I received this via e-mail:
Hi Alan,
I would like to share with you what I have been working on for the past year or so. I know that one of your passions is the Dark River. We share that passion. I do not know where you stand on the Dark River Restoration Project, but I think one needs all of the information in order to make informed decisions. I am attaching my comment letter to the US Army Corps' of Engineers for you to read. I think it might be worth your while to read it. There is more to the project than meets the eye.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Roger
My commentary:
While I disagree with some of the conclusions, especially those relating to mining and logging--- and my disagreements are based upon my observations and experience fishing the Dark River, including the area in question--- in addition to having personally observed massive outflow from United States Steel's MinnTac's operation relating to the "Clear Water Reservoir," with this said, I do think that Roger Marks has raised a number of important questions which the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and other government, quasi-government and private agencies should have to answer---
in a public forum--- before proceeding with this project.
After all, no matter what anyone thinks of the concerns, questions or conclusions Roger Marks has come to--- and his concerns are obviously based on considerable study and work--- making it the epitome of arrogance for any governmental body, which has claimed to be sincere in seeking out input from the public and all interested parties and stakeholders, to now refuse the request of Roger Marks for the opportunity to present his study and findings at a public forum.
I hope everyone concerned about the future of the Dark River--- no matter what their concerns are based upon, be it angler, poet, writer, photographer, trapper, environmentalist, area resident,logger, miner, hiker or just someone with an interest of one kind or another about the future of this pristine little stream, the Dark River--- will take the time to check out very closely what Roger Marks has written here.
I have also read the proposal for the Dark River Restoration Project and I had some of the same questions Roger Marks has raised... and now since reading what he wrote I have even more questions. Anyone can get a copy of this proposal, for free, just check out the link below this one.
Alan L. Maki
This is what Roger Marks has submitted:9 September 2008
To: Robert Whiting, Chief of Regulatory Branch, USACOE St.Paul District
Subject: Dark River Restoration, CWA 404 PERMIT APLICATION
I would like to submit my comments for the record on the proposed Dark River Restoration Project. I have thoroughly reviewed the project proposal and all of the supporting documentation. I have researched and investigated this project for 27 months. I have come to the conclusion that this project should be withdrawn and much of the supporting documentation should be revised or withdrawn. If this project goes forward, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required because adverse impacts will be irreversible and significant. A Clean Water Act Permit should be denied and an investigation performed on the work already done by the applicant. Also, an objective third party should be brought in to do the Geomorphic Analysis, and the project given adequate outside peer review.
The Minnesota DNR (DNR) and US Forest Service (USFS) decided to conduct a stream restoration project. They formed a “stream team” and included partners from outside the two agencies. They started planning some time in 2002 or 2003. Three river systems in Northern Minnesota were initially considered. The site selection process is a main part of the issue. We do not know why the Dark River was chosen, but we do know that it was chosen before the survey and analysis work was initiated, upon which the project justification is based.
The “Dark River Project” is being proposed to “fix” three sites on the Dark River downstream of Dark Lake. Many claims have been made as to why these sites need to be fixed, but no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims. Many of the claims have been proven false, but the team continues to attempt to justify the project.
The Dark River is a very remote, relatively undeveloped area of St. Louis County in Northern Minnesota. A large taconite mine occupies about 15% of the headwaters watershed, but otherwise the impacts (as far as this project is concerned) to the project reach are few and relatively minor. The mine operates a closed loop water system and there are no controlled or emergency releases to the Dark River. There are no erosion or sediment problems in the Dark River that are related to the mining operation. There is some seepage from the dikes. In reality, the dikes erected by the mine have most likely attenuated high flows and served to make the stream as stable as it is today. There are concerns about pollutants from the mining operation, but this project does not mention them.
The DNR initially stated that the mine had caused a sediment problem in their selected sites. Upon review of their claim and glancing at a topographical map, we concluded that the claim was faulty. A 250 acre lake (Dark Lake) lies between the mine and the project reach. It serves as a great sediment trap. After further review we discovered that there is no present sediment problem that can be attributed to the mine even upstream of Dark Lake.
The next attempt to show a human caused perturbation was to say that original logging and “splash damming” had caused an unstable condition still present today. Between 1890 and 1920, there was a period of extensive logging in the area. Most of the watershed was clear-cut by 1925. Since then, the forest has regenerated and is now seeing some harvest. There are a small number of lake cabins and remote residences around Dark Lake. There is only one county road (unimproved) that crosses the stream in the project area. The Dark River is, in part, a designated trout stream, although warm water from Dark Lake occasionally reduces trout habitat quality in the upper two-thirds of the project reach, and there are no practicable solutions to this natural condition.
The DNR and USFS originally made the claim that the “long pond site” (wider areas of the river downstream of Dark Lake) was the reason for the warm water condition during the hottest days of summer. The claim was that this section of the river was over widened due to historical logging and “splash damming” and that the now slow moving waters in this reach become too warm due to solar insolation. We asked for their temperature data and found that the temperatures do climb above lethal for trout in two of the proposed sites. The lethal temperatures were also recorded at the outlet of Dark Lake. We postulated that temperature increases through insolation are primarily a linear function of exposed surface area. The Dark Lake is approximately 250 acres in surface area. The combined water surface area of the two project areas is less than 10 acres. Even if the project resulted in halving the surface area, it would mean less than a 0.5% reduction of the insolation factor. The point is that the temperatures in the project area are naturally occurring. The “Potlatch Site” (farthest downstream) has temperatures suitable for trout. Ground water inflows are sufficient to cool the water before it reaches this site. We have mapped these cold water inflows and asked the project team to do the same. They claimed to have done this, but will not share their data.
