Au Sable River Assessment

An assessment of the condition of our river is a requirement, fortunately, of the settlement with Consumers Power regarding the FERC re-licensing of the six dams that imprison our beloved Au Sable. What follows is my impression of the third draft of this assessment.

The most recent draft of this assessment is an impressive document with regard to history, background, geography, geology and hydrology, etc. of our favorite river. I don’t know if all this is necessary to write an assessment of our river for the purpose of developing a management policy or plan, but this draft certainly is more complete than the previous drafts and makes for good reading.

I continue to believe the extensive set of figures and displays in the appendices to be largely irrelevant and possibly inaccurate. For example one such figure shows that largemouth bass are to be found throughout almost the whole river system including the North Branch from its headwaters to Dam 4, the complete South Branch and the upper Mainstream above Grayling. Another shows rainbow trout to be found in the South Branch up to Roscommon.

I say this and make a special point of this because if it wasn’t for all these drawings and some additional other graphics the DNR could easily put this on its web site. It could then obtain many more comments from those who have a great and profound interest in this river.

The main problem I have with this whole exercise is the question of time. I guess for anyone over 70, and I’m approaching 72, time becomes a fairly serious consideration. The most recent draft before this one was dated five years ago (my last response regarding an earlier draft assessment was dated March 20, 1994). Now we have a new and revised draft. Will the next "draft" be a miserable five years from now? And so--what if it is? Is it important?

I think it is. But, we need action, not more drafts.

In any case, I think the assessment should have a more thorough discussion of the following items:

1. The dangers presented by having a huge military training base at the headwaters of this river (the headwaters always being the most fragile part of any river) should be detailed. I think this should not be challenged but I would dearly love it if anyone in the DNR, the DEQ, or the DMA would do so. (You don’t know what the DMA is, do you? It’s the Department of Military Affairs. That’s right, it’s a department of the Michigan government that controls over 140,000 plus acres in the headwaters of our two best streams.) This assessment gives a gentle nod or two to this problem but nothing more.
2. A true, honest, and complete discussion of the problem of too many livery canoes on the headwaters is not too much to ask for in a river assessment. There were 1515 commercial canoes, in the three upper river counties (Roscommon, Crawford, Oscoda) registered in 1987; there were 1645 registered in 1997, an increase of nine percent. (We don’t know how many were registered last year.)
3. A simple and honest discussion of necessary watercraft controls should be presented along with what has been proposed in the past and why these proposals have failed. What more can be said about this? Right now it’s bloody-well legal to launch a bass boat at the access site below Stephan’s Bridge, and it’s "OK old-chap" to run a jet-ski up the North Branch. For all we know it’s legal to launch a yacht at Grayling and motor it down to Wakeley. Or at least to try. (I once saw a guy trying to put one of these sporty bass boats in at the landing below Stephan’s.) All this is true, but the brass in the white (or black if you prefer) hats in Lansing don’t seem to give a damn.
4. A more extensive discussion of the damage done by Antrim development which would include reference to the material written by the DNR biologists, Alexander and Nuhfer. This omission is simply something your correspondent does not understand. The DNR was ordered by the court a number of years ago to write an Environmental Impact Statement on Antrim development. It wasn’t a very good EIS but it had a good appendix by Alexander and Nuhfer that detailed the damage done to trout streams. The watershed most affected was the Au Sable. Now we hear nothing about it when an assessment is made of the river.
5. A better discussion of the damage done by extensive use of brine on the roads both in winter and summer. I know this is not a popular subject. There are your usual big business interests at stake here: all those conglomerates selling salt to the state, and all those oil-drillers trying to get rid of their excess brine. And you will hear that safety on the roads is an over-riding issue as well. But what about the rivers?
6. At least some mention of the continued dangers of acid precipitation. We all know about this problem. We have read about it often. It hasn’t disappeared. But we don’t see it in an assessment of our river even though Northern Michigan is greatly afflicted with this pollution. Our leaders, at least, could say, if only for our benefit, that there is no danger to our river.
7. There should be a more thorough discussion of the benefits from stocking which would include the improvement of the gene pool of native stocks so we can have a population of faster growing fish that are not afraid to feed in the day-time. (I don’t expect the DNR biologists to write such a report. I suspect they don’t believe in genetics.) But that is what I would like to see. Moreover, I think that is what a lot of anglers would like to see. At least an acknowledgement of the problem and a suggestion of a solution addressing the obvious problems.

