P. 1
Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection (306-star07-07)

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection (306-star07-07)

|Views: 40|Likes:
The purpose of this project was to begin a pilot program that would seek to
identify sensitive areas of lakes in Cook County, so that these portions of lakes
could become candidates for a more restrictive classification system.
The purpose of this project was to begin a pilot program that would seek to
identify sensitive areas of lakes in Cook County, so that these portions of lakes
could become candidates for a more restrictive classification system.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program on Apr 16, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/16/2010

pdf

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection
Author’s Name and Affiliation: Tristan Beaster, Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District

Date of Completion: May 31, 2008

Project No. 306-STAR07-07 Contract No. B08882

This project was funded in part under the Coastal Zone Management Act, by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in cooperation with Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program. The State of Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided additional cash and staff contributions.

Cook County

Soil & Water Conservation District

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection
♦ Introduction

– Not all lakes can withstand the same intensity of impacts from human activities. In an effort to address this reality, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources classified lakes in 1976 based on factors such as lake area, depth, and shoreline: surface area ratio. The resulting classifications govern local land use practices on lakes. A significant disadvantage of this classification system is that it applies one class to an entire lake, without taking into account different environmental conditions that exist along the shore of the lake. The purpose of this project was to begin a pilot program that would seek to identify sensitive areas of lakes in Cook County, so that these portions of lakes could become candidates for a more restrictive classification system. The goal is to protect especially sensitive lakeshore environments. ♦ Work Completed – The project was conceived as taking place through four phases. Phase one would define lake criteria to be used for reclassification, design GIS and field data gathering methods and protocols, and select lakes to be studied for the project. Phase two would involve existing data collection and interpretation. Phase three would be the field data gathering portion. Phase four would be the presentation of the findings to the public and local officials with recommendations for lake reclassification. Phase one of the project was effectively completed during the grant period ending May 31, 2008. It began with the formation of an ad hoc work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee. Three work group members and the SWCD Conservation Technician began a process to meet the objectives of phase one. First, the group decided to invite lake associations to be a part of the project through a formal letter sent out in March. After considering responses to the letter, the group identified six priority lakes to be included in the study. Zoning and land ownership maps were created that aided the work group in prioritizing lakes to be studied. The lakes that were identified are: 1. Caribou/Bigsby 4. Poplar 2. Tait 5. Trout 3. Hungry Jack 6. West Bearskin Two of these lakes (Caribou/Bigsby and Trout) are located within the Coastal Management Zone. The work group also researched criteria that would be used to study the priority lakes. For this task, the group received technical assistance from the Minnesota DNR and the MPCA. Work done for phases two and three contributed match to this STAR grant. GIS maps and shapefiles were created that identify sensitive resources on or near the lakes with data that is currently available. Initial field surveys were conducted during the final two weeks of the grant period to test the workability of the criteria and data gathering methods.

♦ Results – The project work group met four times during the grant period (February 15, May 11, April 2, and May 12). Six lakes were identified by the work group as priority lakes to be studied. A list of criteria to be used for assessing sensitivity was developed with the input of state agency experts (Appendix E.). Using this list of criteria, initial GIS operations were conducted for Caribou, Bigsby, Tait, and Hungry Jack lakes, resulting in GIS shapefiles and informational maps to be used during phase four. Several potentially sensitive areas were delineated for each of the lakes for which GIS operations were conducted (Appendix A). These areas are either isolated bays, shallow bays, or within 100 meters of a stream inlet or outlet, or a combination of the above. Preliminary field surveys on Bigsby lake suggest that isolated, shallow bays also favor the growth of emergent and floating leaved vegetation – another criteria piece that was identified for our study. These areas could be candidates for reclassification, as they possess many characteristics of the sensitivity criteria that the project work group identified during their meetings. As the project now passes on to phases two and three, we will be able to quantitatively identify these sensitive areas of the lakes included in the study. ♦ Conclusions – Lake ecosystems and their surrounding communities are complex and variable. Methods of studying and protecting lakes in northeast Minnesota will therefore have to be different than methods of doing the same in other parts of the state. We modeled this project off of a similar study done in Cass County, Minnesota. However, several changes had to be made in the sensitivity criteria in order to more accurately reflect lake ecosystems in Cook County. These included adding additional criteria for steep slopes and exposed bedrock, and modifying criteria for aquatic vegetation because of the general lower productivity of lakes in Cook County. Geographic data sets necessary to finish this kind of study are incomplete for this area of the state. Data sets that are needed include a County Soil Survey, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and a higher resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Some of these data sets could be available within 18 months, while others likely will not be available for several years. Cook SWCD recognizes that, in order to conduct a study that is fully defensible and presentable to the public, other state agency professionals will need to be involved. During this grant period, the DNR expressed interest in working with Cook SWCD and Cook County in offering technical assistance in the future when funding becomes available. We will pursue this option if it is offered. ♦ Appendices – A. GIS Maps B. Lake Sensitivity Criteria C. Data Collection Sheet

♦ Digital Products -Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection
July 31, 2008 306-STAR07-07

Soil & Water Conservation District Cook County, Grand Marais, MN A. Final Report B. Ad hoc Work Group Materials i. Correspondence ii. Letters to Lake Associations iii. Meeting Agendas and Minutes iv. Presentations C. GIS Maps D. GIS Shapefiles E. Criteria, Lake Reports, and Data Collection Sheets

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

February 4, 2008

From: To: Re:

Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD Cook County Lakes Reclassification Work Group Materials for review

Hello Work Group Members! Thank you once again for volunteering to take part in this important project. I have compiled some documents for you to review before our first meeting and to keep as references throughout the project. The first packet consists of the available lake information from the Minnesota DNR Lakefinder website and from Dave Stark. It includes general lake characteristics, fisheries, water level, and water quality data. The second packet consists of draft maps of county zoning districts and land ownership information. In order to focus our efforts, I have only included information on the lakes that have lake associations. The packets aren’t perfect, but they should serve well to provide the group with a starting point for discussion and a source for future reference. These are some things to keep in mind as you are browsing through the information. 1. 2. For the STAR grant, the pilot lake must be within the Lake Superior Coastal zone. The number and size of lakes to be studied should allow for completion of the project within the budget allowed. This should take into account the time required for reports, presentations, and meetings after field work is completed. Lakes should be selected and prioritized based on the need for resource and water quality protection. The following items should be considered.  Existing zoning districts and lake classifications and their influence on potential for development.  Current water quality data and evident trends  Water levels and evident trends  Fishery reports  Observed surface water use

3.

Please take a look at the materials. If anyone has any questions or would like to have additional information, let me know and I will try to have it ready by the meeting.

Hope to see you on February 15 at 4:00 p.m.!

Encl:

Lake reports Maps Agenda

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

March 3, 2008

From: To: Re:

Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD Cook County Lakes Reclassification Work Group Materials for review

Hello Work Group Members! I thank you for a productive 1st meeting, I am very much looking forward to being a part of this group. You will recall that at our last meeting we decided to send invitations to participate in the project to lake and property owner association representatives from various lakes around the county in an attempt to select which lakes we will study. I hope to update the group on this selection process at the meeting. I would also ask the group to review the materials I have provided to provide a starting point for discussion on criteria to be used to study the lakes. We began discussion on this topic at the last meeting, and I hope that we can continue to make progress. This is very much a pilot project, and our next task involves a certain amount of sailing into uncharted waters. Fortunately, there are other professionals in the state that are working on the same project, and hopefully we will be able to gather some of their expertise. Please take a look at the materials. If anyone has any questions or would like to have additional information, let me know and I will try to have it ready by the meeting.

Hope to see you on March 11 at 4:00 p.m.!

