Reclassification of Portions of Lakes For Resource Protection (306-Star07-07)

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: Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD
To: Cook County Lakes Reclassification Work Group
Re: 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. For the STAR grant, the pilot lake must be within the Lake Superior Coastal zone.
2. 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.
3. 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
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
March 3, 2008
From: Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD
To: Cook County Lakes Reclassification Work Group
Re: 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. Call meeting to order
II. Make adjustments to agenda
III. Review Coastal Program Grant Application
IV. Discuss criteria for selection of lakes
V. Discuss duties of work group
VI. Schedule next meeting
ADJOURN
AGENDA

March 11, 2008
4:00 p.m.. I. Call meeting to order
III. Update on lake selection process
IV. Discuss criteria for study of lakes
ADJOURN

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

April 2, 2008
4:00 p.m. I. Call meeting to order
III. Presentation : Project overview and status
IV. Prioritize criteria for study of lakes
6:00 p.m. ADJOURN


Work Group Meeting Minutes
ITV Room
April 2, 2008
Present:
Tristan Beaster
Biz Clark
Chel Anderson
Gary Maciejewski
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

June 16, 2008
5:30 p.m*. I. Call meeting to order
III. Approve minutes from past meetings
IV. Grant and project update
6:00 p.m. ADJOURN
* The work group meeting will begin immediately following the Water Plan
Advisory committee meeting.

Ad Hoc Work Group formed from the Water Plan Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Commissioner’s Meeting Room

May 12, 2008
Members Present:
Biz Clark Work Group Chair, Cook Coalition of Lake Associations
Chel Anderson Work Group Member, DNR Ecological Resources
Jim Johnson Work Group Member, Cook County Commissioner, District 4
Others Present:
Tristan Beaster Cook SWCD
Linda Hendrickson Hungry Jack Lake
Barb Bottger Hungry Jack Lake
Karen Evens MPCA-Duluth
John Bottger Hungry Jack Lake
Paul Radomski DNR Shoreland Rules Update Committee
Steve Persons DNR Area fisheries Supervisories
Cliff Bentley DNR Area Hydrologist
I. Call meeting to order and introductions

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. Caribou/Bigsby Lakes *
2. Tait Lake
3. Hungry Jack Lake
4. Trout Lake
5. West Bearskin Lake
6. 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.
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
tristan.beaster@co.cook.mn.us
218-387-3000 ext. 149
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
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
John Oberholtzer
Deer Yard Lake Homeowners Association
Dear Mr. Oberholtzer,
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
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
John and Jenny Hughes,

Gunflint Lake Association
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hughes,
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
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
John and Barb Bottger

Hungry Jack Lake Association
61 Bunn Trail
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bottger
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.
Sincerely,
Tristan Beaster
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
Mike Sherfy
Poplar Lake Association
50 Rockwood Road
Dear Mr. Sherfy,
We are pleased to inform you that Poplar Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to
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.
Sincerely,
Tristan Beaster
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
Gary Macieweski
Tait Lake Association
279 Caps Trail
Lutsen, MN 55612
Dear Mr. Macieweski,
We are pleased to inform you that Tait Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to
aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Tait Lake. As this is a collaborative
association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Tait Lake, that
Sincerely,
Tristan Beaster
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
Jim Laib
Trout Lake Association
Dear Mr. Laib,
We are pleased to inform you that Trout Lake was chosen for inclusion in this study. The next step is to
aquatic vegetation, amphibians, and shoreland plant communities on Trout Lake. As this is a collaborative
association members are interested in providing boat transportation and/or water access to Trout Lake, that
Sincerely,
Tristan Beaster
218-387-3000 ext. 149
July 1, 2008
Randy Swanstrom
West Bearskin Lake Association
41 S. Bearskin Rd.
Dear Mr. Swanstrom,
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.
Sincerely,
Tristan Beaster
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

• 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
• 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 Most

restrictive
• Natural Environment
• Special Recreational Development
• Recreational Development
• General Development Least

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

Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604
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
Legend Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District

100m Stream Buffer
Shallow Bays
Isolated Bays
Tait Lake Area Percent of Slope
Slope
/
0 - 10 Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604
10 - 20 (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us
20 - 30
30 - 50
Data Source: Cook County GIS Server
50 - 100
Slope derived from County Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
1:24,000
100 - 150
Feet 150 - 200 It is not intended to be used for navigation.
0 1,650 3,300 6,600 200 - 400
Tait Lake Buffer Analysis of Sensitive Features
-
0 500 1,000
Feet
2,000 1:12,000