Splash damming on the Dark River has been blamed for much of the claimed problems for the Dark River. Depending on which team member you talk to, as many as three splash dams are claimed to have existed on the Dark River. We initially thought that it could have been possible for early loggers to have attempted rafting logs, using augmented flows, down the Dark River. After much investigation and study, we determined that the mere notion of a logging company even attempting to build a splash dam on the Dark River was ludicrous. We went to the purported sites on several occasions to look for and document the evidence. We found none. We then attempted to determine if it would have been feasible to build splash dams at the claimed sites. It would not have been possible. The amount of material it would have taken to “tie in” a dam at any of the claimed sites would have been enormous (even for a 1 foot dam). There are no remnants of any such structures. The river is too small and too sinuous to raft an 8 foot 2”X4”. Furthermore, a report of archaeological reconnaissance survey was completed by Michael A. Magner (of the areas claimed to be splash dams) and he found no evidence of any remains of historical logging splash dams. His report was finalized on October 27th, 2005 and will be attached to this comment letter.
Recent surveys of rivers in the area have shown that it is common to have a wide “c” channel upstream of a “b” channel. This condition is created by bedrock outcroppings in this area.
The USFS put out a legal notice in 2005 that they were going to perform a habitat improvement project on the Dark River. They stated that the sites they were going to improve were the same three sites that the DNR has now taken lead on. The USFS said that they were going to do the project under Categorical Exclusions 31.2.7 and 31.2.6. The DNR applied for an internal permit to perform a “riffle knock down” at the claimed splash dam sites. The permit was never signed, but verbal permission was said to have been given. The team moved heavy equipment into the channel and reshaped the thalweg and banks. The team then went on to reshape the channel upstream and pre-place large boulders in the channel where they wanted to create structures. DNR Fisheries personnel did the actual work in channel.
The team has made many claims about the stability of Dark River. They initially claimed that the river was unstable due to mining and historical logging activities. They have since stopped blaming mining activities and focused on the logging activities. They also claimed that a power line right-of-way (just downstream of Dark Lake) was to blame for a huge sediment problem in 1992 and pointed to an aerial photograph dated May 10, 1992 as proof that 400,000 to 800,000 cubic feet of sediment eroded of f of the power line right-of-way and choked the channel causing it to become braided. Then they claimed that the “clear, hungry waters from Dark Lake have nearly cleared this “. We researched this one and found that the next photo taken (less than 15 seconds later) shows no such problem. The aerial photo was misread and the reflected light in that particular photo seemed to support their claim until you see the next photo or stand on the ground in the place where the purported erosion took place and realize that there would have been a gully big enough to hide a bus in. It is not there and the incident never occurred.
The team became frustrated that we were picking their arguments apart one by one. Their next claim was that the instability of the Dark River can only be determined through their Geomorphic Analysis. It is so minute as to not be able to be seen with the naked eye or by the “casual observer”.
The Dark River Geomorphic Survey and Analysis was published on June 30, 2004 by Elon S. Verry of Ellen River Partners. The field work was funded by the Superior National Forest and Minnesota DNR. It is a 190 page document that was paid for by Minnesota DNR, Trout Unlimited and a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Total cost for the document is around $60,000. It is a public document. It is now the foundation on which the project stands. Copies are extremely hard to find. The last page does state that you can order copies from Ellen River Partners in Grand Rapids, MN.
The original cover, which stated that that it was paid for in part by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has been replaced by one that makes no such claim.
The Geomorphic Analysis is reported to follow Dave Rosgen's Applied River Morphology and that text is cited as a resource. The document contains a Summary, Introduction, Wolman Pebble Count, Pfankuch Bank and Channel Bed Stability Ratings, Channel Cross Sections, Interpretation of the Data, Acknowledgements, Resources and Appendices.
The Pfankuch Stability Ratings are of significant interest. Many of the values assigned in each category are well outside of the conditions as seen on the ground. We asked the team about the seemingly inflated numbers. No answer. Later they stated that some of the numbers were “adjusted” to account for lateral instability. They stated that the Pfankuch Ratings didn't allow them to accurately show lateral instability. What they did was assign the worst possible ratings in areas such as mass wasting, cutting and deposition. They then plugged these numbers into the Rosgen modified Pfankuch Stability Assessment to show great instability on the Dark River.
Based on DNR staff and non-agency comments, the need for an EIS decision was delayed; and the original project modified.
MN DNR's reports, local reports, and my own research indicate that the Long Pond site is more suited to warm water fish like sunfish and northern pike, not trout. Please provide documentation that the proposed changes to the Long Pond site “will improve habitat for trout and associated cold-water organisms” and evidence that it ever hosted these species.
The Long Pond site is a fully functioning and has a well represented warm water fishery. There are no signs of instability by any definition of the word. Mink, Otter, Muskrat, Beaver, Waterfowl, Mussels and several warm water fish species are present and abundant. Mink and Otter were trapped (by USDA Wildlife Services) at this site. Carnivores at this site indicate good habitat for them. That means there is food, which seems to refute the notion that it is a wasteland and “devoid of in-channel animal life”, as stated in the geomorphic analysis.
Project Modifications:
Specific comments on project modifications to EAW:
1) Page 2 of 9 of the modified project states ....”Flood plain grading and filling will be used to restore lateral connectivity to the flood plain.”. Please provide documentation that the flood plain currently lacks connectivity to the river.