Encl:

Considerations for classification criteria Meeting Agenda

AGENDA Cook County Water Advisory Committee Lakes Reclassification Ad hoc Work Group Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota 4:00 p.m.. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Call meeting to order Make adjustments to agenda Review Coastal Program Grant Application Discuss criteria for selection of lakes Discuss duties of work group Schedule next meeting

ADJOURN

AGENDA Cook County Water Advisory Committee Lakes Reclassification Ad hoc Work Group Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota March 11, 2008 4:00 p.m.. I. II. III. IV. Call meeting to order Make adjustments to agenda Update on lake selection process Discuss criteria for study of lakes

ADJOURN

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection Work Group Meeting Minutes Upstairs Conference Room Cook County Courthouse Grand Marais March 11, 2008 Present: Tristan Beaster Biz Clark Jim Johnson Chel Anderson Karen Evens Peter Barsness

Clark called meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Beaster gave an update on the BWSR Clean Water Legacy grant work plan. The group was updated on the lake selection process for the project. At the time of the meeting, representatives from the following lake, property-owner, or other type of associations had responded to the invitation to participate in the project: Tait Mid-Trail area Caribou

The work group discussed classification criteria, public involvement in the project, and other similar projects in the state. The group agreed to research lake sensitivity criteria and develop a preliminary checklist of classification criteria to be presented to the MN DNR and to affected lake associations. Preliminary thoughts and points of discussion were to be sent to Tristan Beaster by April 1, for inclusion in the next meeting.

Adjourned at 6:00

AGENDA Cook County Water Advisory Committee Lakes Reclassification Ad hoc Work Group Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota April 2, 2008 4:00 p.m. I. II. III. IV. Call meeting to order Make adjustments to agenda Presentation : Project overview and status Prioritize criteria for study of lakes

6:00 p.m.

ADJOURN

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection Work Group Meeting Minutes ITV Room Cook County Courthouse April 2, 2008 Present: Tristan Beaster Biz Clark Chel Anderson Gary Maciejewski

Clark called meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Beaster gave a presentation outlining the purpose and need for the project. The work group discussed the Minnesota DNR lakeshore sensitivity manual and classification criteria. Ideas submitted by various lake associations of sensitive and unique features on lakes were incorporated into the discussion. Some of the criteria for sensitivity discussed were: Wetland present on shore Springs and seeps present Exposed bedrock Steep slopes Hydric soils Loon nesting areas– local knowledge and DNR data Bluffs Conservation Tech. agreed to draft a set of proposed criteria for review by the work group and outside sources, including the MN DNR, to be reviewed again at the next meeting. The work group discussed meeting again in May. The specific date and time were to be determined.

AGENDA Cook County Water Advisory Committee Lakes Reclassification Ad hoc Work Group Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota June 16, 2008 5:30 p.m*. I. II. III. IV. Call meeting to order Make adjustments to agenda Approve minutes from past meetings Grant and project update

6:00 p.m.

ADJOURN

*

The work group meeting will begin immediately following the Water Plan Advisory committee meeting.

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection Ad Hoc Work Group formed from the Water Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Commissioner’s Meeting Room Cook County Courthouse May 12, 2008 Members Present: Biz Clark Chel Anderson Jim Johnson Others Present: Tristan Beaster Linda Hendrickson Barb Bottger Karen Evens John Bottger Paul Radomski Steve Persons Cliff Bentley I.

Work Group Chair, Cook Coalition of Lake Associations Work Group Member, DNR Ecological Resources Work Group Member, Cook County Commissioner, District 4

Cook SWCD Hungry Jack Lake Hungry Jack Lake MPCA-Duluth Hungry Jack Lake DNR Shoreland Rules Update Committee DNR Area fisheries Supervisories DNR Area Hydrologist

Call meeting to order and introductions

Clark called meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Introductions were given, followed by a brief background on the Cook County project. II. Adjustments to Agenda

The work group agreed to adjust the agenda to discuss the criteria before deciding on priority lakes for the pilot study. III. Discuss criteria for determining sensitive shorelines.

Paul R. gave a history of the Cass Co. Intra-lake land use study. Community members in Cass Co. were concerned about lakeshore development impacts on water resources. The study started as a field of experts subjectively identifying lakeshore areas they thought were sensitive. They followed up with a GIS algorithm approach to more objectively determine sensitive areas around the lake, based on available GIS data. After taking this

to the public, it was decided that field studies and sampling should be done to achieve a greater amount of certainty in the identification of the sensitive areas. The group discussed the overall purpose of the study. The question was raised as to whether the study was being done purely to gather more information on the lakes, or to be eventually written into ordinance. The issue of public perception was also raised. The members emphasized that the study and any resulting recommendations had to be defensible and evidence-based. Paul R. explained that the criteria list was created using a principled approach based on parts of the lake ecosystem known to be sensitive based on available scientific studies. Efforts at communicating the progress of the project to the public needed to be earnest in order to get public buy-in to the project. Karen E. suggested that a more formal record of correspondence be maintained to show what representatives have been participating in the process. Specific criteria were discussed. Paul R. had questions about exposed bedrock, steep slope, and substrate criteria. Steve P. had suggestions for identifying certain individual aquatic plant species rather than gathering data on all plant species. Also suggested was field identification of wetlands located onshore because of the lack of reliability in National Wetlands Inventory data. With these modifications, the members present felt comfortable using the criteria to start the field work for the study. IV. Decide on priority lakes for pilot study

The group discussed the prioritization process, including what factors were considered in determining priority for the study. Those factors included; location within the Coastal Zone, geographic diversity within the county, lake association interest, ecological diversity, and size of lake. The lakes for the study, in order of priority, are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Caribou/Bigsby Lakes * Tait Lake Hungry Jack Lake Trout Lake West Bearskin Lake Poplar Lake
*The group decided to include Bigsby with the Caribou Lake study.

V.

Set meeting schedule. June 16 @ 5:30 July 21 @ 5:30

The work group will meet immediately after the monthly Water Plan Advisory Committee meetings.

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

March 11, 2008

John Oberholtzer 184 West Deer Yard Road Grand Marais, MN 55604

Dear Mr. Oberholtzer, The Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) received a grant from the Lake Superior Coastal Program to study the adequacy of the County’s lake classification system. You may recall the state of Minnesota originally developed a three tier lake management system based upon certain key lake features such as development, size, shape and depth. More recently, Cook County reclassified lakes according to a five tier system ranging from “special natural environment” to ”general development” with the former class providing the highest form of resource protection. However, recent lake studies suggest that the application of one classification on a given lake may overlook special areas on that lake that need more protection. These areas might be termed sensitive environments and could include shallow bays, rare habitats, wetlands or spawning sites. Accordingly, the SWCD has selected several pilot lakes for more in depth study to determine if sensitive areas could be identified and, if so, using what criteria. Your lake has been suggested for study as there is an association in existence, water quality studies have been performed on your lake and it has, according to existing lake data, one or more shallow bays that could qualify as sensitive environment(s). Much of the preliminary study can be done by accessing and compiling existing data. However, there may be some field work that would be done at a later date to verify data and discover other features not in the existing data set. At some point in the future we will share the results of the study with your lake association. We need your observations and suggestions and those from the other pilot study lakes before the County acts on any of the findings. This is a very important project that will help us assess the need for additional measures to protect Cook County lakes. We hope you agree and will become a part of the study. We need to hear from you by April 1 in order to include your lake in the project. Please contact me at my address if you have questions. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

Larry Mullen Caribou Lake Association

Dear Mr. Mullen, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. The work group also discussed criteria that will be used to study the lakes and gather the data required to determine areas of highest sensitivity. Many of these criteria were derived from a previous study conducted in Cass County by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, however, important edits were made to more accurately reflect the features of lakes in Cook County. Specifically, criteria were added for steep slopes and exposed bedrock. These criteria were reviewed and endorsed by local and regional DNR professionals, and it is our belief that they will be an effective means of delineating sensitive shorelines for lakes in Cook County. We are pleased to inform you that Caribou Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to begin the necessary field work for the project. This summer, SWCD staff will be conducting surveys of aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Caribou Lake. As this is a collaborative effort, we are looking for volunteers to assist us with the project where appropriate. If you or any of your association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Caribou Lake, that would be especially helpful. Once again, we thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

John Oberholtzer Deer Yard Lake Homeowners Association

Dear Mr. Oberholtzer, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. We are obliged to inform you that Deer Yard Lake was not chosen for inclusion in this study. However, new funding opportunities may allow us to conduct such a study in the future. If an opportunity arises, we will be sure to let you know of it. We thank you for your interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