Legend Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604
100 m Stream Buffer
Isolated Bays
Shallow Bays
Tait Lake National Wetland Inventory Polygons
National Wetlands Inventory

Miles
Uplands 0 0.25 0.5 1 Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
Wetland Types Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604
/
1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us
2 - Inland Fresh Meadow
3 - Shallow Marsh Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli
4 - Deep Marsh
5 - Open Water Littoral
6 - Shrub Swamp
1:24,000 It is not intended to be used for navigation.
7 - Wooded Swamp
8 - Bog
Caribou Lake Zoning
Rd
s by
Big
rth
No
Bigsby
d R
etoe
FAR-1
Mistl
FAR-1
LSR
LSR
USFS 1
Lk 4 12
rd
ya
FAR-2 er
De
FAR-1 W
LSR
FAR-3
Eve rgreen
R d Ward
LSR
LSR FAR-1
W
hi
FAR-2
te
Caribou
Sk
y
Penin
Tr
l
s
ul a P
oint T
r
uD
Sawmill Dr
Sawm
bo
ari
rl
SC
il
FAR-1 FAR-1
l Ln
/
FAR-3
Ward Lake Rd
LSR
Cedar ln
Agnes
l Blvd
1:23,786
Caribou Trl
il
Feet
Footh
FAR-1
RC/R RC/R
LSR
0 1,250 2,500 5,000
FAR-1

Zoning Districts Land Ownership Court House, 411 West 2ND Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604
FAR-1 Private
FAR-2 COOK CO-STATE MN
FAR-3 STATE OF MINNESOTA
LSR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

This map is of for educational purposes only.
R-1 USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST) It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning.
It is not intended to be used for navigation.
RC/R Roads Map Created 2/1/2008
Bearskin and Hungry Jack Lakes Zoning
FAR-1
Daniels FAR-3
Duncan
Unnamed LSR
Clearwater
FAR-1
RC/R RC/R
LSR
RC/R RC/R RC/R
FAR-3
LSR FAR-3
LSR
Bearskin
Moss FAR-1
FAR-1 FAR-1 FAR-1 FAR-1

FAR-3
FAR-1 LSR
FAR-1 FAR-1
Hungry Jack
RC/R
RC/R LSR FAR-3
LSR LSR Wampus LSR LSR

RC/R
/
RC/R
FAR-1
RC/R
Flour
RC/R FAR-1 LSR
FAR-3 FAR-1
FAR-1
1:25,000
Spen Lake RubyFeet
LSR Rudy FAR-1
FAR-3 RC/R 0 1,400 2,800 5,600
Zoning Districts Land Ownership Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
FAR-1 Private (218) 387-3647 Fax (218) 387-3042 www.co.cook.mn.us
R-1 USFS (SUPERIOR NATL FOREST)

RC/R Roads It has not been approved by Cook County Planning and Zoning.
Map Created 2/1/2008 It is not intended to be used for navigation.
Poplar, Leo, Road Lakes Zoning
FAR-3
Hungry Jack
FAR-1
FAR-3
FAR-1
LSR LSR
Leo
FAR-3
LSR RC/R FAR-1
LSR
LSR RC/R
RC/R
LSR LSR FAR-1 RC/R RC/R
RC/R LSR FAR-3
LSR
LSR LSR
RC/R
Poplar
Road
LSR FAR-1 LSR LSR
RC/R LSR Squint

RC/RRC/R LSR
LSR
LSR Lace Lake
Prune
FAR-1
Lizz
FAR-1
FAR-3
/ Feet
Meeds Meeds Swamp Swamp
0 1,250 2,500 5,000

Tait Lake Zoning
Porter's Blv
d
d Caps Trl
ak eR
USFS
ra L
Cla
3 16
Tait
LSR
Bill
ie s Tr
l
FAR-2
l
s Tr
FAR-1 ap FAR-1
C
S
/
D
USFS 340
rl
ou T
b
Cari
1:25,000
Wills
Feet
0
FAR-2 1,250 2,500FAR-1 5,000