2) Page 2 of 9 states that, “the Long Pond ....has very little diversity of habitat for fish and invertebrates and appears to warm stream temperatures”. Please provide documentation that DNR's assessment of habitat diversity included all plant, fish, and wildlife. My own and others' observations suggest that the Long Pond site has abundant plant and wildlife diversity. Is the DNR managing ecologically for all plant and animal species; or, for trout only?
3) Page 2 of 9 suggests MN DNR's staff contradict one another. For example, the Gary Montz and Jodene Hirsch October 2001 Macro-invertebrate Report states that “..... the invertebrate community in the Dark River is very diverse and contains taxa which are intolerant to water quality and water quantity alterations.”. Is the DNR now refuting the Montz and Hirsch report?
4) Page 3 of 9 states that the width to depth ratio will be reduced from 17 to 13, the center of the channel will be excavated to a mean depth of 2.8 feet, and the modifications will allow the stream to scour a deeper channel and deposit the sediment behind the coir logs. If the stream will self-scour as stated in the EAW, why is it necessary to excavate the channel to 2.8 feet deep with heavy equipment? This is especially contradicting, since the EAW alleges the stream bottom sediment is sand and is predicted to re-deposit behind the coir logs in the flood plain. Please provide better documentation why the project requires the use of highly invasive mid-channel excavation by heavy equipment. These activities could cause irreparable damage to the Dark River.
5) Page 5 of 9 states that “sand from the center of the channel will be excavated to a depth of 2.8 feet”. Please provide documentation of the make-up of the stream bottom at the Long Pond site. I'm not referring to the pebble count survey, but a vertical profile of the substrate at the six cross sections (XS7 to XS12). I have observed a lot of gravel, cobbles, boulder at the Long Pond site, but these features are not mentioned in the EAW. Also, please detail what you plan to do with the larger-sized material.
6) Page 5 of 9: I'm surprised at MN DNR's certainty about predicted sediment transport and behavior at project completion. To help me and others understand your expectations and closely follow the project, please provide me with: a) existing cross sectional profiles (not typical cross sections) at each of six cross sections in the Long Pond project area (XS7 to XS12), b) predicted cross sectional profiles of the same XS7 to XS12 after project completion, and c) before and after Manning's n values for each of six cross sections.
7) Page 7 of 9 states there will be a slight reduction in water temperature at the Long Pond site. Please provide historical stream temperature data and
predicted temperature cooling caused from the proposed channel narrowing at the Long Pond site.
Furthermore, DNR Project Manager Karl Kollar has stated that the Team is using the WARSSS methodology on this project. He stated that he has spoken with Dr. Dave Rosgen about the project and that Dr. Rosgen said it seemed like a good project. I sent Dr. Rosgen a few photographs taken in the Long Pond Site in the area that the Pfankuch assessment was purported to have been done and he replied with the following: “Roger, The photographs and the corresponding Pfankuch stability rating indicate a rating much worse than what appears in the photographs. The Pfankuch rating is used for sediment supply. The Bancs model predicts lateral erosion rate (in WARSSS). The mass wasting rating for example should be much lower. As a sand-bed channel, I'm sure the bed deposition rating is high, but that should be adjusted in the C5 rating. Regards, Dave”.
I conclude form Dr. Rosgen's e-mail that the numbers assigned to categories in the Pfankuch stability assessment were highly inflated to show instability and support the need for the project. I further conclude that the Team has not done the necessary work to figure out the stream. It seems that the Geomorphic Analysis (project purpose and need) is flawed at best and purposefully misleading at worst (fabricated data).
In addition, I have reviewed the Wolman Pebble Count conducted by the consultant (and included in the Geomorphic analysis). I took substrate samples in the areas where the pebble counts were conducted and had them analyzed by running gradations. The numbers do not correspond. They claim between 15 and 30 percent silt and clay. The only conclusion I can come to is that their sampling was inaccurate. A Wolman pebble count cannot determine silt and clay unless the surveyor is a soils expert. Gradations were run from samples taken above the purported Splash Dam site and the “loss in washing” through a #200 sieve was less than 1 percent. A #200 sieve is considered the smallest sand particle size.
Again, I feel a public meeting should be held; and I would appreciate the opportunity to give a presentation which contains pictorial and written evidence of all of the things contained in my comment letters. I have a 200 slide Powerpoint presentation which includes evidence such as digitally ortho-corrected aerial photos which can be overlayed to show absolute proof that the teams statements of instability are false.
Please provide the documentation that the work done in channel (at two or more places in the Long Pond Site) on 15 November 2005 was fully permitted (Corps 404 permit, etc.). Attached are pictures of the excavator in the channel reshaping the thalweg and pre-placing boulders for this project. The U.S. Forest Service states (in the Categorical Exclusion written for this work) that, “this area of the project is considered stable.” This contradicts your claims that it is not. Again, it seems that the Team uses statements such as this to support their project, then say the opposite to show a purpose and need for the project.
The project team also impacted some wetlands in the process of preparing for this project. They admitted to placing fill in wetland areas in order to get their coir logs and boulders in place to start their project. One site has an estimated 750 square feet of impact. 350 square feet more than the de-minimus impact allowed to landowners and private industry. State of MN agencies are required to follow Executive Order 91-3, no-net loss, policy.
Our best estimate to date (considering government staff time) is that well over 1 million dollars has been spent on this project.
In addition, I have attached my original 14 page comment letter for the EAW.
