support the modeling effort. This study has shown that Saginaw Bay is a popular state resource and that there currently exists a large demand for access to this resource. It has also documented the public's perception of the inadequacies of the individual access sites which turned out to be rather extensive. Suggestions have been made to improve public access to Saginaw Bay by assigning priorities to which sites should be improved first and what improvements need to be made at these sites. The demand for public access to Saginaw Bay is expected to increase substantially in the near future and improvements in site facilities must be rade to accommodate this demand. 69 Public Participation Preliminary findings were presented and public input was received at meetings with elected public officials., representatives of local government, county planning officials, businessmen, individual citizens, and sportsmens organizations. The following list summarizes public participation meetings and locations: Bay City Saginaw Bay Advisory Committee Michigan United Conservation Clubs individual citizens Michigan DNR B,iy City Bay County Natural Resources Committee MDNR City of Bay city Bay County representives of state legislators representatives of U. S. congressmen MUCC East Michigan Tourist Association Bay County Chamber of Commerce individual citizens charter boat operators news media Greater Saginaw Bay Fishing Consortium Michigan Steelheaders Bad Axe Huron County Commissioners news media Huron Intermediate School District Bayport Village o'ficials Huron Cou_qty Commissioners local businessmena Caro Tuscola County Commissioners Tuscola County Planning Commission Saginaw East Central Michigan Planning Commission ECMPDR Environmental Advisory Committee 70 Sebewaing Village of Sebewaing Huron County Commissioners MDNR news media local businessmen Public input was obtained through site surveys and through numerous informal discussions with business people located near the access sites. Preliminacy Engineering Sites with impaired access were idnetified early in the survey process by ECMPDR staff. Selected sites were chosen with assistance from the MDNR Waterways Division for preliminary engineering studies to define potential improvements and provide preliminary cost estimates. These studies were conducted by the MDNR Waterways Division Lansing staff. Waterways Division field staff and ECMPDR staff assisted in field surveys. The preliminary engineering report for the following sites constitutes Appendix A: Pinconning State Park, Coggins Road, Allen Cut, Sumac Island, and Filion Road. For each site information is presented on amount of dredging req-tired, recommended dredging methods, and potential site improvements. Cost for improvements at each site are estimated. 71 LITERATURE CITED Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Natural Resources Register. 1982. Vol. 2, No. 5. 24 p. Ryckman, James R. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Institute for Fisheries Research; Ann Arbor, Michigan. Personal Communication. Schneider J. C., and J. H. Leach. 1979. Walleye stocks in the Great Lakes 1800-1975: fluctuations and possible causes. Tech. Rep. No. 31. Great Lakes Fish Comm. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Sport Fishing Institute Bulletin. 1982. No. 335. 8 p. Stoermer, E. F. Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan. Personal Communication. 72 ldc r, 0p I I I I I I I APPENDIX A SAGINAW BAY PUBLIC ACCESS I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY I I I I I I I I 73 -4 i V 0 11 3 3 668 141 4 8167