Trout Lake Zoning
06
S3
F
US
FAR-1
08
F S3
US
Marsh LSR
Trout
d
eR
Boys
ak
u sL
g
Bo LSR
Bogus
LSR
RC/R n
e rL
Scabbard
RC/R
ak
M
FAR-2
/
Tr
ou
tL
ak
e
Rd
FAR-1
1:25,000
Feet
0 1,250 2,500 5,000

Name: Bearskin, West
Nearest Town: Grand Marais Survey Date: 08/26/2002

Primary County: Cook Inventory Number: 16-0228-00
Public Access Information
Ownership Type Description

Minnesota DNR Gravel State-owned access on E end of lake, with parking for six vehicles.
US Forest Service Carry-in Short trail from Hungry Jack Lake, at W end of West Bearskin L.
Parking for four vehicles.
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
Species Gear Used Caught 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.
Length of Selected Species Sampled for All Gear for the 2002 Survey Year
Number of fish caught in each category (inches)

Species 0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 Total
Bluegill 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Green Sunfish 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Lake Trout 0 0 1 2 13 5 2 1 24
Northern Pike 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Smallmouth Bass 1 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 12
Yellow Perch 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Fish Stocked by Species for the Last Five Years
Year Species Age Number

2001 Lake Trout Yearling 5,000
Lake Trout Yearling 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 Date Set: 08/04/1999 Benchmark Location

Datum: ASSUM (ft)
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 Date Set: 05/19/2004 Benchmark Location
Datum: ASSUM (ft)
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 Survey Date: 07/18/2005


Minnesota DNR Gravel Gravel ramp and parking area on west side of lake off County Road
4. Parking available for about five vehicles.


Weight (lbs) (lbs)
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
Trap net 0.1 0.7 - 2.3 3.01 1.4 - 2.8

Species 0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 Total
Northern Pike 0 0 1 0 6 9 4 1 21
Walleye 0 5 52 58 10 2 0 0 127
Yellow Perch 21 67 2 0 0 0 0 0 90

2004 Walleye Fry 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 three-
fourths 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 OHW elevation: 140.5 ft
# of readings: 1 Datum: ASSUM (ft)
Lowest recorded: 140.28 ft (05/18/2004) Benchmarks
Recorded range: 0 ft
Last reading: 140.28 ft (05/18/2004) Elevation: 150 ft Date Set: 05/18/2004
Datum: ASSUM (ft)
Total Phosphorus Mean: 29 ppb

Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 9 ppb Alkalinity Mean: 27 ppm (parts per million)
Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 4 Color Mean: 35 Platinum-cobalt Units
Chlorophyll-a Mean: 8.6 ppb 53
Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 1.1 ppb Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 52
Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 4 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 50
Overall Trophic Status: E
Secchi Disk Mean: 2.1 meters (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic,
Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0 meters H=hypereutrophic)
Name: Hungry Jack


US Forest Service Carry-in Off Co. Rd. 65, in small bay on N shore. Parking available for four
vehicles.
County Unknown Unimproved dirt ramp off Co. Rd. 65 on W end of lake. Roadside
parking available for two or three vehicles.

Did you know? There are 15,000 miles of fishable streams in Minnesota, including 2,600 miles of trout
streams.

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 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
Trap net trace 0.1 - 1.0 1.38 1.1 - 3.6

Species 0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 Total
Bluegill 71 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
Green Sunfish 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Hybrid Sunfish 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
Lake Trout 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Northern Pike 0 0 0 0 6 13 1 0 20
Walleye 0 0 2 1 1 5 3 0 12
Yellow Perch 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 12

2001 Walleye Fingerling 3,844
2003 Walleye Adult 57
Walleye Fingerling 4,930
Lake Trout Yearling 2,406
2005 Walleye Fingerling 13,922
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 re-
establish 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 lake-
class 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
Lowest recorded: 1679.68 ft (09/01/2007)
Recorded range: 1.79 ft
Last reading: 1680.33 ft (11/23/2007)
Datum: 1929 (ft)

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

Name: Poplar

Primary County: Cook Inventory Number: 16023900

Private Property Earthen
US Forest Service Concrete 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.
Lake Area (acres): 763.99 Dominant Bottom Substrate: Detritus (Abundant)

Littoral Area (acres): 290 Abundance of Aquatic Plants: 22 Varieties Sampled
Maximum Depth (ft): 73 Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): 3.2 (1-9)
Water Clarity (ft): 11.3 (10.5-13)
Fish Sampled for the 2006 Survey Year

