Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project 1

Letter- Comment Number Date Received Name/ Address Comment Response 1-1 2/7/2012 Bob Maurer 85 Blackmarr Rd. NE No comments N/A 2-1 2/8/2012 Judy Blackmarr 89 Blackmarr Rd. NE 2-2 2/8/2012 Judy Blackmarr 89 Blackmarr Rd. NE 2-3 2/8/2012 Judy Blackmarr 89 Blackmarr Rd. NE "I have lived on the lake for 37 years (since 1975) and have watched the lake rise and fall. Although we have experienced low water levels, we have managed to keep our present dock and still navigate our pontoon. Last early summer was the lowest level and we barely were able to bring the pontoon onto the shore station. I would not want the lake level that low." "The next problem is the amount of shoreline heave. The lake level was lower this fall yet the amount of heave was one of the highest ever. I'm not sure what the answer to that is." "Lastly, in the 70s & 80s we enjoyed excellent catches of walleyes. Only lately does this seem to have improved from the decline in the last 15-20 years." The Chippewa National Forest (CNF) understands the potential effects of lower water on lake access, but some landowners may have options to mitigate lake access concerns (see response to Comment 5-1). Last summer may not have been the lowest the lake has been since 1975. Past and more recent hydrologic surveys indicate that lake level was lower in the late 1970s than it is was in the summer of 2011. Some long-time residents on the lake recall stop logs being removed from the dam below the top of the center pier, indicating lake levels were managed lower than they have been recently. This along with abnormally mild winter temperatures explains why ice heave appears high this year as compared to the past. See the response to Comment 2-1. Trends in relative walleye abundance, indexed by gill net catch rates, are currently similar to those from the 1970 s. Gill net catch rates (year surveyed) of walleye were 6.80 (1970), 7.25 (1973), and 5.17 (1978) fish/net. Assessments in 1978, 1983, and 1987 documented a decline in numbers of walleyes sampled from gill nets from a historical high of 7.25 fish/net (1973) to a historical low of 2.00 fish/net in 1987. Subsequent surveys conducted in 1990, 1994, and 2000 showed a steady increase in the number of walleye sampled to record high of 7.58 fish/gill net in Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project 1

2-4 2/8/2012 Judy Blackmarr 89 Blackmarr Rd. NE 2-5 2/8/2012 Judy Blackmarr 89 Blackmarr Rd. NE "I am concerned that these changes in the dam may negatively affect our walleye population." "I request that all agencies monitor all these factors spring, summer, and fall." (referencing comments 2-1 through 2-4) 2000, which was similar to the catch of 7.25 per net in 1973. Average gill net catch rate over 10 assessments since 1943 is 4.88 fish/net. The variability in walleye numbers over the years is due to a combination of natural population variation, usually in recruitment, and harvest by anglers. Fluctuations such as those observed in Portage Lake occur frequently in stocked and non-stocked populations. Portage Lake has been stocked with walleye frequently since 1945. The lake is currently stocked with walleye fingerlings at 2 pounds/littoral acre (approximately 25,000 fish, based on size) during even numbered years (MN DNR, 2012). There is no evidence to suggest that this project would negatively affect the walleye population in Portage Lake. Conversely, the Portage Lake walleye population is expected to benefit from the proposed dam removal. During April 2011, walleye were sampled while attempting to immigrate into Portage Lake from Leech Lake and this movement was suspected to be associated with spawning. Significant walleye runs in Portage Creek were noted in MN DNR fisheries survey reports from 1973 and 1983. Removing this barrier will enable some of these fish to immigrate into the lake and seek suitable spawning habitat. Furthermore, MN DNR Fisheries will continue to monitor sport fish populations by conducting population assessments every seven years. A preproject special assessment is also tentatively planned for July 2012 (MN DNR, 2012). Monitoring started in 2008 and would continue throughout years after proposed activities are completed. Lakeshore owners have already been involved in collecting lake level data will likely continue to into the foreseeable future. They may also assist with fish sampling and 2 Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project