To: Dean Paron, Environmental Planner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR)
Subject: Dark River Restoration Project, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
I would like to submit my comments for the record on the proposed Dark River Restoration Project. I have thoroughly reviewed the project proposal and all of the supporting documentation. I have researched and investigated this project for 14 months. I have come to the conclusion that this project should be withdrawn and much of the supporting documentation should be revised or withdrawn from the public record. If this project goes forward, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required because adverse impacts will be irreversible and significant. Also, an objective third party should be brought in to do the Geomorphic Analysis, and the project given adequate outside peer review, such as the U of M NCED Group or Dave Rosgen himself.
The Project Team (Team) should operate from the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group's (FISRWG) Manual. It is comprehensive and would help the team to better understand and better plan a stream restoration. This is their first attempt at this type of restoration and the project proposers have done a poor job of supporting their project with the required documentation, analysis and evidence.
Fluvial Geomorphology is a relatively young science and much is yet to be learned. People like Luna Leopold and Dave Rosgen have done a great deal to better our understanding of river and stream systems. Dave Rosgen's work has been of significant importance to the evolution of stream restoration. His intense understanding of river systems and his ability to analyze and document these systems has given rise to a new way to deal with restoring streams. That system revolves around a natural channel design. It requires one to fully understand the stream previous of anthropogenic (man caused) disturbance. This understanding is gained through following his levels I - IV analyses. The steps in the process are in order and each element is there for a reason. Not all elements apply to every project, but in the interests of sound science, it is preferable to fully use all elements in the analysis. Picking and choosing elements from the analysis that support a pre-conceived view or to support a specific project is ill advised and shows a lack of objectivity and integrity. I propose that this is exactly what this Team has done on the Dark River. In the following comments, I will show where the Team has strayed from the science and "adjusted the data".
There are three proposed sites in this project and I will list each along with the Team's description and resulting misinterpretation of existing conditions. The existing condition of a stream reach must be fully understood and documented in order to determine any problems or formulate any prescriptions to "fix" it. The stream as a whole must be understood before implementing any restoration activities because any instream modifications can have effects both up and down stream. This is also true for the floodplain and in a larger sense, the watershed. The valley rules the stream.
I have asked that the project team attach their Geomorphic Analysis to the EAW. In response, project manager Karl Koller stated that this "stuff is too complicated for the public to understand".
For the public record, please fully and completely answer the questions I have listed at the end of each section (in bold) in my comments. The answers you give should be clear and concise. If the Dark River Project Team are experts in Fluvial Geomorphology, they should be able to answer each question to the satisfaction of anyone looking into this project. Medical doctors can relate highly complex medical problems and procedures to the "average citizen" because they are experts in their field and can thus explain them in everyday common sense terms. Please do the same. You might be surprised at just how smart some of us citizens are.
The Long Pond Site:
The Team has described this site as a Rosgen C5 type. They have claimed that it is aggrading (filing with sediment) and over wide (width to depth ratio). The Team states that this portion of the Dark River is disconnected from its floodplain. The Team's consultant, Elon Sandy Verry, made the claim in his geomorphic analysis that 400,000 to 800,000 cubic feet of sediment eroded off of a small power line right of way near the outlet of Dark Lake and choked the Dark River with sediment, causing it to become a braided channel. This theory was formed from looking at one aerial photo (dated 10 May 1992). In looking at the photos which were taken less than a minute after this particular photo, the "sediment" is gone. The Team has now distanced themselves from that claim, but it is still in the public record, as a statement of fact, supporting the need for restoration of the Dark River. This error would have been instantly recognized by anyone who read the statement and then walked the site where the purported incident occurred. That amount of erosion would have left a gully big enough to hide a Hummer H2 in. The purported erosion is not there.
This site has been described by the Team's consultant (and backed up by members of the Team and their management) as "too wide, too shallow, too warm, and too sandy to support animal life." The consultant (Elon S. Verry) also stated in the Geomorphic Analysis that, "The remaining 3,900 feet is largely devoid of in channel animal life except for terrestrial invertebrates that fall in."
I have spent quite a bit of time in the entirety of the Long Pond Site. I have observed native mussels on the sand bottomed pools (in "the remaining 3,900 feet"), stoneflies and other aquatic insects, bass, watched waterfowl, watched a Bald Eagle take a fish, and have just sat and enjoyed the beauty of this unique area with its interesting riffle/pool complexes. The bedrock outcrops that cross the river at two places in this reach make it very interesting in terms of the downstream hydraulic they create. If one were to look at the historical aerial photos dating back to 1937 (of this area) you might conclude that the long ponds are there because of those bedrock outcrops.
Can the Project Team provide any evidence that their Geomorphic Analysis of the Long Pond Site would differ in any way from the same analysis, if it were applied in 1800?
Could the Team state specifically where the channel is devoid of life?
Did the Team use the report called, "Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Dark, Sandy and Pike Rivers" by Gary Montz of the MN DNR in describing present conditions?
I didn't see the Montz report referenced in the EAW. Why not?
What reference reach was used in determining the Desired Future Condition (DFC) of this reach? The EAW uses the terms "control reach" and "reference reach". Where are the reference reaches?
Has the Team dated the sediments in this reach to determine if they were indeed deposited in the time frame they are claiming? Did you know this can be done?
The County Road (CR) 65 Site:
The CR 65 Site is an interesting stretch because it has had the most impact by human activity.
Forest Road (FR) 532 runs parallel to the river for a large portion of this reaches length. I do not know when this road was put in, but it has definitely impacted the stream's ability to meander and has also disconnected it from its floodplain in places.