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
Trap net 0.34 N/A 1.60 N/A
Pumpkinseed Trap net 0.59 N/A 0.03 N/A
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
Trap net 0.03 0.1 - 1.0 N/A 1.1 - 3.6
Trap net 4.56 0.4 - 1.2 0.01 0.1 - 0.4
Length of Selected Species Sampled for the 2006 Survey Year

Species 0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 Total
Black Crappie 46 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 51
Blacknose Shiner 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Burbot 0 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 10
Central Mudminnow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hybrid Sunfish 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Lake Whitefish 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 5
Northern Pike 0 3 0 3 10 2 2 0 20
Pumpkinseed 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Walleye 0 2 0 10 5 0 0 0 17
White Sucker 1 0 1 0 12 4 0 0 18
Yellow Perch 146 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 153

2006 Walleye Fry 300,000
Walleye Adult 26
Walleye Fingerling 10,776
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 Lowest recorded: 1851.42 ft (09/09/1998)

# of readings: 566 Recorded range: 3.7 ft
Highest recorded: 1855.12 ft (05/16/1996) Average water level: 1853.78 ft
Highest known: 1855.45 ft (05/20/01) Last reading: 1853.57 ft (11/18/2007)
OHW elevation: 1854.2 ft
Datum: 1929 (ft)
Benchmarks

Datum: 1929 (ft)
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.
Datum: 1929 (ft)
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.
Datum: 1929 (ft)
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.
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

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 Average Secchi Reading (meters)

.
1989 4.0
1990 4.5
1991 4.6
1992 4.1
1993 4.3
1994 3.9
1995 4.5
1996 3.8
1997 4.3
1998 4.8
1999 3.8
2000 3.9
2001 3.6
2002 3.5
2003 3.9
2004 4.2
2005 3.4
2006 3.4
Name: Tait
Nearest Town: Lutsen Survey Date: 07/10/2000


US Forest Service Concrete On SW shore, off Forest Road 340. Parking for several vehicles.

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.

Weight (lbs) (lbs)
Bluegill Trap net 0.2 0.3 - 6.4 0.02 0.1 - 0.3
Pumpkinseed
Trap net 0.3 0.4 - 2.6 0.03 0.1 - 0.2
Sunfish
Walleye 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
Trap net 0.3 0.4 - 2.1 0.32 0.1 - 0.3

Species 0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 Total
Bluegill 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Northern Pike 0 0 0 2 11 7 1 1 22
Pumpkinseed Sunfish 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Walleye 0 0 14 14 23 3 0 0 54
Yellow Perch 5 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 29

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.
Total Phosphorus Mean: 16 ppb (parts per Secchi Disk # of Observations: 57

billion)
Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 2 ppb Alkalinity Mean: 20 ppm (parts per million)
Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 6 Color Mean: 30 Platinum-cobalt Units
Chlorophyll-a Mean: 4 ppb 44
Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 0.3 ppb Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 44
Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 6 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 49
Overall Trophic Status: M
Secchi Disk Mean: 2.1 meters (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic,
Secchi Disk Standard Error: 0 meters H=hypereutrophic)
Years for which data has been collected
Year Average Secchi Reading (meters)
1993 2.0
1994 1.9
1995 2.6
1996 2.2
1997 2.0
1998 2.1
1999 1.9
2000 2.1
2001 2.2
2003 2.5
2006 2.1
Name: Trout


US Forest Service Carry-in Federally owned public access on NW corner of lk. Resort on South
side.
Lake Area (acres): 257.00 Dominant Bottom Substrate: rubble (3-10''), gravel, boulders
Littoral Area (acres): 59.00 (>10'')
Maximum Depth (ft): 77.00 Abundance of Aquatic Plants: common
Water Clarity (ft): 17.00 Maximum Depth of Plant Growth (ft): 8.00

Weight (lbs) (lbs)
Golden Shiner Gill net 0.5 N/A - N/A 0.08 N/A - N/A
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

Species 0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 >29 Total
Lake Trout 0 0 3 7 2 6 0 0 18
Rainbow Trout 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Tullibee (Cisco) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Yellow Perch 0 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 25