Our representatives in the DNR have written an impressive document. It is thorough, but I suggest it isn’t complete. The heart of the report, however, is in the sections on management options. Completely omitted is any discourse on the process by which the DNR will score these options, how they will choose the ones to be implemented and when they will do so, i.e. when, if ever, will this assessment result in a plan?

I urge you all to request a copy of this assessment from Ms. Liz Hay-Chmielewski, Acting Resource Manager, Au Sable River Assessment, Hunt Creek Fisheries Station, 1581 Halberg Road, Lewiston, MI, 49756; Telephone 517-786-2613. We are now trying to get this assessment online so that everyone who has a computer can read it. If we are not successful in doing this, the only chance you have of giving your opinion regarding the assessment is writing to Ms. Hay-Chmielewski.

Let me quickly run through the options in the current draft. (Because of space limitations I can’t detail the options. You will know what they mean when you obtain a copy of the draft.)

Here are my opinions on the options:

1. Geology and Hydrology. All river protectors should endorse all options.
2. We, good citizens and Au Sable anglers, should endorse all options in the Soils and Land Use section.
3. We should endorse with reservations all options in the Channel Morphology section. I have only one reservation here: I don’t know why the top priority isn’t given to the Mio Dam for removal.
4. All options in the section on Dams and Barriers should be endorsed. Dams have fragmented our river. They should be removed.
5. Special Jurisdictions: All options should be endorsed. There is nothing here that a river advocate would oppose.
6. All the options in the section on Biological Communities should be endorsed with the exception of the option of reconnecting the river to Lake Huron. This one seems questionable even if desirable in some ways. It seems that "historic runs" are the key words here and if "historic" is meant to include Pacific salmon (and I don’t know how it could mean that) then I would demur. If "historic" does not mean Pacific salmon then I don’t know how the connection can be made without including them. I consider the introduction of Pacific salmon in the Atlantic ocean watersheds an ecological disaster.
7. I have some reservations about the options on Fishery Management. Those who have been readers of the Riverwatch have a good idea what they are. Option 2 Protect self-sustaining trout stocks by discouraging stocking on top of those populations. If fish are stocked, require the stocked fish to be certified as disease-free., for example, would preclude any stocking to improve the quality of the gene pool of the native fish. (I really don’t hold sacred the present gene pool. If fish are stocked they should of course be disease-free. Isn’t this a requirement now? Option 3 Protect self-sustaining trout stocks by developing an educational pamphlet that addresses Fisheries Division concerns related to fish stocking. is fine if the education addresses both sides of the issue. I have never seen the Fisheries Division reluctant to state its position. Option 14 Manage the river upstream of Mio Pond to provide a high quality fishery for resident, naturally-reproducing brook trout and brown trout stocks. should be a long-term goal for the whole river. But let’s not forget the rainbow. They are gems in the river. Option 15 Manage the river downstream of Mio Pond to provide high quality fisheries for stocked and naturally reproduced salmonids. is good for the short term. But what does "salmonids" really mean? Hurray for Option 16 Restore cold water riverine fisheries and habitats by removing dams. The sooner the better. But don’t hold your breath on this one. Option 17 Restore runs of native and naturalized fishers, other than sea lampreys, by providing upstream and downstream fish passage at dams. implicitly recognizes the need to treat the river as a whole as much as possible; native fish need to migrate as well as potamodromous fish. But do our dear friends in the DNR consider Pacific Salmon a naturalized fish? The remaining options get a loud hurrah from me. (When you get a copy of this assessment read these options carefully to determine which you think are the best for the river.)
8. Recreational Use options. I guess this is where we should find options involved in watercraft controls, including canoes. But we don’t find any.
9. Citizen Involvement. I think all of these are fine, but I haven’t thought about them very much.
As I said earlier I hope you will obtain a copy. You will then understand the option numbers in the above. For example, in Fishery Management there are 25 options. They aren’t numbered in the report. I have numbered them sequentially from 1 to 25.

I will be recommending additional options to our good friends in the DNR. I hope you do the same. RWOL

[Top] [Home]