John and Jenny Hughes, Gunflint Lake Association

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hughes, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. We are obliged to inform you that Gunflint Lake was not chosen for inclusion in this study. However, new funding opportunities may allow us to conduct such a study in the future. If an opportunity arises, we will be sure to let you know of it. We thank you for your interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

John and Barb Bottger Hungry Jack Lake Association 61 Bunn Trail Grand Marais, MN 55604

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bottger As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. The work group also discussed criteria that will be used to study the lakes and gather the data required to determine areas of highest sensitivity. Many of these criteria were derived from a previous study conducted in Cass County by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, however, important edits were made to more accurately reflect the features of lakes in Cook County. Specifically, criteria were added for steep slopes and exposed bedrock. These criteria were reviewed and endorsed by local and regional DNR professionals, and it is our belief that they will be an effective means of delineating sensitive shorelines for lakes in Cook County. We are pleased to inform you that Hungry Jack Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to begin the necessary field work for the project. This summer, SWCD staff will be conducting surveys of aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Hungry Jack Lake. As this is a collaborative effort, we are looking for volunteers to assist us with the project where appropriate. If you or any of your association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Hungry Jack Lake, that would be especially helpful. Once again, we thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

Mike Sherfy Poplar Lake Association 50 Rockwood Road Grand Marais, MN 55604

Dear Mr. Sherfy, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. The work group also discussed criteria that will be used to study the lakes and gather the data required to determine areas of highest sensitivity. Many of these criteria were derived from a previous study conducted in Cass County by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, however, important edits were made to more accurately reflect the features of lakes in Cook County. Specifically, criteria were added for steep slopes and exposed bedrock. These criteria were reviewed and endorsed by local and regional DNR professionals, and it is our belief that they will be an effective means of delineating sensitive shorelines for lakes in Cook County. We are pleased to inform you that Poplar Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to begin the necessary field work for the project. This summer, SWCD staff will be conducting surveys of aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Poplar Lake. As this is a collaborative effort, we are looking for volunteers to assist us with the project where appropriate. If you or any of your association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Poplar Lake, that would be especially helpful. Once again, we thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

Gary Macieweski Tait Lake Association 279 Caps Trail Lutsen, MN 55612

Dear Mr. Macieweski, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. The work group also discussed criteria that will be used to study the lakes and gather the data required to determine areas of highest sensitivity. Many of these criteria were derived from a previous study conducted in Cass County by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, however, important edits were made to more accurately reflect the features of lakes in Cook County. Specifically, criteria were added for steep slopes and exposed bedrock. These criteria were reviewed and endorsed by local and regional DNR professionals, and it is our belief that they will be an effective means of delineating sensitive shorelines for lakes in Cook County. We are pleased to inform you that Tait Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to begin the necessary field work for the project. This summer, SWCD staff will be conducting surveys of aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Tait Lake. As this is a collaborative effort, we are looking for volunteers to assist us with the project where appropriate. If you or any of your association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Tait Lake, that would be especially helpful. Once again, we thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

Jim Laib Trout Lake Association

Dear Mr. Laib, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. The work group also discussed criteria that will be used to study the lakes and gather the data required to determine areas of highest sensitivity. Many of these criteria were derived from a previous study conducted in Cass County by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, however, important edits were made to more accurately reflect the features of lakes in Cook County. Specifically, criteria were added for steep slopes and exposed bedrock. These criteria were reviewed and endorsed by local and regional DNR professionals, and it is our belief that they will be an effective means of delineating sensitive shorelines for lakes in Cook County. We are pleased to inform you that Trout Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to begin the necessary field work for the project. This summer, SWCD staff will be conducting surveys of aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Trout Lake. As this is a collaborative effort, we are looking for volunteers to assist us with the project where appropriate. If you or any of your association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Trout Lake, that would be especially helpful. Once again, we thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

July 1, 2008

Randy Swanstrom West Bearskin Lake Association 41 S. Bearskin Rd. Grand Marais, MN 55604

Dear Mr. Swanstrom, As you know, the Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District has been working on the initial stages of a pilot project intended to identify sensitive areas of lakeshore so that we may better protect this valuable resource. The purpose of this letter is to update your organization on the status of the project. A work group of the local Water Plan Advisory Committee met monthly February – June to study the topic of lakeshore sensitivity and make decisions as to what lakes should be studied and how they should be studied. Lakes were chosen based on a number of factors, including existing development pressures, potential for development, and lake association interest. We also felt that it was important to select lakes from the various geographic areas within the county. The work group also discussed criteria that will be used to study the lakes and gather the data required to determine areas of highest sensitivity. Many of these criteria were derived from a previous study conducted in Cass County by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, however, important edits were made to more accurately reflect the features of lakes in Cook County. Specifically, criteria were added for steep slopes and exposed bedrock. These criteria were reviewed and endorsed by local and regional DNR professionals, and it is our belief that they will be an effective means of delineating sensitive shorelines for lakes in Cook County. We are pleased to inform you that West Bearskin Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to begin the necessary field work for the project. This summer, SWCD staff will be conducting surveys of aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on West Bearskin Lake. As this is a collaborative effort, we are looking for volunteers to assist us with the project where appropriate. If you or any of your association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to West Bearskin Lake, that would be especially helpful. Once again, we thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tristan Beaster Conservation Technician Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us 218-387-3000 ext. 149

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection

April 2, 2008 presentation to the project work group by Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD Conservation Technician

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Court House, 411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection
• Lakeshore development affects the lake ecosystem
– – – – Reduction in aquatic vegetation abundance Reduction in woody biomass and fish spawning habitat Change in bird community structure Increase in runoff

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection
• What Are We Trying to Protect?
–Water Quality –Wildlife Habitat –Aesthetics –Property Values –Our Quality of Life

Lake Classifications
• DNR first classified lakes in 1976 based on:
– – – – Lake depth. Development density. Shoreline : surface area ratio. Soil type and slope.

Cook County revised the classification system in the Shoreland management regulations.

Lake Classifications
• Special Natural Environment • Natural Environment • Special Recreational Development • Recreational Development • General Development
Least restrictive Most restrictive

Are there “Natural Environment” shorelines on this Recreational Development lake?
Answering this question requires extensive and intensive study of the lake’s resources.

The new Alternative Shoreland Management Standards allow reclassification of portions of lakes to a more restrictive class.

Studying a lake
• Cass County Intra-lake land use project
– Selected 6 pilot lakes for the project – Used GIS-based criteria to assess lakeshore sensitivity
• • • • Shallow bays Isolated bays Buffers around inlets and outlets Wetlands present on shore or in the lake

• Other experiences

Studying a lake
• DNR established a science-based Sensitive Lakeshore Identification Manual
– – – – – – Aquatic habitat survey Near-shore vegetation Citizen shoreline description Frog calling survey Near-shore fish and aquatic animals Bird Survey

Cook SWCD project work plan
• Select lakes to be included in the project • Select GIS and field-based criteria to be used to assess lakeshore sensitivity • Conduct GIS operations and field data gathering • Delineate sensitive shorelines • Report our findings and make recommendations

Dollars and Cents
• Funding for this project comes from two sources
– Lake Superior Coastal Program
• STAR grant (short-term action request)

– Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)
• Clean Water Legacy protection funds

Caribou / Bigsby Lakes Buffer Analysis of Sensitive Features

Legend
100 meter Stream buffer Isolated Bays Caribou Lake Shallow Bays

0 1,200 2,400

Feet 4,800

1:24,000

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli WMS Server

This map is for educational purposes only.