2000 Rainbow Trout Yearling 7,500
2003 Rainbow Trout Fingerling 3,749
Rainbow Trout Yearling 7,500
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.
Lake Water Quality Data Summary Secchi Disk # of Observations: 5
Total Phosphorus Mean: 6 ppb (parts per Alkalinity Mean: 16.5 ppm (parts per million)
billion) Color Mean: 7.5 Platinum-cobalt Units
Total Phosphorus Standard Error: 1 ppb Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus:
Total Phosphorus # of Observations: 5 29
Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 31
Chlorophyll-a Mean: 1 ppb Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 32
Chlorophyll-a Standard Error: 0.2 ppb Overall Trophic Status: O
Chlorophyll-a # of Observations: 6 (O=oligotrophic, M=mesotrophic, E=eutrophic,
H=hypereutrophic)
Criteria Name Measurement Method Data Required
Distance to Littoral Zone GIS Buffer Analysis Bathymetric contours, 1:24k DRG
B d
Presence of wetlands GIS Buffer Analysis NWI Polygons or photo interpreted

Field Identification tl d
Isolated Bays GIS Buffer Analysis DNR 24k Lakes layer, Re-digitized
shoreline from 2003 FSA Aerial
photography
Distance to Inlet/Outlet GIS Buffer Analysis DNR 24k Streams layer
Biodiversity Significance GIS Buffer Analysis GAP Land cover, MCBS Sites of
Biodiversity Significance
Intermittent Streams and Field documentation Field Data sheets linked to GPS
Coldwater Springs/Seeps waypoints
Exposed bedrock Aerial photo interpretation, field High resolution aerial photographs,
verification Field data sheet linked to GPS
waypoints
Steep slopes GIS Slope analysis Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

30 meter resolution
Frog call counts Field survey, MN DNR manual* Field Data sheets linked to GPS
protocols waypoints. Polygons based on frog
surveys
Soft Bottom Substrate Field survey, MN DNR manual* Field Data sheets linked to GPS
protocols waypoints
Hard Bottom Substrate Field Data sheets linked to GPS

i t
Large Woody Habitat Field survey, MN DNR manual* Field Data sheets linked to GPS
protocols waypoints polygon locations
Native emergent and floating Field survey, MN DNR manual* GPS polygons from outlines of plant
vegetation protocols beds or bog fringes
Presence of Loon nests Field survey, existing data MN DNR loon survey and local
k l d
Rare Features GIS Analysis 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 Measurement Method Data Required Criteria Score
Distance to Littoral Zone GIS Buffer Analysis Bathymetric contours, 1:24k DRG >200 m to Littoral Zone Boundary within analysis window 1
Presence of wetland polygons GIS Buffer Analysis NWI Polygons or photo interpreted NWI polygon or photo interpreted wetland boundary within analysis window
>25% of window is in wetlands 3

