Watershed Assessment

The Anglers have responded to the draft assessment of the Au Sable watershed written by the DNR for use in managing the fishery. Our assessment, though critical in some respects, makes the point that this document is a step forward in the development of a rational and comprehensive management plan for the whole watershed. (Anyone who wishes to obtain a copy of our response should write the Riverwatch editor.)

The assessment is the result of the agreement on the FERC relicensing of the six dams which are operated under federal license by Consumers Power. According to Steve Sendek, the primary author of the document, the assessment is designed to provide an organized approach to identifying opportunities and solving problems, especially in the area of fisheries management. Moreover, it allows public involvement in management decisions, and furnishes an organized reference for those wanting information about the resource.

Since this document (it is an ongoing process) is a consequence of the agreement with Consumers, we were therefore surprised regarding the alleged extreme criticism from a Consumers representative at a hearing in Alpena. (Those who wish to obtain a copy of the statement by the power company representative can write to Consumers Power and ask for the statement as presented at Alpena by David Battige.)

We hope that this statement does not reflect the true sentiments of Consumers Power, and that it does not reflect any intent by Consumers to renege on the agreement.

We also hope that the reported statement by Kyle Kruger of the DNR is incorrect. Fish passage over dams should not be a consensus process, that is, "if people are really opposed, it probably won't happen." Since biologists now know very well that resident fish migrate great distances, it is believed that for the good of the resident fish population, mostly trout in the case of the Au Sable, that passage over the interior dams is desirable, and that only when it comes down to the last barrier, the last dam, does the question of passage come into question. Passage should be determined by the fishery, not by popular opinion.

Some of The Anglers' comments on this plan are:

Camp Grayling When a military installation of the size and nature of Camp Grayling exists near the headwaters of the two best trout streams in Michigan bad things happen. For example, Camp Grayling's Range 40 has been declared a 307 site, and other ranges will surely follow. The military, with Camp Grayling in the headwaters and Wurtsmith at the mouth, is the biggest polluter in the watershed causing fifteen percent of the 307 sites. Moreover, the enjoyment of the river and the surrounding watershed is diminished by the existence of this encampment. At this time, we should not have to dwell in this letter on all the issues affecting the riverine environment by a facility that trains men for war. There is ample background material available for reference. Simply put, there should be a more extensive discussion in (the DNR's) assessment.

Canoes A serious problem regarding the lack of regulation of canoes continues on the Mainstream and the South Branch. There also is a long history of this controversy, including an attempt by the DNR to bring some regulations into play regarding watercraft usage. This issue surely deserves more discussion in (the assessment.)

Antrim Gas Development This massive, irresponsible, and cancerous growth, primarily in five counties but expanding to fifteen, is a serious threat to the Au Sable watershed. (The report) should have a much more thorough discussion including a more extensive analysis of the damage done to the Au Sable fishery. The fragmentation of the land, the intrusion into the human environment, the destruction of wildlife habitat, the loss of fish caused by sedimentation, and the destruction of forests are among the issues (the report neglects).

Unrestricted Use of Brine Brine as it is washed into the streams and rivers does irreversible damage. Brine is not even clean, pure salt; it often has heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and is likely to be radioactive.

Road salt and brine, besides being serious contaminants, can release mercury and other toxic metals held in stream sediments. Moreover, the increase in acidity brought about by both salt and brine helps release mercury, so the river gets a double whammy in the early spring from acid snowmelt and the accumulation of the winter's road salt and brine. (Brine has for decades been spread on the roads within the watershed even in summer to control fugitive dust.)

Water Quality Acid rain should be mentioned as a concern. Recently, Michigan was one of three states with the most acidic rainfall - some of it as acid as vinegar. Continued acid rain lowers any soil's buffering capacity; in saturated soil the acid runoff goes directly into lakes and streams, with traumatic effect on aquatic life. Furthermore, the acid releases essential nutrients, making the soil less productive and increasing erosion. Acid snow is probably the more serious threat in the Au Sable watershed. The snowpack concentrates the acid and releases it with the melt; the Au Sable then sees a rapid rise in acidity - "acid shock." Early meltwater can be ten times more acidic than the remaining snowpack. This surge in acid occurs when the fish are in poor condition. The rainbows are spawning, or about to, and the brown and brook fry from the previous fall are emerging. Trout eggs and fry are much less tolerant to increased acidity than mature fish.

Large Woody Debris There is vagueness and uncertainty in the laws and policy governing the status of large woody debris in our rivers. The Department of Natural Resources should undertake initiatives to increase the amount of LWD in the Au Sable and to develop a firm policy regarding its status, backed up with recommendations for legislative action to protect this attribute which is so important to the well-being of the river and which up to now has been neglected.

In conclusion, we believe (the report) has made a good beginning to a continuing and difficult process. A true assessment and management plan will never be completed. As time goes on, more information will become available, new facts will come to your attention, and the assessment and remedial actions will change.

Hopefully, also as time passes, some of the damage to the watershed will be allayed, some of the actions recommended in this draft will have been taken, and further assessment will be required. (The DNR) will have some serious criticism from many parties on this assessment. (The DNR) will find many who want to do nothing to repair the damages inflicted on our river; they would like things to remain as they are. Our advice is to ignore them and stay the course.

(We hope the DNR will take) our comments as supportive. We know (the DNR) shares the same goal with us: a more wholesome, complete, and natural river.

For the next Riverwatch, we plan a special issue on the fishery resource of our river, i.e., what is its status, where is it headed, what are the problems, what are the possible solutions, and what is being done and what should be done. We hope we can get a number of responses from many of the DNR personnel now involved in determining the future of this resource, and from those who were previously involved.

RWOL

[Top] [Home]