The CR 65 Bridge seems to also impact the river because it constricts the stream beneath it. This has effects both up and down stream of the constriction.
It has been suggested that the bridge be replaced with a wider bridge to allow the river to maintain its own pattern and profile. The Dark River Project Team has not addressed this proposal.
There are some meander cut-offs in the reach, but this is a natural process which may have been sped up by FR 532 disconnecting the channel from its floodplain. This segment of the stream appears to have stabilized, but has measurable anthropogenic disturbances. This is the only site that could be placed in the "restoration" category. I doubt that the bridge will get replaced by a longer span and I doubt FR 532 will be removed, so there is no need to do any in channel work at this site. The river found its own equilibrium. It is there right now! Don't mess with something that is not broken. You must account for these major impacts before proposing to manipulate the stream. It is the way it is because of the things that have been done around it.
Any manipulation of the existing stabile condition should be considered carefully. To change the pattern and profile, of the new equilibrium, means that you are destabilizing the channel.
Many people fish for suckers off of the CR 65 Bridge. There are other users of the Dark River.
Can the Project Team describe the geomorphology of this reach prior to the effects of FR 532 and the CR 65 Bridge?
What reference reach was used in determining the DFC in this reach?
Again, the term and location reference reach elude me for this project. Please clarify where these are.
Specifically what problem are you proposing to fix?
The Potlatch Site:
The Potlatch Site is unique among the three sites in that it has sufficient ground water influence to mitigate the warm water from Dark Lake, creating favorable temperatures for trout. The Team contends that the stream has down-cut slightly (up to 18 inches) decades to a century ago. They say that the stream is over wide in many areas and that the floodplain is too high to function as a floodplain. Beaver dams are cited as one of the disturbances that have caused the claimed instability. Once again, the claim is that original logging (and subsequent forest management practices) created conditions for beaver to overpopulate this portion of the Dark River.
The EAW states that this site will receive root wad revetments, riffles, and single rock vanes to STABILIZE the channel and provide habitat. There is no evidence of instability. Seventy years of aerial photos have been examined closely for lateral migration and other signs of “instability” but none are evident. Historic Aerial Photos are often the best source of information in restoring the pattern and profile of a degraded stream.
Project consultant Verry states in his 2004 Geomorphic Analyses of this site that, "There are no reach long (2 meander lengths) portions that need restoration. However, there are several previous beaver dam areas just above and below the Leander Creek confluence that could be improved by removing all of the dam in channel and remaking some of the bends." This statement says two things to me. It says that the stream is in pretty good shape and that the Team believes that beaver and their dams are not good for the stream ecosystem. He goes on to say that “this reach is not in too bad of shape except for the lack of trees”.
Has this area ever had a major forest fire which denuded the landscape of trees and shrubs?
Did you perform a stability assessment of this reach? Exactly what methods and data can you provide as evidence for the claimed down-cutting?
Has the Dark River Project Team assessed the benefit of removing alder from the streambanks?
Stability:
In order to determine the stability of a stream, one must evaluate several factors. These factors include: change in stream flow, sediment regime, land use within the watershed, and direct disturbances. Dave Rosgen says that different stream types react differently to natural or imposed disturbances. He further states that, "the ability to characterize these responses and the associated physical effects by stream type is important to: (a) assess past impacts, (b) anticipate future consequences, (c) evaluate the potential for natural recovery, (d) determine the evolutionary stages of channel adjustment, (e) determine the feasibility of restoration, and (f) develop restoration designs that accommodate the functioning of a systems natural stable tendencies."
In a level III Rosgen assessment of a stream, the intention is to describe the stream's present condition as it relates to stream stability, potential and function. The objective of this analysis is to: (1) develop a quantitative basis for comparing streams having similar morphologies, but which are in different states or condition, (2) Describe the natural potential stability of a stream, as contrasted with its existing condition, (3) Determine the departure of a streams existing condition from a reference baseline, (4) provide guidelines for documenting and evaluating additional field parameters that influence stream state (e.g., flow regime, stream size, sediment supply, channel stability, bank erodibility and direct channel disturbances), (5) provide a framework for integrating companion studies (e.g., fish habitat indices, and composition and density of riparian vegetation), (6) develop and/or refine channel stability prediction methods, (7) provide the basis for level IV validation sampling and data analyses.
Dave Rosgen further states that, "To determine the actual stability of a stream, data must be collected in a Rosgen Level III analysis. A stability index value from a Level III Pfankuch merely serves as a `red flag' or warning. Attempts to shortcut Level III analysis can lead to misinterpretations and easily result in destabilized channels in a restoration effort." Level III analysis includes: stream flow measurements, sediment analysis, and stream stability validation.
In looking at the Pfankuch Stability index prepared by the Project Team's consultant, I have come up with many questions. Many of the numbers assigned to the 15 areas that are rated defy logic and fall well out of reach of the conditions as observed on the ground. Some of the numbers are rated at the highest possible number in the index, showing great instability. It has been stated by the Team that the numbers were "adjusted" to reflect lateral instability. They say that the evaluation doesn't allow for showing accurately the level of lateral instability. While this might be slightly true, there are methods in Dave Rosgen's methodologies that will give you the evidence of instability. These methods include a Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI) and a Near-Bank Stress index. The team states that they will estimate these in the near future. This is not the way to go about this process.
How did you determine the aggrading condition at the Long Pond and CR 65 sites?