Map Created 4/14/2008

Explanation of buffer analysis procedures.
Re-Digitized Shoreline The shoreline for each lake was manually digitized as a polyline at a scale of 1:4,000 using FSA 2003-2004 Aerial photos available on the DNR Data Deli WMS Server. The purpose of this operation was to create a more accurate shapefile of the lakeshore boundary than was initially available. Isolated Bays A buffer operation was applied to the Re-Digitized Shoreline file. The buffer distance was set at 100 meters. A new shapefile was created (Isolated Bays). The extent of the boundary of the isolated bays was manually delineated. An imaginary perpendicular line between the shore and where the buffer overlapped itself defined the boundaries of the isolated bay. Shallow Bays The boundary of the littoral zone was delineated from DNR bathymetric data where available(available on the DNR Data Deli website). A shapefile was created by tracing the outline of the 15-foot depth line from the bathymetry data. A 200 meter buffer was applied to the shapefile. Where the buffer did not overlap the re-digitized shoreline, that shoreline was defined as a shallow bay. *Note* this operation was not conducted for Bigsby Lake because the depth is less than 15 ft for the entire lake. Shoreline within 100 meters of a stream A 100m buffer was applied to the DNR 24k streams layer (available on the DNR Data Deli website). A shapefile was created by tracing the re-digitized shoreline where it intersected the buffer.

Hungry Jack Lake Buffer Analysis of Sensitive Features

0 750 1,500

Feet 3,000

1:18,000
Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli WMS Server

Legend
100m Stream Buffer Shallow Bays Isolated Bays Re-Digitized Shoreline

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Map Created 4/16/2008

Tait Lake Area Percent of Slope

Slope

/
1:24,000
0 1,650 3,300 Feet 6,600

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 200 - 400

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Data Source: Cook County GIS Server Slope derived from County Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
This map is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Map Created 3/21/2008

Tait Lake Buffer Analysis of Sensitive Features

0 500 1,000

Feet 2,000

1:12,000

Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli WMS Server

Legend
100 m Stream Buffer Isolated Bays Shallow Bays Re-Digitized Shoreline

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Map Created 4/17/2008

Tait Lake National Wetland Inventory Polygons

National Wetlands Inventory Uplands Wetland Types 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin 2 - Inland Fresh Meadow 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Open Water Littoral 6 - Shrub Swamp 7 - Wooded Swamp 8 - Bog

0

0.25

0.5

Miles 1

/
1:24,000

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli

This map is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Map Created 3/21/2008

Caribou Lake Zoning
rth No s Big by Rd

Mistl etoe R

Bigsby
FAR-1 FAR-1

d

LSR LSR

FAR-2 FAR-1 LSR FAR-3

W

De

er

rd ya

Lk

USFS 1 4

12

R Eve rgreen
LSR

d

Ward
LSR FAR-1

te hi W

FAR-2

Caribou

SC

bo ari

FAR-1 FAR-3

Sawmill Dr

l Blvd

Caribou Trl

Agnes
LSR FAR-1

Cedar ln

LSR

Ward Lake Rd
FAR-1

RC/R

RC/R

Footh il

Zoning Districts Land Ownership
FAR-1 FAR-2 FAR-3 LSR R-1 RC/R Private COOK CO-STATE MN STATE OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST) Roads

Sk y l Tr
s Penin ul a P rl oint T

uD

r

il Sawm l Ln

FAR-1

/

0

1,250 2,500

1:23,786 Feet 5,000

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

This map is of for educational purposes only. It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Map Created 2/1/2008

Bearskin and Hungry Jack Lakes Zoning
Daniels Duncan
FAR-1 RC/R RC/R LSR LSR FAR-3 FAR-1 FAR-3

Unnamed

Clearwater
RC/R RC/R RC/R LSR

LSR

FAR-3

Moss

Bearskin
FAR-1

FAR-1

FAR-1 FAR-3 RC/R RC/R

FAR-1 FAR-1

FAR-1 LSR

Hungry Jack

FAR-1 LSR FAR-3

FAR-1

LSR

LSR

Wampus
RC/R RC/R FAR-1 FAR-1

LSR RC/R RC/R

LSR

Flour
FAR-1

FAR-3

Spen Lake
FAR-3 RC/R

/
LSR

1:25,000

FAR-1

LSR

0

1,400

2,800

Rudy

FAR-1

Ruby Feet
5,600

Zoning Districts Land Ownership
FAR-1 FAR-2 FAR-3 LSR R-1 RC/R Private COOK CO-STATE MN STATE OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST) Roads Map Created 2/1/2008

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

This map is of for educational purposes only. It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Poplar, Leo, Road Lakes Zoning
FAR-3 FAR-1 FAR-3 FAR-1 LSR

Hungry Jack
LSR

FAR-3 LSR LSR LSR LSR

Leo
RC/R LSR RC/R RC/R FAR-1 RC/R RC/R LSR LSR FAR-1

LSR

RC/R LSR RC/R

FAR-3

LSR

FAR-1

Poplar

LSR

Road

LSR

RC/R LSR RC/RRC/R LSR LSR

Squint
LSR

Lace Lake

Prune
FAR-1 FAR-1 FAR-3

Lizz Meeds Meeds Swamp Swamp1,250 0
2,500

/
Feet 5,000

Zoning Districts Land Ownership
FAR-1 FAR-2 FAR-3 LSR R-1 RC/R Private COOK CO-STATE MN STATE OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST) Roads Map Created 2/1/2008

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

This map is of for educational purposes only. It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Tait Lake Zoning
d Porter's Blv
Caps Trl

ak ra L Cla

d eR

16 USFS 3

LSR

Tait
Bill ie s Tr l
FAR-2

FAR-1

Cari b

ou T rl

D USFS 340

S

C

s ap

l Tr

FAR-1

/
1:25,000
1,250 2,500FAR-1 Feet 5,000

Wills Zoning Districts Land Ownership
FAR-1 FAR-2 FAR-3 LSR R-1 RC/R Private COOK CO-STATE MN STATE OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST) Roads Map Created 2/1/2008

0 FAR-2

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

This map is of for educational purposes only. It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Trout Lake Zoning
US F S3 06

FAR-1

F US

S3

08

Marsh Boys
LSR

LSR

Trout

g Bo

u

ak sL

eR

d
LSR

Bogus

RC/R

Scabbard

RC/R

e ak M

rL

n

FAR-2

FAR-1

/
0 1,250 2,500

ou Tr tL ak e Rd

1:25,000
Feet 5,000

Zoning Districts Land Ownership
FAR-1 FAR-2 FAR-3 LSR R-1 RC/R Private COOK CO-STATE MN STATE OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST) Roads Map Created 2/1/2008

Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us

This map is of for educational purposes only. It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning. It is not intended to be used for navigation.

Name: Bearskin, West Nearest Town: Grand Marais Primary County: Cook Public Access Information Ownership Minnesota DNR US Forest Service Type Gravel Carry-in Description State-owned access on E end of lake, with parking for six vehicles. Short trail from Hungry Jack Lake, at W end of West Bearskin L. Parking for four vehicles. Survey Date: 08/26/2002 Inventory Number: 16-0228-00

Lake Characteristics Lake Area (acres): 494.00 Dominant Bottom Substrate: N/A Littoral Area (acres): 94.00 Abundance of Aquatic Plants: N/A Maximum Depth (ft): 78.00 Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): N/A Water Clarity (ft): 19.00 Did you know? Each year, DNR fisheries personnel stock game fish fry and fingerlings in lakes lacking habitat for natural reproduction. Fish Sampled up to the 2002 Survey Year Number of fish per net Average Fish Normal Range Weight (lbs) (lbs) Bluegill Gill net 0.2 N/A - N/A 0.14 N/A - N/A Trap net 0.8 0.4 - 2.7 0.15 0.1 - 0.4 Green Sunfish Gill net 0.3 0.1 - 2.5 0.06 N/A - N/A Trap net 1.5 0.1 - 0.8 0.08 0.1 - 0.1 Lake Trout Gill net 2.7 0.8 - 4.3 3.56 1.2 - 3.1 Northern Pike Gill net 0.1 0.3 - 1.0 4.03 2.7 - 5.3 Trap net 0.1 N/A - N/A 3.84 N/A - N/A Rainbow Smelt Gill net 3.8 N/A - N/A 0.08 N/A - N/A Smallmouth Bass Gill net 0.2 0.3 - 2.2 0.18 0.7 - 1.4 Trap net 0.9 0.6 - 3.5 0.56 0.2 - 0.6 White Sucker Gill net 0.6 1.7 - 5.0 2.57 1.6 - 2.4 Trap net 0.1 0.5 - 3.4 2.36 1.1 - 2.0 Yellow Perch Gill net 0.1 0.3 - 2.8 0.23 0.1 - 0.2 Normal Ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range Length of Selected Species Sampled for All Gear for the 2002 Survey Year Number of fish caught in each category (inches) 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 0