3-1 2/11/2012 Howard Zeman 62787 Jeremy Rd. Montorse, CO 81401 3-2 2/11/2012 Howard Zeman 62787 Jeremy Rd. Montorse, CO 81401 3-3 2/11/2012 Howard Zeman 62787 Jeremy Rd. Montorse, CO 81401 The existing Soo Line Trail allows for passage of vehicles larger than snowmobiles and ATVs. We hope the bridge or a large bottomless arch culvert that is proposed will allow for this to continue. The commenter would like to be notified of the project start date. We would like to watch / be aware of trail closure during construction. The recreational fisheries of Portage Lake needs to maintained or enhanced by this project. other monitoring efforts if there is interest. The portion of the Soo Line Trail you reference is currently under jurisdiction of the CNF per Cass County Ordinance No. 2010-02. A CNF decision notice signed in 1988 restricted motorized use of the trail portion from Cass Lake, MN to Federal Dam to only snowmobiles and ATVs. The proposed bridge or culvert would continue to allow that use. All lakeshore owners will be contacted and a public announcement will be made prior to starting the project. See responses to comments 2-4 and 4-8 All species of sport fish are expected to benefit from this project because of anticipated improvements to aquatic vegetation by returning to lower and more natural hydrologic cycles and restored connectivity of Portage and Leech lakes. The importance of connectivity to fish populations has been well documented, and significant funding is spent on restoration efforts at the state and federal levels throughout the US each year. While research has focused on fish populations in large rivers where habitat degradation, hydrological manipulation, and disconnection of rivers and their floodplains are most severe, maintaining connectivity at small scales, such as Portage Creek providing an approximate 2.5-mile connection between two lakes, carries local importance. Unhindered movement of fishes between two systems facilitates natural re-establishment of populations following local extirpation (eg. after a winterkill event). From a population perspective, Portage Lake fish populations are expected to benefit most from this project as movement of some fish into Portage Lake Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project 3

3-4 2/11/2012 Howard Zeman 62787 Jeremy Rd. Montorse, CO 81401 4-1 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-2 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-3 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-4 3/2/2012 Don Selby Once the project is finished we recommend a monitoring plan be adopted Landowners could be contacted to assist with the monitoring plan. Our primary concern is the loss of property and the work required to maintain the shoreline due to shoreline heaves. We believe this can be minimized by lower water levels than the current and recent winter water levels. If we could find a way to avoid shoreline heaves for our property, we would be less concerned about higher water levels. We would appreciate statements made by those maintaining the dam in the 1970 s and 80 s be taken into account related to the water level. When all the long boards and some of the short boards were taken out in the fall each year, there was no heaving. We would not support a summer pool level that continues to cause shoreline erosion If the structure cleans itself with heavy rains and spring runoff we have no concern. However, if the structure due to the lack of water flow builds up with vegetation or becomes a spot that beavers focus on for building dams and in either case causes the water level to rise higher than expected, we expect the Forest Service to clean it out and keep it cleaned out prior to (1,538-acres) from Leech Lake (111,587- acres) will facilitate genetic exchange and enhanced diversity. The importance of genetic drift increases with decreasing population sizes. That is, the contribution of only a few fish in smaller systems with smaller total population sizes (total number) is proportionately greater than it would be in a large system. Thus, no effects, beneficial or adverse, are expected for Leech Lake fish populations because of its size (MN DNR, 2012). See the response to Comment 2-5. The CNF agrees that lower water levels would help minimize shoreline erosion. Local, State, and Federal governments may also be able to assist lakeshore owners with additional ways to protect their shoreline. The statements you mention have been recorded in the project record and will be considered in a final decision. Thank you for your comment. In the event vegetation, debris, or beaver are negatively affecting lake level, the CNF would remove material and trap beaver accordingly. 4 Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project

4-5 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-6 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-7 3/2/2012 Don Selby winter freeze up of the lake each year. We have experience on Coon Lake where shoreline heaves created during drought years caused the water to raise higher than what the dam was maintaining in non-drought years. In that case the heave was about 60 yards lake ward of the dam It took the drought years of 76 and 11 years later in 87 to cause a noticeable impact. The lack of maintenance led to a fight over the new normal water level of the lake. We would like to avoid a recurrence of that experience. In Portage Lake s case, we believe that could happen at the beginning of Portage Creek where the lake shoreline ends. Based on the proposed water level, I do not expect that area to be navigable in a canoe as it has been the past few years (some years a boat). In the last 5 years, the area has become heavily choked with muck and a very thick wild rice stand. At what lake level would beaver dams downstream or upstream of the dam causing Portage Lake water level to rise be considered an issue where action would be taken by the Forest Service? We are used to seeing water levels fluctuate and do not expect a lake to be at a consistent level, especially ones like Portage that have a relatively small watershed area for the size of the lake. We believe that will be very helpful for Portage Lake. The lack of cattails around this lake has puzzled us, and where there are a few such as in front of our property they have been reduced by 66% +/- in the last 6 years. We believe they have been impacted by the Not being familiar with all of the details leading to the issues you mention at Coon Lake, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons with would occur at the outlet of Portage Lake under the proposed action. Removing the dam and replacing it with rock rapids set at a lower elevation will increase the channel bed slope and capacity to move water. The first few big storms and spring run-off events would remove excess sediment that deposited at the outlet due to years of backwater from the dam. Also, Portage Lake watershed is strongly groundwater fed. It is not likely that the channel would ever go dry except during periods of extreme drought. The CNF has been monitoring beaver activity and water levels on Portage Lake and will continue to do so following implementation of the proposed action. Conditions that pose a hazard to public safety or property, affect proper functioning of water control structures, or detrimentally impact natural resources would take priority. That being said, adjacent landowners are always encouraged to contact the CNF with any issues, comments, or concerns. The CNF agrees that water levels maintained by the current dam have contributed to lakeshore erosion and loss of aquatic vegetation in portions of the lake. Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project 5