Anything short of a method used to determine this condition over time is not valid. Aggrading is a process that takes place over time and should therefore be measured over time. This will result in evidence to support or refute a claim of instability due to an aggrading situation. This condition also requires a load of sediment to be deposited in the channel.
Where is the sediment coming from?
Has the Team determined where the sediment they propose to scour out of the channel will end up?
Will it end up in a pool downstream?
Will it cover a trout spawning area?
This project seems to be designed solely to "enhance" trout habitat. This "enhancement", if implemented, will take place at the expense of the current stability of the stream and habitat currently occupied by species other than trout.
If what the Team is proposing to do is "stabilize the stream", why are structures being installed to divert water, and then the banks opposite the structure need to be armored against erosion?
Trapping:
This project has incorporated a trapping program in an effort to eradicate beaver from the Dark River. This effort has taken place for many years (reportedly since 1999). The numbers of beaver trapped per year seems to remain consistent which would indicate that habitat availability and suitability is fairly good for beaver. The number of beaver reportedly trapped by USDA Wildlife Services in the Dark River is approximately 140.
The question of non-target species trapped in this effort seems to have been skirted to some extent and there are conflicting reports. I have heard that many otter and muskrats have been taken as well as a Mallard or two.
Why didn't the EAW mention take of non-target species?
Please list all take that has occurred on this project.
Since 1999 the average number of beaver trapped off of the Dark River by USDA Wildlife Services is 18. The most trapped in a year has been 25. Up to 25% of these may have been taken outside of the normal trapping season.
It has been stated that beaver dams on the Dark River are generally not large enough to impound water to attract nesting waterfowl or other animals. I have video of pairs of ducks in the Long Pond Site with on-screen GPS coordinates. The wide nature of the long ponds are not due to beaver dams. There are other species that use the area and would be impacted by narrowing the channel.
What has been done with the carcasses and or furs of the beaver as well as the non target species?
How many more creelable trout has Dark River produced because of your trapping effort? What is the cost of the trapping effort? What is the resulting cost per pound of trout?
What decreased functions can you cite that are due to Beaver?
How did you determine there were too many Beaver?
Does fire lead to succession in a forest? Doesn't this also favor beaver?
Did the Team analyze the impact of the tornado of 1969?
Cumulative Impacts:
No cumulative impacts associated with the project are reported in the EAW.
The work done in channel with the excavator to "knock down" riffles and pre-place boulders for rock vanes and in channel structures should be considered cumulative.
The Team refers to the work they did in the channel as "riffle knock downs" when asking the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to comment on their project, but refers to the areas they "knocked down" as (historical logging)"Splash Dams" when attempting to show anthropogenic disturbance of the stream.
Did the EAW mislead SHPO with a word semantics game? Please clarify for the public record, are they historical splash dams SHPO should know about; or merely riffles?
Please state for the public record exactly where and how many "splash dams" you have found and what their current status is.
Are there any records, or has anyone ever heard of someone raising riffles on the Dark River to improve fish habitat?
Could you state specifically what was done during the "splash dam removal"?
Was this activity fully permitted?
Does the Team fully comprehend and acknowledge the rules, regulations, policies and permit process for this type of activity?
The building up of the road on the Potlatch site and the installation and subsequent removal of the culvert should also be considered. The road was improved to access a staging area where the Team has stockpiled logs and boulders.
Does Potlatch know what was done on their property?
Desired Future Conditions (DFC):
Desired Future Condition is a very important element of any restoration plan. I can sum up the DFC of the project proposers with one sentence extracted from their EAW. That sentence reads, "After project completion, a new equilibrium may eventually result, but not before adjustments in channel form have occurred." This statement conflicts with a previous statement in the EAW that "self recovery from perturbations could take years". They are saying that the stream is unstable and may stabilize after their project is completed. They also acknowledge that the stream, if left alone, will stabilize itself.
They claim to have "ample evidence" to show these perturbations and the resulting instability, but have failed to show the evidence.
The Team states that they may need to make adjustments to their proposed modification if implemented. This does not seem like a sound approach to restoration. One should be relatively comfortable in knowing that what they propose to do is going to fix the problem.
Did the Team use a reference reach from a similar stream type in pristine condition in an adjacent watershed to help them in determining the DFC?
Has the Team analyzed the difference in valley types of the Dark River in the sites they have proposed for "restoration"?
Temperature:
Adult brook trout display an upper limit to sustained habitat temperatures that is around 24 degrees Celsius (19 C for spawning), beyond which the temperature becomes problematic and possibly fatal. Trout can tolerate spikes in temperature to and above this limit as long as the duration is not sustained for more than 24 hours. During these spikes, trout seek refuge where they can. The project team has stated that portions of the project area are, "….too warm…..to support in channel animal life".
In reviewing the incomplete temperature data set supplied by a team member, one comes to the conclusion that there are periods when the water leaving Dark Lake exceeds tolerance limits for adult trout in the long pond and CR 65 sites. At the Potlatch site there seems to be sufficient groundwater inflow to reduce temperatures and maintain suitable trout habitat conditions.
The temperature data clearly indicates that the problem is not due to channel morphology or beaver dams, but is due to the temperature of the water leaving Dark Lake.
Dark Lake is a natural water body in the headwaters of the Dark River. At the outlet of Dark Lake, it is mostly surface waters that enter the Dark River. These waters are from the upper-most (and therefore warmest) layer of the lake.