12.5-25% of window is in wetlands 2
<12.5% of window is in wetlands 1
no wetlands recorded 0
Isolated Bays GIS Buffer Analysis DNR 24k Lakes layer, Re-digitized >50% of lake portion of window within isolated bay: Defined as < 200 m opening 1
shoreline from 2003 FSA Aerial
Distance to Inlet/Outlet GIS Buffer Analysis DNR 24k Streams layer >50% of 100 m stream buffer within window 2
25-50% of 100 m stream buffer within window 1
0-25% of 100 m stream buffer within window 0
Biodiversity Significance GIS Buffer Analysis GAP Land cover, MCBS Sites of Outstanding Biodiversity within window 3
Biodiversity Significance High Biodiversity within window 2
Moderate Biodiversity within window 1
Intermittent Streams and Field documentation Field Data sheets linked to GPS Presence of Int. stream or spring/seep within window 1
Coldwater Springs/Seeps waypoints
Exposed bedrock Aerial photo interpretation, field High resolution aerial photographs,
>75% exposed bedrock within shoreland portion of window 3
verification Field data sheet linked to GPS 50-75% " " " 2
waypoints 25-50% " " " 1
Steep slopes GIS Slope analysis Digital Elevation Model (DEM) > 50% of window contains >50% slope 2
30 meter resolution 25-50% of window contains >50% slope 1
<25% of window contains >50% slope 0
Frog call counts Field survey, MN DNR Field Data sheets linked to GPS Presence of green and mink frogs within window 2
manual* protocols waypoints. Polygons based on frog Presence of green or mink frogs within window 1
surveys No green or mink frogs heard 0
Soft Bottom Substrate Field survey, MN DNR Field Data sheets linked to GPS survey points >50% organic muck or silt 2
manual* protocols waypoints survey points 25-50% organic muck or silt 1
survey points <25% organic muck or silt 0
Hard Bottom Substrate Field Data sheets linked to GPS survey points >50% sand or gravel 2
survey points 25-50% sand or gravel 1
survey points <25% sand or gravel 0
Submerged or Floating Large Field survey, MN DNR Field Data sheets linked to GPS Large (>8" diameter) Woody Habitat Debris in >25% survey points within the 1
Woody Habitat manual* protocols waypoints polygon locations aquatic part of the analysis window
No Large Woody Debris observed 0
Native emergent and floating, or Field survey, MN DNR GPS polygons from outlines of plant Emergent and/or floating-leaf plants occupy >10% of aquatic part of the window 3
submerged vegetation manual* protocols beds or bog fringes Stands occupy 5-10% 2
Present but < 5% 1
No plant bed 0
Presence of Loon nests Field survey, existing data MN DNR loon survey and local Loon nests within window 2
No known nests within window 0
Rare Features GIS Analysis MCBS (Natural Heritage Information Presence of Natural Heritage Feature 3
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.
Data Collection Sheet Lake Name
Lake Vegetation Survey Date
Point-Intercept Approach Surveyors
Site Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
ty
Ta hit ne y
ni
f / -W Pi nit
w sh) mu
C ine hite mu
-C t)
ub ke
sl ine
)
m
)
am Har arr
d)
us
om
ic
te
ea (F Co
o
th lus e P
Sw p (S r Th
C Bog fero
O Co ope
)
dw s
ra
O p ( C wo
Pl d
Sw (D w)
R ine t C
Be m S g
oo
g
t
st
ro
Bo
do an
sh Sed
sh allo
i
e
e
P an
am eep
on
ub
er ife
am hr
P W
am ld
r
ot us
l
Sw p (A
n
h
-
ar
(
R dP
Si Silt
(
M nd
o
w
Bo ck
H
r
(
G e
de
do
Sa l
ife
an
ve
la
o
to
bl
/
er
k
nd
nd
dr
ul
ea
pe
uc
et
ed
ed
on
ub
ar
ar
ra
pl
th
lif
lt
Sw
Sa
W
M
O
U
R
Code RW RW C/T OC OH FM SeM SM DM S-C AT HS CS OB CB BE BO RU GR SA SS SI MU

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes For Resource Protection (306-Star07-07)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes For Resource Protection (306-Star07-07)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource

Author’s Name and Affiliation:

Date of Completion: May 31, 2008

Project No. 306-STAR07-07

Soil & Water

July 31, 2008 306-STAR07-07

Soil & Water Conservation District

From: Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD

To: Cook County Lakes Reclassification Work Group

Re: Materials for review

Hello Work Group Members!

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

Encl: Lake reports

From: Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD

To: Cook County Lakes Reclassification Work Group

Re: Materials for review

Hello Work Group Members!

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

Encl: Considerations for classification criteria

Cook County Water Advisory Committee

Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota

4:00 p.m.. I. Call meeting to order

II. Make adjustments to agenda

III. Review Coastal Program Grant Application

IV. Discuss criteria for selection of lakes

V. Discuss duties of work group

VI. Schedule next meeting

Cook County Water Advisory Committee

Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota

March 11, 2008

4:00 p.m.. I. Call meeting to order

II. Make adjustments to agenda

III. Update on lake selection process

IV. Discuss criteria for study of lakes

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection

Upstairs Conference Room

Clark called meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Cook County Water Advisory Committee

Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota

4:00 p.m. I. Call meeting to order

II. Make adjustments to agenda

III. Presentation : Project overview and status

IV. Prioritize criteria for study of lakes

6:00 p.m. ADJOURN

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection

Clark called meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Wetland present on shore

Cook County Water Advisory Committee

Court House, Grand Marais, Minnesota

June 16, 2008

5:30 p.m*. I. Call meeting to order

II. Make adjustments to agenda

III. Approve minutes from past meetings

IV. Grant and project update

6:00 p.m. ADJOURN

Reclassification of Portions of Lakes for Resource Protection

Commissioner’s Meeting Room

I. Call meeting to order and introductions

Clark called meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.

II. Adjustments to Agenda

III. Discuss criteria for determining sensitive shorelines.

IV. Decide on priority lakes for pilot study