4-8 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-9 3/2/2012 Don Selby 4-10 3/2/2012 Don Selby abnormally high water erosion in the summer, compression/heaves in the winter. We support a lower year round water level. Seeing the pictures of the erosion that has occurred at Sunset Resort from the 1970 s until now is very sad. I am curious what the experts would have to say as to how that erosion has impacted fish spawning, especially the fish that depend on sand beds. We would much rather build/maintain a longer dock then repair ice ridges. Based on statements by those who maintain the dam in the 70 s and 80 s there was very little if any shoreline heave problems. The boards in the dam were routinely taken out in the fall below 1297.6 (top of the stop logs in 1939). Shoreline heaves appear to be a relatively recent phenomenon, basically occurring when the dam stopped being maintained and/or there was high water due to beavers clogging the dam or downstream from the dam making the dam in effective. The commenter mentions the following as an alternative to the proposed action: Put a plan together for a structure that can be maintained similar to the way it was managed in the 70 s and 80 s. Something along the lines of: The proposed rock structure Minimum structure that allows for a minimum number of boards at the top weir that can be put in place after the spawning season has completed. Sand beds without emergent vegetation, such as hard stem bulrush and bur-reed, do not provide good spawning habitat. Walleyes prefer gravel substrate in shallow water. Bluegills, largemouth bass, and black crappie prefer firm bottom with a mix of emergent and submergent vegetation. Few, if any fish spawn successfully on barren sand. Aquatic vegetation does benefit from overall lower water levels and also from the natural seasonal variation in water levels. Removal of the dam and returning to a natural hydrologic cycle would benefit aquatic vegetation through both of these modes, which in turn will provide more suitable habitat for fish populations (MN DNR, 2012). Thank you for your comment. The CNF has considered an alternative similar to that which you mention; however it did not meet the purpose and need of the project to restore fish passage. A weir structure that allows for placement or removal of boards, much like the current structure, would not meet the passage needs for the range of aquatic species and size classes of interest. Both fish and invertebrates move up and downstream throughout the year, not just during spawning season. 6 Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project

5-1 3/7/2012 Betty Blossum 291 E. 1225 N Chesterton, IN 46304 Expectation setting of what the level will be in normal years Expectation setting of what the level would be in drought years Managed by the National Forest Service or the creation of a WMO (basically the lake shore owners) to manage the level. If Portage Lake water levels, during the summer months, are lowered to the point that it negatively affects the launching and docking a land owners water-craft what are the land owners options? Can we dredge the bottom next to our dock? What rules/permits/policies exist that relate to a private landowner s dredging or digging out around their dock, in order to facilitate normal use of their watercraft? Are there any local, State, or Federal programs that would provide assistance with dredging? If Portage Lake water level is lowered to the point that limits launching and docking of riparian land-owners watercraft, the first option would be to add additional dock sections and/or a longer dock to reach a navigable depth. This would suffice for many if not all properties, but those with inland harbors, for example, may find it difficult to access the lake and may be allowed excavation of an access channel to a navigable depth with permit. In almost all cases dredging next to an individual dock would not be allowed if additional dock length would allow an individual access to a navigable depth. I do not believe there is any funding available for excavation for private purposes as it is generally directed to projects that serve public recreation and/or transit (Hoverson, 2012). References MN DNR. 2012. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Walker, MN. Email correspondence. Hoverson, Darrin. 2012. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Area Hydrologist, Park Rapids, MN. Email correspondence. Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project 7