Temperature increases through insolation are primarily a linear function of exposed surface area. Dark Lake is approximately 250 acres in surface area. The combined surface area of the Long Pond and CR 65 sites is less than 5 acres. Even if the project resulted in halving the in channel surface area exposed to sunlight, it would only mean a 0.5% reduction of the insolation factor. The point is that the water temperatures in this portion of the project are naturally occurring and not anthropogenic or caused by beaver dams. Effecting a significant change in temperatures, even if possible, would not constitute a restoration.
In many stream and wildlife assessment techniques, it is has been found that certain life history requirements are recognized as ultimate limitations. Stream temperatures can be considered such a factor for trout.
At night in this area, the air temperatures are documented to drop below that of the water temperatures. This would create a radiator like effect that would help to cool a wider, shallower, slower moving stream. This effect would be removed by narrowing the channel. A narrower channel would push warmer water further and faster downstream.
How does the Team intend to lower the temperature of Dark Lake, since the lake is the biggest driver in Dark River stream temperatures?
Has the Team considered all of the effects that their proposed "fix" might have?
Splash Dams:
The notion of a splash dam, or multiple splash dams, ever being built or used on the Dark River is not based in reality. Floating log rafts or individual logs down the Dark using augmented flows provided by splash dams would have been, and still would be, an exercise in futility. Logging companies and the cruisers who set up these splash dams were not foolish. They had strict requirements for a stream to be "drivable". Many conditions had to be met in order for a stream to be deemed "drivable". It had to be cost effective. The stream had to be relatively straight and free of obstructions. If the cost analysis showed that over land transport would be more expensive than straightening the stream and removing obstructions, then that option would be looked into. This was never the case on the Dark River.
The sinuosity and structure of the Dark River are such that driving a single 8 foot log, with augmented flows, would be extremely labor intensive and costly. Bedrock outcrops in the Long Pond Site, which act as downstream hydraulics during extreme flows (possibly from when the glaciers receded), precipitated out the huge boulders which are still present today at these sites. These bedrock outcrops would have been the best possible places to construct splash dams, but the Project Team claimed that the splash dams were built elsewhere.
In looking at the claimed sites of the splash dams (3), there is no evidence of there ever being such an activity. The claimed sites would have been impossible to "tie in" (anchor the dam to the shore on both sides) the dams to make them effective. There are no rock piles or structures that could have even approximated a splash dam. There are, however, two piles of cobble in the Long Pond Site where it appears that someone has recently gone in with an excavator and reshaped the thalweg and channel. It also appears as though someone has pre-positioned some boulders in horseshoe shapes in areas that are being proposed for structures of that shape.
For the public record, did the Team move or place boulders in the channel?
There is evidence in the Long Pond Site of the channel and riparian zone being re-shaped.
Did the Team place fill in the channel or riparian zone to reshape it?
All of this and there is a map showing a rail spur of the Vermillion Logging Company that crossed the Dark River at what is now the CR 65 crossing. This spur connected to the main line which ran to Virginia, MN which had the largest white pine mill in North America at the time. Splash dams on the Dark River never happened.
Does the Project Team have any evidence that a splash dam was ever built or was ever attempted to be built on the Dark River?
Please be specific in telling what fill, rocks, cobbles and boulders were placed where and why they were placed there.
Floodplain Stability:
The project team states that the floodplain is too high in many areas and proposes to cut and fill these areas to give them a more uniform shape. They claim that the instability of the floodplain is due to historical logging and avulsions from beaver dams.
As stated earlier, there were no log rafting operations on the Dark River. Avulsions from beaver dams (and fallen trees) are naturally occurring processes which create habitat and diversity in the floodplain. A homogeneous floodplain may be more aesthetically pleasing to a fishery biologist or easier to navigate for a trout fisherman, but lack the diversity of habitat for all of the critters that use these spaces and have evolved with the beaver and this cycle.
Have you mapped the ground water inflows in order to avoid disrupting them with your proposed manipulation of the floodplain and installation of coir logs? I have mapped the inflows and it does seem that you are proposing to impact these inflows.
Have you determined what effect this will have on temperatures when the hydrology is disrupted?
Has the Project Team mapped the groundwater inflows? Where are they? The EAW should have indicated these, since stream temperatures drive this project's ability to produce trout.
The floodplain is not "too high" or "too low" to function as a floodplain. It is called topography. Things change in a river system, naturally, and have since before man was able to make a measurable impact. It is a fluid environment.
Impacts to other Species:
The project team seems to be only interested in trout. There happen to be many other species in the Dark River that will be impacted by the proposed project.
The Northern Brook Lamprey is a Regional Foresters Species of Concern for the Superior National Forest and is present in the Potlatch Site.
Has the Team determined if impacts to the Northern Brook Lamprey will occur?
The Canada Lynx is a listed Federal Endangered Species and is present in the project area. I have seen Lynx tracks, in the snow, on the ice, of Dark River in the Potlatch site last winter when I was mapping the groundwater inflows. A resident of Dark Lake has seen an adult Lynx in their yard in full daylight at less than 25 yards.
Does the USFWS need to be consulted with concern to the endangered species impacts? It was not evident in the EAW that a biological consultation with the USFWS was being considered.
There are native mussels in the Long pond site and require the sand that is present in the channel for their habitat. The mussels are filter feeders and an indicator species as to the health of the system.
Has the Team surveyed for the Northern Creek Heelsplitter or any other mussels?
My review of past fish surveys in the Dark River show that Northern Pike have been found in most reaches.
Did your most recent surveys by the Project team indicate abundant Northern Pike? Does this indicate that the water is too warm in most of the river for trout, and that it will never be "high quality trout habitat"?