Species Bluegill Green Sunfish Lake Trout Northern Pike Smallmouth Bass

0-5 5 19 0 0 1

6-8 6 0 0 0 4

Total 11 19 24 2 12

Yellow Perch

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Fish Stocked by Species for the Last Five Years Year 2001 2003 2005 Species Lake Trout Lake Trout Lake Trout Lake Trout Age Yearling Yearling Yearling Yearling Number 5,000 5,055 2,575 2,594

Status of the Fishery (as of 08/26/2002) The lake trout catch in 2002 was similar to past catches in this lake, and was about average compared to other lake trout lakes in the area. Average size of lake trout collected in 2002 was excellent. Most of the lake trout collected in 2002 appeared to have been produced naturally. Only two of the 24 fish taken bore fin clips identifying them as stocked fish, and all lake trout stocked since 1970 in this lake have been fin clipped. Lake trout growth rates had been fast, probably because of the excellent forage base provided by a relatively dense rainbow smelt population. Smallmouth bass abundance appeared to have been about average for a lake of this type; however, the average size of the fish collected in 2002 was above average. Smallmouth bass growth rates had been relatively slow. Bluegill and northern pike were present in 2002, but apparently not in very high numbers. Most of the bluegill collected were small fish, two or three years of age.

Period of record: 08/04/1999 to 06/01/2007 # of readings: 144 Highest recorded: 150.02 ft (05/05/2001) Lowest recorded: 147.78 ft (10/03/2006) Recorded range: 2.24 ft Average water level: 148.83 ft Last reading: 148.23 ft (06/01/2007) Datum: ASSUM (ft) Download lake level data as: [dBase] [ASCII] (If you have trouble try right clicking on the appropriate link and choosing the "Save ... As" option.) Benchmarks Elevation: 150 ft Datum: ASSUM (ft) Date Set: 08/04/1999 Benchmark Location Township: 65 Range: 1 Section: 36

Description: Set a hor 60d spk in the lakeside of east root of a 10" cedar tree, which is in a group of trees near the waters edge. 3' to the right (east) side of the wooden platform by lake. 50' north of stairs down lake bank. Elevation: 154.32 ft Datum: ASSUM (ft) Date Set: 05/19/2004 Benchmark Location Township: 65 Range: 1 Section: 36

Description: At PA, in place 3/8" X 8" spike, sticking out of tree .5' and 3' above ground, in the NNE side of a 0.9'birch tree on top of lake bank, 35' NNW of center of boat ramp

Lake Water Quality Data Summary Total Phosphorus Mean: ppb (parts per billion) Total Phosphorus Standard Error: ppb Total Phosphorus # of Observations: Chlorophyll-a Mean: ppb Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: ppb Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: Secchi Disk Mean: 6.727610619 meters Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0.077052024 meters Secchi Disk # of Observations: 113 Alkalinity Mean: ppm (parts per million) Color Mean: Platinum-cobalt Units Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 32.53136913 Overall Trophic Status: O (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic, H=hypereutrophic)

Name: Caribou Nearest Town: Lutsen Primary County: Cook Public Access Information Ownership Minnesota DNR Type Gravel Description Gravel ramp and parking area on west side of lake off County Road 4. Parking available for about five vehicles. Survey Date: 07/18/2005 Inventory Number: 16-0360-00

Lake Characteristics Lake Area (acres): 728.00 Littoral Area (acres): 439.00 Maximum Depth (ft): 30.00 Water Clarity (ft): 8.50 Dominant Bottom Substrate: N/A Abundance of Aquatic Plants: N/A Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): N/A

Fish Sampled up to the 2005 Survey Year Number of fish per net Average Fish Normal Range Weight (lbs) (lbs) Northern Pike Gill net 1.7 1.2 - 3.9 2.48 1.5 - 2.4 Trap net 0.7 N/A - N/A 2.96 N/A - N/A Smallmouth Bass Gill net 1.6 0.2 - 0.7 ND 0.3 - 2.2 Trap net 0.2 0.4 - 1.9 0.11 0.2 - 0.6 Walleye Gill net 13.6 3.0 - 13.2 0.69 0.7 - 1.3 Trap net 0.7 0.5 - 2.7 1.17 0.8 - 1.5 White Sucker Gill net 7.7 2.6 - 11.7 2.37 1.7 - 2.4 Trap net 0.1 0.7 - 2.3 3.01 1.4 - 2.8 Yellow Perch Gill net 10.7 0.5 - 2.8 0.13 0.1 - 0.3 Normal Ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range Length of Selected Species Sampled for All Gear for the 2005 Survey Year Number of fish caught in each category (inches) 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 1 0 6 9 4 1 6 2 1 0 0 0 52 58 10 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Species Northern Pike Smallmouth Bass Walleye Yellow Perch

0-5 0 1 0 21

6-8 0 3 5 67

Total 21 13 127 90

Fish Stocked by Species for the Last Five Years Year 2004 Species Walleye Age Fry Number 440,000

tatus of the Fishery (as of 07/18/2005) The number of walleye caught per gill net ranked in the middle of all assessments done on this lake, but was higher than three-fourths of the netting results for this class of lake. The average weight of walleye caught was below the average for the lake and the lake class. The most recent walleye stocking occurred in 2004 and 1990, but all walleye caught in gill nets were naturally produced. Ages of gill-netted walleye were 2-7 and 9. Growth rates had been close to the average for the lake class. The number of northern pike caught per gill net ranked above the middle for the lake historically and below the middle for the lake class. The average weight was above the middle value for the lake, and above threefourths of the values recorded for the lake class. Northern pike caught by gill nets were age 1 to age 5. Growth after age 1 had been fast for this area. The gill-net catch of smallmouth bass declined in 2005 compared to the two previous assessments (2003 and 1998), but was still the third highest for the lake. It was higher than three-fourths of the catches recorded for this class of lake. The 2005 trap-net catch was low for both the lake and the lake class. The growth rate of bass appeared to be somewhat slow for this area for the first two years, and then to increase. The number of yellow perch caught in gill nets was the third highest for the lake and among the higher values for the lake class. The average size was small, but a few larger fish were caught. The number of white sucker caught per gill net ranked just above the middle value in assessments of both this lake and similar lakes. The average weight of white sucker was higher than roughly three-fourths of the values recorded for the lake and the lake class. In addition to the standard gill nets and trap nets, small-mesh (0.25-inch) trap nets were set. These nets caught age-0 fish, including many smallmouth bass and yellow perch, several white sucker, a few black crappie and walleye, and one northern pike.

Water Level Data Period of record: 05/18/2004 to 05/18/2004 # of readings: 1 Highest recorded: 140.28 ft (05/18/2004) Lowest recorded: 140.28 ft (05/18/2004) Recorded range: 0 ft Average water level: 140.28 ft Last reading: 140.28 ft (05/18/2004)

OHW elevation: 140.5 ft Datum: ASSUM (ft) Benchmarks Elevation: 150 ft Date Set: 05/18/2004 Datum: ASSUM (ft)

Lake Water Quality Data Summary Total Phosphorus Mean: 29 ppb Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 9 ppb Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 4 Chlorophyll-a Mean: 8.6 ppb Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 1.1 ppb Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 4 Secchi Disk Mean: 2.1 meters Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0 meters Secchi Disk # of Observations: 126

Alkalinity Mean: 27 ppm (parts per million) Color Mean: 35 Platinum-cobalt Units Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: 53 Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 52 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 50 Overall Trophic Status: E (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic, H=hypereutrophic)

Name: Hungry Jack Nearest Town: Grand Marais Primary County: Cook Public Access Information Ownership US Forest Service County Type Carry-in Unknown Description Off Co. Rd. 65, in small bay on N shore. Parking available for four vehicles. Unimproved dirt ramp off Co. Rd. 65 on W end of lake. Roadside parking available for two or three vehicles. Survey Date: 07/12/2004 Inventory Number: 16-0227-00