The following includes questions raised since the Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project began in 2009. Responses that follow include those of both the FS and DNR. 1. If the dam were replaced with a fish passage structure could fish that move into the lake from Leech Lake get back downstream? Fish currently move downstream and would continue to do even with low water. Fish can easily make the small jump over the stop logs on the upstream side of the dam and follow the current through the culverts downstream. This would not change if the dam was replaced with a step-pool rock structure (FS). 2. Is there an increased risk of introducing invasive species from Leech Lake if the dam was replaced with a fish passage structure? No. Most invasive species are transferred from an infested lake to un-infested lake by boaters. It is very important that boaters take the necessary precautions of draining live wells and bilges and removing aquatic plants from boats and trailers as they leave a lake. Rusty crayfish are capable of getting over or around the dam in its current configuration. Invasive plants, such as Eurasian water milfoil and curly leaf pondweed would be transferred from boat trailers or boats. Fish species of concern are blocked by dams from Winnibigoshish on down the Mississippi River (DNR Fisheries Division - Walker). 3. Is there sufficient habitat in the lake to support the range of fish species that may migrate from Leech Lake and spawn in Portage Lake? There will not be a large influx, or exodus, of fish from Portage Lake. Fish populations will likely remain within their historic ranges. Muskellunge may move up into Portage Lake where they may provide additional angling opportunities (DNR Fisheries Division - Walker). 4. Would there be effects on the lake's fishery if species such as muskie, which has not been found in recent surveys, were to migrate in from Leech Lake? There are no firm historical records of muskies in Portage Lake; however there is anecdotal evidence that these fish were present in Portage Lake prior to construction of the dam. Muskies would have little impact on the fish community and the impacts would likely be positive (DNR Fisheries Division - Walker). 5. If the lake was reconnected with Leech Lake would fish harvest regulations on Leech Lake be extended to Portage Lake? No. Portage Lake is managed independently from Leech Lake. In addition, Portage Lake is not connected to Leech Lake by a channel navigable by larger boats that would have the ability to move between the two bodies of water (DNR Fisheries Division - Walker). 6. Beaver are a major problem along the length of Portage Creek, and not just at the dam and culverts. We need a strategic plan to deal with beaver throughout the area to support a fish passage project at the dam. 8 Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project

The Forest Service is committed to managing its water crossing structures. This means monitoring them from year to year for beaver activity and addressing issues as they arise. It is not likely that future beaver dams downstream of the crossings on the channel would be removed, unless they pose an immediate hazard to public safety or property or are having detrimental impacts on natural resources. Beaver have always been a driver of natural disturbance in aquatic ecosystems in northern Minnesota well before the first arrival of settlers to the area. It's where conflicts arise between land use and beaver that the FS is focusing its efforts. This may involve beaver management or altering its own land use management methods to work with them (FS). 7. Eyewitnesses have seen individuals placing material in the culvert downstream of the dam in a manner that appears to have the intent of plugging flow in the channel. Law enforcement has been contacted and made aware of the suspicious activity. Concerned publics around the area should continue to document and report any future activity of this nature to the Walker District office at 218-547-1044 (FS). 8. Will removing the dam affect water levels on Leech Lake? No. Leech Lake is such a large volume of water, that the small addition from Portage Lake would be negligible in terms of lake level. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) currently manages Leech Lake at Federal Dam, and that is not likely to change for the foreseeable future (FS). 9. If the spaces between the rocks at the riffle structure fill in with vegetation or debris over time or beaver dam it up, who will clean it out if it begins to affect lake level? The spaces may fill in with material over time; however it's typically washed out with the next big storm. In the event vegetation, debris, or beaver are affecting lake level, the FS would remove material or trap beaver accordingly (FS). 10. Some landowners believe that lake level has been too high in recent years, increasing the frequency and amount of shoreline erosion due to wave action and ice heave. They feel lower lake levels will reduce the impact. Looking at the original dam designs and the MDNR hydrologic survey in 1975, it does appear that sometime after 1975, the run-out elevation (elevation of the top stop logs in the dam) was intentionally or unintentionally raised about 1 foot higher than the design elevation. The fact that these stop logs lay on top of the center pier covering both stop log bays in the structure also indicate it was being managed higher than the original design specifications. 11. The connection between water levels and ice heave on the lake is difficult to determine with any certainty. Lower water levels may reduce ice heave in some years but not all. There are a number of factors beyond water levels that dictate the frequency and amount of ice heave on a lake from year to year such as temperature, snow pack, lake Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project 9

ice thickness and structural integrity, frequency of freeze-thaw events, wind speed and direction, frequency of wind events, and shoreline and aquatic vegetation (FS). There is a range of feelings about how high is too high/how low is too low, and how much of a rise and fall in lake levels over the year is appropriate. 12. The FS recognizes the difficulty in managing lake levels with differing public opinions on the subject. The FS strives to make land management decisions that address most but rarely all natural resource and public needs (FS). Some landowners feel the water needs to be high enough through the spring and summer to dock and launch watercraft, but it also needs to be drawn down in the fall to reduce ice heave in the winter. They feel that the structure proposed would not meet these needs. Rock rapids structures are designed to allow for natural draw down from summer pool levels. The top of large boulders in the first weir of the structure are set at an elevation that manages the summer pool on the lake. There are spaces in between the large boulders that would allow for natural drawdown through the fall and into the winter (FS). 10 Categorical Exclusion Portage Lake Aquatic Organism Passage Project