Don't Northern Pike eat Trout?
Are Brook Trout native to this river? People have said that Brook and Brown Trout were introduced to this stream by man in the early 1900's. Are beaver native to this stream?
In reviewing the MN DNR's website I found Operational Order 113, which lays out policies and procedures regarding invasive species for all of the MN DNR's bureaus. It basically says that if you disturb a "high quality" site, that you must sterilize your equipment prior to working in that area. I did not see your sterilization plan included in the EAW. The Dark River has some very high quality riparian areas with no exotics or invasives present. As noted above, the project will also affect the hydrology (groundwater inputs). This is contrary to DNR Operational Order #113.
What are you going to do to prevent the introduction of Reed Canary Grass and other invasives into the riparian zone and follow Operational Order #113?
Woody Debris:
Adding woody debris to a C5 type stream can have negative consequences. The presence of large woody debris in a stream can change slope, affect potential and kinetic energy, shift boundary shear stress, create extremes of velocity, and directly influence sediment storage. Riffle/Pool streams such as C3 - C6 can be adversely affected by the introduction of woody debris.
The Team has stated that there is too much Aspen in the area due to historical logging. The team has, in the past, gone out and removed alder and aspen from the stream banks. They then planted a host of other tree species in an attempt to hurry along succession in order to make habitat less suitable for the Beaver.
Is the team aware that Dave Rosgen recommends alder as one of the species to help stabilize the banks of a C5 stream type?
There is now and has been for a long time a lot of large woody debris and coarse woody debris in the channel of the Dark River. Quantifying that amount is supposed to be going on, but what will the team use as a baseline to determine what the right amount to add will be? It is possible to determine that outside of using the trial and error method.
How did the Team quantify the amount of woody debris in the Dark River? What methods?
How did the Team determine the right amount for each site on the Dark River?
Reference Reach:
A reference reach of the same type, in pristine condition, in an adjacent watershed should be used to help in determining DFC. The Dark River has several valley types. Each valley type creates different circumstances for the streams that flow through them. The slopes of the different valley types in the Dark River Basin vary greatly and therefore a reference reach from one area should not be applied to another without ensuring the valley type and other factors are similar. Do not compare apples and oranges.
For the public record, please list the reference reaches used in each instance of proposed restoration. Be specific. Give UTM's or make a map.
Has the Team used the available soil type maps to help differentiate valley types?
Cost:
It has always been my belief that if something has a uniquely "bad smell" to it that you can follow the money and find the truth. I have made several attempts to do so.
Many numbers have been offered as to the cost of this project or portions of it. The latest number I have (for just the money paid to the consultant for the 2004 Geomorphic Analysis) is $60,000. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation paid $15,000 and the MNDNR paid $45,000. It was reported that the trapping effort on Dark River by USDA Wildlife Services cost to the MNDNR in 2006 was $2723.00 and in 2005 was $2488.00. These numbers were apparently given by MN DNR's Ron Payer. No other numbers were provided. Using $2500 as a low estimate per year, eight years of trapping has cost the state somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000. This seems like a low number considering the Federal salary paid to the trapper as well as the equipment and other associated expenses.
How much has been spent on this program since 1999? Do the costs include the salaries of the USDA Wildlife Services trappers?
How much will be spent on the research portion of this project?
What specific questions are being answered by this research?
Can the Team demonstrate that this expenditure has in any way (or will in any way) benefited Brook Trout or the stability of the Dark River? It is possible to show the evidence if one has done the work properly.
For the Public Record, what has been the cost of this project to date for the MN DNR? What is the projected future cost? What is the total cost? How many trout will this project produce above what would be there without the project?
Was this project peer reviewed by anyone? Please list the reviewers.
Conclusion:
This project does not constitute a restoration. It is an ill-advised, heavy-handed management proposal developed through the use of data selected to support someone's pre-conceived vision of the stream. The Geomorphic Analysis is inaccurate and incomplete. This project seems to be purely driven by people interested in maximizing trout production at the expense of the stability of the river and all of the other flora and fauna in the aquatic and riparian zone.
The notion that restoring "slightly" degraded streams is more beneficial than restoring "highly" degraded streams defies reason. When has this ever been done? It has never been done. Enough said.
If it is the goal of the team to raise trout for Trout Unlimited (a Team member), it might have been cheaper to construct some raceways in back of the DNR building in Grand Rapids and let the fisheries staff raise them. It would even be cheaper to call the Genoa National Fish Hatchery and ask them to raise and deliver a couple thousand Brook Trout a year. They are doing a great job with the Coaster Brookies.
Mutualism is the word that comes to mind when stepping back and asking, "How could this whole team go this far down this road?" I guess the better question is, "How did management allow this team to go this far down this road?" The science involved can be a bit confusing, and it is relatively easy for an expert in this field to "buffalo" someone who has no working knowledge of Fluvial Geomorphology, but anyone critically reading this EAW should come to the conclusion that this project is devoid of evidence and reason. The words could, would, may, possibly and appears are used quite often and indicate that the hard work of obtaining the evidence and fully understanding the stream has not been done.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. It has been interesting and I have learned a lot. I hope you will consider my comments when further pursuing this project. I intend to watch this project as will many of the concerned citizens who have encouraged me along the way.
The Team has yet to answer any of these questions or provide any evidence or answers contrary to the statements listed in these comments.
I suggest these questions get answered satisfactorily before considering issuance of any permits.
Sincerely,
Roger M. Marks
512 Mueller Ave.
Buhl, MN 55713