Lake Characteristics Lake Area (acres): 463.20 Dominant Bottom Substrate: N/A Littoral Area (acres): 187.00 Abundance of Aquatic Plants: N/A Maximum Depth (ft): 71.00 Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): N/A Water Clarity (ft): 16.00 Did you know? There are 15,000 miles of fishable streams in Minnesota, including 2,600 miles of trout streams. Fish Sampled up to the 2004 Survey Year Number of fish per net Average Fish Normal Range Weight (lbs) (lbs) Bluegill Gill net 1.4 N/A - N/A 0.10 N/A - N/A Trap net 5.3 2.4 - 6.0 0.06 0.1 - 0.3 Green Sunfish Gill net 0.8 0.2 - 0.9 0.07 N/A - N/A Trap net 1.3 0.3 - 2.8 0.05 0.1 - 0.3 Hybrid Sunfish Gill net 0.1 N/A - N/A 0.37 N/A - N/A Trap net 1.9 N/A - N/A 0.07 N/A - N/A Lake Trout Gill net 0.3 0.4 - 3.7 0.14 1.5 - 4.0 Northern Pike Gill net 2.0 0.6 - 2.4 2.14 2.1 - 4.9 Trap net 0.2 N/A - N/A 2.12 N/A - N/A Smallmouth Bass Gill net 0.8 0.3 - 1.4 1.18 0.6 - 1.5 Trap net 0.2 0.1 - 1.3 1.47 0.2 - 0.4 Walleye Gill net 1.1 1.2 - 5.2 2.72 1.0 - 2.0 Trap net 0.2 0.2 - 0.8 6.56 0.5 - 1.5 White Sucker Gill net 1.0 0.8 - 5.3 3.41 1.1 - 2.5 Trap net trace 0.1 - 1.0 1.38 1.1 - 3.6 Yellow Perch Gill net 1.3 0.4 - 3.7 0.21 0.1 - 0.2 Normal Ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range Length of Selected Species Sampled for All Gear for the 2004 Survey Year Number of fish caught in each category (inches) 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 0 0 0 0 0 0

Species Bluegill

0-5 71

6-8 6

Total 77

Green Sunfish Hybrid Sunfish Lake Trout Northern Pike Smallmouth Bass Walleye Yellow Perch

22 21 0 0 0 0 4

1 3 3 0 2 0 4

0 0 0 0 1 2 4

0 0 0 0 2 1 0

0 0 0 6 4 1 0

0 0 0 13 0 5 0

0 0 0 1 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 24 3 20 9 12 12

Fish Stocked by Species for the Last Five Years Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Species Lake Trout Walleye Lake Trout Walleye Walleye Lake Trout Lake Trout Walleye Age Yearling Fingerling Yearling Adult Fingerling Yearling Yearling Fingerling Number 5,099 3,844 4,523 57 4,930 2,282 2,406 13,922

Status of the Fishery (as of 07/12/2004) The walleye catch was one of the lowest in this lake in recent years, and lower than usual for this lake class. The average size of walleye was large, however. Several year classes were identified, but it was not clear from this small sample whether recent stocking of fingerlings (in odd years) had contributed significantly to the catch. The smallmouth bass catch was normal for this lake and for the lake class. Bass were larger than average for the lake, but about average in size for the lake class. Several year classes were present. Three lake trout were caught. All were yearlings that had been stocked in spring 2004. Yearlings had also been stocked in 2002 and 2000, but these fish were not caught in 2004. The stocking is an attempt to reestablish lake trout in this lake. The catch of northern pike was the highest observed in recent assessments in this lake, and was slightly above average for the lake class. Northern pike were smaller than usual for the lake, and smaller than average for the lake class. Several year classes were present. Pike had grown faster than average for the lake class. Age-3 fish had averaged 18.7 inches long at the end of their third year, compared to the lakeclass average of 16.8 inches for the same age. Yellow perch abundance appeared to be low for the lake, but was normal for the lake class. The average size was typical for the lake. The largest fish measured 10.6 inches, but most were less than 9.5 inches. Rainbow smelt numbers have fluctuated widely, and were low at the time of this assessment. Bluegill abundance appeared to be typical for this lake, but was higher than average for the lake class. Bluegill were small and grew slowly; all were less than 7 inches long. A small number of green sunfish, hybrid sunfish, and white sucker were also caught.

Water Level Data Period of record: 08/22/1968 to 11/23/2007 # of readings: 224 Highest recorded: 1681.47 ft (05/19/1993)

Lowest recorded: 1679.68 ft (09/01/2007) Recorded range: 1.79 ft Average water level: 1680.52 ft Last reading: 1680.33 ft (11/23/2007) Datum: 1929 (ft)

Lake Water Quality Data Summary Total Phosphorus Mean: 8 ppb (parts per billion) Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 1 ppb Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 3 Chlorophyll-a Mean: 1.7 ppb Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 0.3 ppb Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 3 Secchi Disk Mean: 5.2 meters Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0.1 meters Secchi Disk # of Observations: 73 Alkalinity Mean: ppm (parts per million) Color Mean: Platinum-cobalt Units Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: 34 Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 36 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 36 Overall Trophic Status: O (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic, H=hypereutrophic)

Name: Poplar Nearest Town: Grand Marais Primary County: Cook Public Access Information Ownership Private Property US Forest Service Type Earthen Concrete Description New concrete access at the west end of the lake is reached from a road the Gunflint Trail (Co. Rd. 12). Parking for many vehicles. Survey Date: 07/24/2006 Inventory Number: 16023900

Lake Characteristics Lake Area (acres): 763.99 Littoral Area (acres): 290 Maximum Depth (ft): 73 Water Clarity (ft): 11.3 (10.5-13) Fish Sampled for the 2006 Survey Year Number of fish per net Average Fish Normal Range Weight (lbs) (lbs) Black Crappie Trap net 1.59 0.1 - 0.4 0.07 0.4 - 1.1 Blacknose Shiner Trap net 0.03 N/A N/A N/A Burbot Gill net 0.62 0.2 - 1.0 1.21 0.6 - 1.5 Central Mudminnow Trap net 0.03 N/A N/A N/A Hybrid Sunfish Trap net 0.22 N/A 0.06 N/A Lake Whitefish Gill net 0.31 1.6 - 15.5 1.12 1.0 - 2.1 Northern Pike Gill net 0.56 0.6 - 2.4 1.26 2.1 - 4.9 Trap net 0.34 N/A 1.60 N/A Pumpkinseed Trap net 0.59 N/A 0.03 N/A Smallmouth Bass Gill net 0.12 0.3 - 1.4 0.41 0.6 - 1.5 Trap net 1.94 0.1 - 1.3 0.01 0.2 - 0.4 Walleye Gill net 0.56 1.2 - 5.2 1.31 1.0 - 2.0 Trap net 0.25 0.2 - 0.8 0.72 0.5 - 1.5 White Sucker Gill net 1.06 0.8 - 5.3 2.81 1.1 - 2.5 Trap net 0.03 0.1 - 1.0 N/A 1.1 - 3.6 Yellow Perch Gill net 0.44 0.4 - 3.7 0.11 0.1 - 0.2 Trap net 4.56 0.4 - 1.2 0.01 0.1 - 0.4 Normal Ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range Dominant Bottom Substrate: Detritus (Abundant) Abundance of Aquatic Plants: 22 Varieties Sampled Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): 3.2 (1-9)

Length of Selected Species Sampled for the 2006 Survey Year Number of fish caught in each category (inches)

Species Black Crappie Blacknose Shiner Burbot Central Mudminnow Hybrid Sunfish Lake Whitefish Northern Pike Pumpkinseed Smallmouth Bass Walleye White Sucker Yellow Perch

0-5 46 1 0 1 7 0 0 17 61 0 1 146

6-8 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 5

9-11 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2

12-14 1 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 10 0 0

15-19 0 0 7 0 0 2 10 0 0 5 12 0

20-24 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0

25-29 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

>29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 51 1 10 1 7 5 20 19 64 17 18 153

Fish Stocked by Species for the Last Five Years Year 2006 2005 2003 Species Walleye Lake Trout Lake Trout Walleye Walleye Age Fry Yearling Yearling Adult Fingerling Number 300,000 7,218 7,407 26 10,776

Status of the Fishery (as of 07/24/2006) Walleye abundance in Poplar Lake in 2006 appeared to have been low, as it has been for the past 20 years. All attempts to improve walleye abundance by stocking have so far failed, although it did appear that stocking could have accounted for most of the walleye collected in 2006. The northern pike catch in 2006 was also low, and most of the northern pike collected were small. Few smallmouth bass were taken, although there were indications that a strong year class had been produced in 2005. Recent lake trout stocking efforts in this lake appear to have failed completely, and have been discontinued. In contrast, black crappie abundance in 2006 appeared to have been at an all-time high for this lake, and high compared to similar lakes. Although few of the black crappie taken in 2006 were over eight inches, many smaller fish were present and likely to enter the fishery in the next two or three years. Water Level Data Period of record: 08/22/1968 to 11/18/2007 # of readings: 566 Highest recorded: 1855.12 ft (05/16/1996) Highest known: 1855.45 ft (05/20/01) Lowest recorded: 1851.42 ft (09/09/1998) Recorded range: 3.7 ft Average water level: 1853.78 ft Last reading: 1853.57 ft (11/18/2007) OHW elevation: 1854.2 ft Datum: 1929 (ft)

Benchmarks Elevation: 1856.73 ft Datum: 1929 (ft) Date Set: 05/22/1990 Benchmark Location

Township: 64 Range: 1 Section: 6 Description: At Norwester Resort on northeast end of lake, high point on 4'x 3' gray boulder 5' east of the boat access and 10' from the waters edge. Elevation: 1856.89 ft Datum: 1929 (ft) Date Set: 05/22/1990 Benchmark Location Township: 64 Range: 2 Section: 1

Description: At Fred Dells home- a 3/8"x 8" spike set vertically in the top center of a 1.4' birch stump 8' from the waters edge in line with the dock. Elevation: 1858.29 ft Datum: 1929 (ft) Date Set: 06/05/1996 Benchmark Location Township: 64 Range: 2 Section: 1

Description: At Rockwood Lodge and Outfitters on the northwest side of lake, a 5/16" bolt and washer in the northwest side of transformer pole on the south side of road about 45' east of lake level gage and dock.

Lake Water Quality Data Summary Total Phosphorus Mean: 11 ppb (parts per billion) Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 1 ppb Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 5 Chlorophyll-a Mean: 1.8 ppb Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 0.2 ppb Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 6 Secchi Disk Mean: 3.9 meters Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0.1 meters Secchi Disk # of Observations: 59 Alkalinity Mean: 13 ppm (parts per million) Color Mean: 30 Platinum-cobalt Units Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: 39 Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 36 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 40 Overall Trophic Status: O (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic, H=hypereutrophic)

Years for which data has been collected

Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Average Secchi Reading (meters) 4.0 4.5 4.6 4.1 4.3 3.9 4.5 3.8 4.3 4.8 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.9 4.2 3.4 3.4 .

Name: Tait Nearest Town: Lutsen Primary County: Cook Public Access Information Ownership US Forest Service Type Concrete Description On SW shore, off Forest Road 340. Parking for several vehicles. Survey Date: 07/10/2000 Inventory Number: 16-0384-00

Lake Characteristics Lake Area (acres): 338.00 Dominant Bottom Substrate: N/A Littoral Area (acres): 338.00 Abundance of Aquatic Plants: N/A Maximum Depth (ft): 15.00 Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): N/A Water Clarity (ft): 8.00 Did you know? Habitat acquisition of lands next to lakes and streams protects spawning areas and shoreline vegetation, and it increases access to fishing waters. Fish Sampled up to the 2000 Survey Year Number of fish per net Species Bluegill Northern Pike Pumpkinseed Sunfish Walleye Gear Used Trap net Gill net Trap net Trap net Caught 0.2 2.5 1.2 0.3 Normal Range 0.3 - 6.4 2.0 - 6.3 N/A - N/A 0.4 - 2.6 Average Fish Normal Range Weight (lbs) (lbs) 0.02 0.1 - 0.3 1.66 1.3 - 2.4 2.62 N/A - N/A 0.03 0.1 - 0.2

Gill net 7.8 3.0 - 9.8 1.01 0.9 - 1.6 Trap net 1.2 0.5 - 1.9 1.38 1.1 - 2.0 White Sucker Gill net 7.3 3.6 - 14.1 2.43 1.5 - 2.4 Yellow Perch Gill net 4.5 2.2 - 14.6 0.27 0.1 - 0.2 Trap net 0.3 0.4 - 2.1 0.32 0.1 - 0.3 Normal Ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Length of Selected Species Sampled for All Gear for the 2000 Survey Year Number of fish caught in each category (inches) 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 23 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

Species Bluegill Northern Pike Pumpkinseed Sunfish Walleye Yellow Perch

0-5 1 0 2 0 5

6-8 0 0 0 0 14

Total 1 22 2 54 29

Status of the Fishery (as of 07/10/2000)

The walleye catch in gill nets in the 2000 assessment was within the normal range for this lake class, and it was similar to catches observed in the past on this lake. The walleye population was entirely self-sustained, with several strong year classes produced since 1994. Most of the walleye collected were less 18 inches in length. Walleye growth rates were about average for the area; five-year-old walleye collected in July averaged 16.3 inches in length. The northern pike catch was also normal for the lake class, and similar to past catches. Over half the catch consisted of two-year-old fish, but northern pike as old as six years, and as large as 35 inches, were collected. Northern pike growth rates were fairly fast, at least for younger fish. Good walleye and northern pike growth rates were due to the presence of average-sized populations of yellow perch and white sucker to provide forage. In addition to providing forage, some of the yellow perch collected would have been large enough to have been of interest to anglers. Tait Lake supported small populations of panfish, but the fish were small and probably of little interest to anglers. Bluegill were found in this lake for the first time in 2000; pumpkinseed sunfish have been present since at least 1990.

Lake Water Quality Data Summary Total Phosphorus Mean: 16 ppb (parts per billion) Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 2 ppb Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 6 Chlorophyll-a Mean: 4 ppb Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 0.3 ppb Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 6 Secchi Disk Mean: 2.1 meters Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0 meters Secchi Disk # of Observations: 57 Alkalinity Mean: 20 ppm (parts per million) Color Mean: 30 Platinum-cobalt Units Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: 44 Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 44 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 49 Overall Trophic Status: M (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic, H=hypereutrophic)

Years for which data has been collected

Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2006

Average Secchi Reading (meters) 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.1

Name: Trout Nearest Town: Grand Marais Primary County: Cook Public Access Information Ownership US Forest Service Type Carry-in Description Federally owned public access on NW corner of lk. Resort on South side. Survey Date: 08/05/1999 Inventory Number: 16-0049-00

Lake Characteristics Lake Area (acres): 257.00 Littoral Area (acres): 59.00 Maximum Depth (ft): 77.00 Water Clarity (ft): 17.00 Dominant Bottom Substrate: rubble (3-10''), gravel, boulders (>10'') Abundance of Aquatic Plants: common Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): 8.00

Fish Sampled up to the 1999 Survey Year Number of fish per net Average Fish Normal Range Weight (lbs) (lbs) Golden Shiner Gill net 0.5 N/A - N/A 0.08 N/A - N/A Lake Trout Gill net 3.0 0.8 - 4.3 2.09 1.2 - 3.1 Rainbow Smelt Gill net 0.5 N/A - N/A 0.07 N/A - N/A Rainbow Trout Gill net 0.3 N/A - N/A 0.68 N/A - N/A Tullibee (Cisco) Gill net 0.5 1.4 - 17.4 2.32 0.1 - 0.7 Yellow Perch Gill net 4.2 0.3 - 2.8 0.25 0.1 - 0.2 Normal Ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range Length of Selected Species Sampled for All Gear for the 1999 Survey Year Number of fish caught in each category (inches) 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 3 7 2 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

Species Lake Trout Rainbow Trout Tullibee (Cisco) Yellow Perch

0-5 0 0 0 0

6-8 0 0 0 15

Total 18 2 3 25

Fish Stocked by Species for the Last Five Years Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 Species Rainbow Trout Rainbow Trout Rainbow Trout Rainbow Trout Age Yearling Yearling Yearling Fingerling Number 7,500 7,501 7,501 3,749

2004 2005

Rainbow Trout Rainbow Trout Rainbow Trout

Yearling Yearling Yearling

7,500 3,750 7,500

Status of the Fishery (as of 08/05/1999) Trout Lake has for many years offered good fishing for naturally produced lake trout and stocked rainbow trout. Occasionally a large lake trout has been taken. In recent years, yellow perch have been relatively abundant and have reached sizes large enough to interest anglers. The 1999 population assessment indicated that a fair-to-good number of lake trout were present. The largest lake trout collected were 24 inches long. Lake trout growth rates were relatively slow. Rainbow trout numbers appeared to be only fair at best, down from 1996. Those collected were one or two years old and 11 to 13 inches long. Apparently few survived to older ages. A small number of brook trout were present in the lake. These were young fish under 10 inches long. Yellow perch were relatively abundant, and reached 10 inches in length. Trout Lake's forage fish population included rainbow smelt and several minnow species. Smelt numbers were lower than in the 1996 and 1993 assessments. Secchi Disk # of Observations: 5 Lake Water Quality Data Summary Total Phosphorus Mean: 6 ppb (parts per billion) Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 1 ppb Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 5 Chlorophyll-a Mean: 1 ppb Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 0.2 ppb Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 6 Secchi Disk Mean: 6.8 meters Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0.5 meters Alkalinity Mean: 16.5 ppm (parts per million) Color Mean: 7.5 Platinum-cobalt Units Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: 29 Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 31 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 32 Overall Trophic Status: O (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic, H=hypereutrophic)

Criteria Name
Distance to Littoral Zone B d Presence of wetlands

Measurement Method
GIS Buffer Analysis GIS Buffer Analysis Field Identification

Data Required
Bathymetric contours, 1:24k DRG NWI Polygons or photo interpreted tl d DNR 24k Lakes layer, Re-digitized shoreline from 2003 FSA Aerial photography DNR 24k Streams layer

Isolated Bays

GIS Buffer Analysis

Distance to Inlet/Outlet

GIS Buffer Analysis

Biodiversity Significance

GIS Buffer Analysis

GAP Land cover, MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance Field Data sheets linked to GPS waypoints High resolution aerial photographs, Field data sheet linked to GPS waypoints Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 30 meter resolution

Intermittent Streams and Coldwater Springs/Seeps Exposed bedrock

Field documentation Aerial photo interpretation, field verification GIS Slope analysis

Steep slopes

Frog call counts

Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols

Field Data sheets linked to GPS waypoints. Polygons based on frog surveys Field Data sheets linked to GPS waypoints Field Data sheets linked to GPS i t

Soft Bottom Substrate

Hard Bottom Substrate

Large Woody Habitat

Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols

Field Data sheets linked to GPS waypoints polygon locations GPS polygons from outlines of plant beds or bog fringes

Native emergent and floating vegetation

Presence of Loon nests Rare Features

Field survey, existing data GIS Analysis

MN DNR loon survey and local k l d MCBS (Natural Heritage Information System)

***Separation of criteria and scoring will be done during preliminary data anaylsis.

The criteria listed below reference the same "window concept" described in the DNR Manual*. For a more thorough description of the window concept, please consult that manual

--suggestions by Paul Radomski, April 29, 2008 for consideration (underlined or strikeouts)

Criteria Name
Distance to Littoral Zone Presence of wetland polygons

Measurement Method
GIS Buffer Analysis GIS Buffer Analysis

Data Required
Bathymetric contours, 1:24k DRG NWI Polygons or photo interpreted

Criteria
>200 m to Littoral Zone Boundary within analysis window NWI polygon or photo interpreted wetland boundary within analysis window >25% of window is in wetlands 12.5-25% of window is in wetlands <12.5% of window is in wetlands no wetlands recorded >50% of lake portion of window within isolated bay: Defined as < 200 m opening >50% of 100 m stream buffer within window 25-50% of 100 m stream buffer within window 0-25% of 100 m stream buffer within window Outstanding Biodiversity within window High Biodiversity within window Moderate Biodiversity within window Presence of Int. stream or spring/seep within window

Score
1

Isolated Bays Distance to Inlet/Outlet

GIS Buffer Analysis GIS Buffer Analysis

DNR 24k Lakes layer, Re-digitized shoreline from 2003 FSA Aerial DNR 24k Streams layer

3 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 3

Biodiversity Significance

GIS Buffer Analysis

GAP Land cover, MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance

Intermittent Streams and Coldwater Springs/Seeps Exposed bedrock

Field documentation

Field Data sheets linked to GPS waypoints Aerial photo interpretation, field High resolution aerial photographs, verification Field data sheet linked to GPS waypoints GIS Slope analysis

Steep slopes

Frog call counts

Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols

Soft Bottom Substrate

Hard Bottom Substrate

Submerged or Floating Large Woody Habitat

Field survey, MN DNR manual* protocols

Native emergent and floating, or Field survey, MN DNR submerged vegetation manual* protocols

Presence of Loon nests Rare Features

Field survey, existing data GIS Analysis

>75% exposed bedrock within shoreland portion of window 50-75% " " " 25-50% " " " Digital Elevation Model (DEM) > 50% of window contains >50% slope 30 meter resolution 25-50% of window contains >50% slope <25% of window contains >50% slope Field Data sheets linked to GPS Presence of green and mink frogs within window waypoints. Polygons based on frog Presence of green or mink frogs within window surveys No green or mink frogs heard survey points >50% organic muck or silt Field Data sheets linked to GPS waypoints survey points 25-50% organic muck or silt survey points <25% organic muck or silt Field Data sheets linked to GPS survey points >50% sand or gravel survey points 25-50% sand or gravel survey points <25% sand or gravel Field Data sheets linked to GPS Large (>8" diameter) Woody Habitat Debris in >25% survey points within the aquatic part of the analysis window waypoints polygon locations No Large Woody Debris observed GPS polygons from outlines of plant Emergent and/or floating-leaf plants occupy >10% of aquatic part of the window beds or bog fringes Stands occupy 5-10% Present but < 5% No plant bed MN DNR loon survey and local Loon nests within window No known nests within window MCBS (Natural Heritage Information Presence of Natural Heritage Feature System)

*Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2008 Minnesota's Sesitive Lakeshore Identification Manual: a conservation strategy for Minnesota lakeshores (version 1). Division of Ecological Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Lake Vegetation Survey Point-Intercept Approach

Data Collection Sheet

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection
Lake Name Date Surveyors

Site Number Depth Secchi Depth Aquatic Vegetation Bulrush Wild Rice Cattail Spikerush Burreed Horsetail Large-leaf pondweed White waterlily Yellow waterlily Watershield Woody Debris Large (>8" Diameter) Upland Plant Comm Wetland Plant Comm Bottom Substrate

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

pl an R dP ed l P an R ine t C ed om P W C ine hite mu lif f / -W Pi nit Ta hit ne y O th lus e P er sl ine O Co ope th n er ife ro H u W ar et dw s la oo M nd ea Pl d do an w t M ea (F Co re m do w sh) mu M ( ar ni sh Sed ty (S ge M ) h ar sh allo Sw (D w) am eep ) Sw p (A am ld e Sw p (S r Th ic am hr ub ke p Sw -C t) ( am Har arr d ) O p ( C wo pe od on n ) i C Bog fero on us ife ) ro B ot us to Bo Be m S g dr ub o st Bo ck ra te ul de r R ub bl G e ra ve Sa l nd Sa nd / Si Silt lt
RW RW C/T OC OH FM SeM SM DM S-C AT HS CS OB CB BE BO RU GR SA SS SI

Code

MU

M uc k

U

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->